Parker
isteal
+1,452|6667|The Gem Saloon

twiistaaa wrote:

umm... so like the question is should we supply guns (from the gun manufacturers) or not? how about shut down anyone who makes firearms. and eventually all guns will become old and rusty... and no one will own guns.. hence no need to own a firearm to defend against firearms...
no i think that would not work. i am a blacksmith, my specialty being in knives. i own and carry a 1911 kimber .45. now you have every gun maker in the world shut down, ill get paid for custom 1911 .45's.

i suppose everyones theory is that if all the guns are gone then no one will get killed anymore.
thats wrong. look at history, there hasnt always been guns. whether people kill each other sticks or guns thyre still killing each other.

and im also pretty sure the economy would take a huge hit and have a hard time recovering.
most people do not take the time to educate themselves about firearms, so they spout a whole bunch of bullshit that they hear from some liberal freak.

i think before we do away with guns, we should do away with alchohol because drinking and driving is much more of an epidemic......ask yourselves this.....how many people do you know that have been shot???  (i know of one myself). now how many people have been in a car accident due to drunk driving???
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7044|PNW

ATG wrote:

I think so.
If a meathead knows you have a gun, or thinks you have a gun, it creates a buffer zone.
And if the meathead decides to strike after all, I have a better chance of fending it off with a piece than with a phone call.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-11 11:49:11)

Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7039|Cambridge (UK)
To answer the question "Is an armed society a polite society?", well let's think about this - basically by carrying a gun you're saying "Piss me off and I'll shoot you" - doesn't sound very polite to me.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7044|PNW

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

To answer the question "Is an armed society a polite society?", well let's think about this - basically by carrying a gun you're saying "Piss me off and I'll shoot you" - doesn't sound very polite to me.
Actually, I'm saying, "I don't really want to shoot you, but I could if you leave me no choice." Contrary to your beliefs, not all gun owners are of the "har-har-har, gonna sit on mah porch an' shoot tresspassahs, yes suh" breed.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-11 12:08:06)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6917|Seattle, WA

Pierre wrote:

Hi Albert, thx for your reply.

1) That's what culture is all about: many differences but also some basic 'overall same principles'

2) my wish is to ride a bike from east to west as one of my German friends has done recently, one day... Oh well, we'll see.

3) you are prepared to defend yourself coz you have to be prepared since the society is what it is. But when you have to be in that state of mind, it's seems odd to me.

4) My question is in general: I saw a US documentary the other day about the differences between Canada and the US, and the fact that in the US were more deaths caused by gunfire than in Canada while Canada has a lot of guns too (sports and hunting). So why is there the difference?

5) Western Europe has seen a steady invasion of criminal gangs from the former East European countries who come here to burglar someones homes, do car and home-jacking, theft, etc., and before you know all goods have crossed the border........
.....problem with education and jobs, and self-esteem, so the path to a criminal career for a part of them is blinking.

6) But while people here talk about it, there seems to be no basic desire to arm themselves.
Pierre, thank you for your well thought out response, your english is wonderful, you are the first European who I've been able to talk about decently about this topic, it is very refreshing when someone talks about this issue with intelligence and respect, so thanks!

I've numbered you're statements for response in the quote above so:

1) You hit the issue right on the head, the question of difference in culture is not neccessarily about guns, but about the people in that culture and what they are willing to do with guns and other tools such as knives, cars, swords, etc.  There are so many people who are killed by drunk drivers and other car accidents its overwhelming in this country, and it is so easily avoidable, people need to slow down and not drink and drive.

2) That sounds like a lot of fun!! I wish I could do that do, good luck with that.

3) In a way it is odd, I'm glad you at least understand where I'm coming from here.  It is not that I have a mindset that when I go out SOMETHING will happen, or even that something is PROBABLE to happen, I want to be prepared for any scenario, because there are many crimes that are prevented every year by lawful citizens carrying and using firearms against would be rapists, murderers, and robbers. Example:

ArizonaRepublic wrote:

PHOENIX, ARIZONA -- A man opened fire and wounded two people before a concerned neighbor of the victims grabbed a gun and shot him, authorities said.

All three were in serious condition Friday.

The unidentified neighbor "did what he thought was right in a very deadly encounter," said Detective Tony Morales, a Phoenix police spokesman. Two of the victims, Jorge Guzman, 24, and Cardenia Guzman, 26, were reported in serious condition at Good Samaritan Medical Center.

The family relation of the Guzmans, if any, was not immediately determined.

A man suspected of shooting both of them, Martin Talavera, 26, was reported in serious condition at Maricopa Medical Center, Morales said.

Investigators believe the shooting occurred after Talavera showed up about 1:35 a.m. at a home in the 3600 block of West Latham Street, south of McDowell Road, and got into some kind of argument with the Guzmans, Morales said.

The 24-year-old neighbor, hearing the commotion, grabbed a weapon and shot Talavera, Morales said.

No charges are expected against the neighbor because police believe he acted legally by using deadly force to protect the lives of other people, Morales said.

Police withheld the neighbor's name to protect the man from possible retribution.

Reach reporter Brent Whiting at (602) 444-xxxx.
From an Arizona newspaper.

At any rate All that I stress is being prepared, being able to defend yourself should the need arise.

4) Thats an excellent question Pierre, while Canada enjoys the use of firearms, they do not have nearly the same amount of firearms nor the same amount of gang and criminal activity than we do here in the U.S. Documentary's are usually a tad one sided, especially when it comes to guns.  The problem is that people look at guns and freak out because they are so deadly.  But ultimately it is not the guns that are the problem, it is the person's BEHAVIOR behind a gun that is the problem.  This is a SOCIAL problem, not a gun ownership one.  As I said before, the difference is Canadian culture and lack of number and intensity of gangs and associated violence that there exists in major cities in the U.S. 

Another contributing factor is the ignorance that many people have with firearms, most people against firearms know very little about them mechanically and legally.  I study law at school so I have to know this kinda stuff I suppose.  There are many other contributing factors to your question, it is a very complex one but the simple answer is culture, culture, culture.  And when I say culture it has nothing to do with the stereotypical euro stance that Americans are in love with guns, etc.  It has to do with social behavior, attitude, and politeness.  I don't have guns because society isn't polite, I have guns because a small percentage of said society is on the fringe of mental stableness and will do anything in some cases to kill, rob, or hurt you.  Its not society as a whole, its only a small percentage, so to say society isn't polite due to guns, is a gross overgeneralization.

5) So I've heard from other people, thats too bad, but I'm glad you guys have people there, or at least a smaller percentage of people that are criminals.

6) Thats too bad.

Pierre I would like to thank you once again for engaging with me a diligent conversation about this topic, if I was unclear on anything or you have any more questions feel free to ask.  Thanks and have a good day.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6917|Seattle, WA

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

To answer the question "Is an armed society a polite society?", well let's think about this - basically by carrying a gun you're saying "Piss me off and I'll shoot you" - doesn't sound very polite to me.
Completely and utterly wrong, your statement should read:

If you try to KILL me, I'll shoot you.

Know respectful gun owner is going to shoot someone just because they get pissed off.  Try again scorpion.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,054|7044|PNW

Stephen King should write a sequel to 'Christine.' The remnants of the demon car could be melted down and turned into triggers and safety mechanisms at a Springfield installation, and sold to people through shady gun shows. Then you really could tell the judge that the gun made you do it, or just did it by itself.

Or would it be viable? Would the parts retain their original identity, and you'd be left with a pile of guns crawling back towards each other across the American wilderness? It could be turned into a show about natural discovery.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-11-11 12:31:07)

AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6917|Seattle, WA

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Stephen King should write a sequel to 'Christine.' The remnants of the demon car could be melted down and turned into triggers and safety mechanisms at a Springfield installation, and sold to people through shady gun shows. Then you really could tell the judge that the gun made you do it, or just did it by itself.

Or would it be viable? Would the parts retain the same identity, and you'd be left with a pile of guns crawling back towards each other across the American wilderness? It could be turned into a show about natural discovery.
LOL, wonderful point, just resonates the firm fact that guns don't kill, folks, you have to understand that people kill people or themselves whether its with cars, guns, knives, cigarrettes, computer games, etc.
GetSplit
Member
+3|6679|Bloomington, IL
look at it this way, Detroit is a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate....that state has the right to carry.

Yet St. Louis, which is also a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate was just ranked #1 for the highest crime rates, and Missouri as "Abrogated" (abolished) guns...

so it don't matter, crime pays...evil will always triumph because good is dumb
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6917|Seattle, WA

GetSplit wrote:

look at it this way, Detroit is a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate....that state has the right to carry.

Yet St. Louis, which is also a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate was just ranked #1 for the highest crime rates, and Missouri as "Abrogated" (abolished) guns...

so it don't matter, crime pays...evil will always triumph because good is dumb
You obviously don't know a damn thing about Detroit. (While MI outside of Detroit can carry, there are several city ordinances that have been put into effect basically outlawing carrying a firearm at all, which has incidentally increased NON-firearm homicides 16% and homicides occuring in the home by 22%.  Restrictive handgun laws don't work.  Look at D.C. look at Detroit, look at Chicago, that city is a prime example (other than D.C.) why restrictive gun laws do NOT work.

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns and the carrying of such.

Go look up some more info dude, you are a little misled.

After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-11-11 12:40:28)

jonsimon
Member
+224|6768

Harmor wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Exactly. Ban guns, and no one will have them.
Except the criminals...we all know that they follow the law :-P
And they'll get them from where? The factorys and stores that don't exist? Or will they steal them from the citizens that don't have guns?

Ban guns and the only way to get guns will be smuggling. If our customs does their job, that won't be a problem.
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6766|Connecticut

jonsimon wrote:

Harmor wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

Exactly. Ban guns, and no one will have them.
Except the criminals...we all know that they follow the law :-P
And they'll get them from where? The factorys and stores that don't exist? Or will they steal them from the citizens that don't have guns?

Ban guns and the only way to get guns will be smuggling. If our customs does their job, that won't be a problem.
There are plenty of countries that have outlaw guns, even for police in some cases and thugs still carry them. Google it.
Malloy must go
liquix
Member
+51|6727|Peoples Republic of Portland
I wuld look at country wide crime rates vs like USA, England, Japan. Try that maybe to see.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6667|The Gem Saloon

GetSplit wrote:

look at it this way, Detroit is a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate....that state has the right to carry.

Yet St. Louis, which is also a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate was just ranked #1 for the highest crime rates, and Missouri as "Abrogated" (abolished) guns...

so it don't matter, crime pays...evil will always triumph because good is dumb
not sure if your saying that you CANT carry guns in missouri but you CAN. i DO.

and your young youll grow out of this whole rebel thing
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6989|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

twiistaaa wrote:

umm... so like the question is should we supply guns (from the gun manufacturers) or not? how about shut down anyone who makes firearms. and eventually all guns will become old and rusty... and no one will own guns.. hence no need to own a firearm to defend against firearms...
Actually, with a little oil and some basic easy to do maintenance, guns can last a lot longer than you think.  For example, I own a pump shotgun made in 1897, a double barrel from 1918, and an M1911A1 that dates from WWII.  All three are in perfect working order, and all I have to do to make sure that each stays that way is clean and oil them after I use them.
13rin
Member
+977|6752
"Open Carry" laws FTW.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
13rin
Member
+977|6752

mcgid1 wrote:

twiistaaa wrote:

umm... so like the question is should we supply guns (from the gun manufacturers) or not? how about shut down anyone who makes firearms. and eventually all guns will become old and rusty... and no one will own guns.. hence no need to own a firearm to defend against firearms...
Actually, with a little oil and some basic easy to do maintenance, guns can last a lot longer than you think.  For example, I own a pump shotgun made in 1897, a double barrel from 1918, and an M1911A1 that dates from WWII.  All three are in perfect working order, and all I have to do to make sure that each stays that way is clean and oil them after I use them.
The barrel can wear out on a shotgun, even with routine maintence.  You'll find out too -when you pull the trigger and the barrel baloons and explodes.  I know several guys that have worn out the barrels on 870 pumps.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something.  - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6766|Connecticut

liquix wrote:

I wuld look at country wide crime rates vs like USA, England, Japan. Try that maybe to see.
Go right ahead but do it per capita. I lived in Japan for a year and a half, try dealing with the Jap Mafia (yakazoo or something). Those cats pack heat and the police arent even authorized to carry.
Malloy must go
GetSplit
Member
+3|6679|Bloomington, IL

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

GetSplit wrote:

look at it this way, Detroit is a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate....that state has the right to carry.

Yet St. Louis, which is also a shit hole ghetto with a long standing high crime rate was just ranked #1 for the highest crime rates, and Missouri as "Abrogated" (abolished) guns...

so it don't matter, crime pays...evil will always triumph because good is dumb
You obviously don't know a damn thing about Detroit. (While MI outside of Detroit can carry, there are several city ordinances that have been put into effect basically outlawing carrying a firearm at all, which has incidentally increased NON-firearm homicides 16% and homicides occuring in the home by 22%.  Restrictive handgun laws don't work.  Look at D.C. look at Detroit, look at Chicago, that city is a prime example (other than D.C.) why restrictive gun laws do NOT work.

20 percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6 percent of the population - New York, Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. - and each has a virtual prohibition on private handguns and the carrying of such.

Go look up some more info dude, you are a little misled.

After Evanston, Ill., a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982, it experienced no decline in violent crime.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.
I did absolutely no research on it.  I was just basing my conclusions on that little map on page 1.  Why research shit for an online debate, it's the internet, it lies.  But yea, detroit is a shithole, as is STL, been to both, and i hate them.  Chicago > all
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6917|Seattle, WA

mcgid1 wrote:

Actually, with a little oil and some basic easy to do maintenance, guns can last a lot longer than you think.
+1

DBBrinson1 wrote:

"Open Carry" laws FTW.
+1

GetSplit wrote:

1) I did absolutely no research on it.

  I was just basing my conclusions on that little map on page 1.  Why research shit for an online debate, it's the internet, it lies.  But yea, detroit is a shithole, as is STL, been to both, and i hate them.  Chicago > all
1) I could tell....

Why research "shit" oh you mean facts, for an online debate? Its the internet, it lies?? SO respected studies from very well grounded institutions are lies, ah I see. 

The reason to actually research stuff is to make sure your sources are reliable, and than OPEN Your mind to other ideas.  I have opened mine to a great deal many liberal ideas whilst browsing these forums, and frankly I don't think the issue of guns is a conservative issue, its just painted that way.  If you do more research, even the smallest amount, it will add to your being able to articulate things more accurately and more intelligently.  So if there internet lies I guess we have to go with the SIMPLEST explanation.

People make guns,
People buy guns,
Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns or put them in jail LONGER.
Lawful people can rejoice knowning their sport and hobby is protected.

End of thread.
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6803|The lunar module

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

People make guns,
People buy guns,
Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns or put them in jail LONGER.
Lawful people can rejoice knowning their sport and hobby is protected.
You've got a major genocidal loop in your equation there, mate...

Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns
It follows that the Other People (above) become Certain People (below)

Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns
and so on, and so on.
AlbertWesker[RE]
Not Human Anymore
+144|6917|Seattle, WA

apollo_fi wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

People make guns,
People buy guns,
Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns or put them in jail LONGER.
Lawful people can rejoice knowning their sport and hobby is protected.
You've got a major genocidal loop in your equation there, mate...

Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns
It follows that the Other People (above) become Certain People (below)

Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns
and so on, and so on.
I was being extremely sarcastic if you couldn't have figured that out, and if you don't agree with societies in the past getting rid of those that do harm to that society, than your missing out on history.  No it doesn't follow because their not fools.  I think you missed my point completely.  Go back in your hole for trying to pick apart my obviously sarcastic statement.
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6803|The lunar module

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:

People make guns,
People buy guns,
Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns or put them in jail LONGER.
Lawful people can rejoice knowning their sport and hobby is protected.
You've got a major genocidal loop in your equation there, mate...

Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns
It follows that the Other People (above) become Certain People (below)

Certain People with guns kill other people,
Other people need to kill the certain people killing with guns
and so on, and so on.
I was being extremely sarcastic if you couldn't have figured that out, and if you don't agree with societies in the past getting rid of those that do harm to that society, than your missing out on history.  No it doesn't follow because their not fools.  I think you missed my point completely.  Go back in your hole for trying to pick apart my obviously sarcastic statement.
Sorry. I, too,  forgot to put the in.

and if you don't agree with societies in the past getting rid of those that do harm to that society, than your missing out on history.
and of course I agree with societies 'getting rid of' their criminals. I don't necessarily equate 'getting rid of' with killing, though... and IMO it's the society'sĀ“task, not the society's individual members' duty to get rid of the criminal elements.

Go back in your hole for trying to pick apart my obviously sarcastic statement.
Touchy, touchy...

Last edited by apollo_fi (2006-11-12 09:03:56)

tF-voodoochild
Pew Pew!
+216|7120|San Francisco

To answer the topic question, "Is an armed society really a more polite society?" No, I think an armed society is a more fearful society, but fearfulness does not equate to politeness.

People do not enjoy being shot, therefore if there is a question of, "Does this guy/gal I'm about to mug/rape/pick a fight with have a concealed weapon?" then such negative actions will be less likely to occur. Ideally it would be great if people could just mind their own business without the fear of getting shot in self defense, but apparently this is too much to ask for most of the human race.

As for all this stuff IRONCHEF is spouting about not being able to own a handgun in San Francisco, you are apparently misinformed. Daly proposed a ban on hanguns in The City last november which voters passed, but it was immediately challenged by the NRA and ultimately overturned in June of this year. Not to mention the fact that although the measure passed it was never directly enforced since it went almost immediately into litigation. As it stands now you are able to get a handgun legally in San Francisco assuming you pass all the regular background checks and get the permit and such, though chuy found it difficult to ship ammunition to our apartment for his rifle, but I don't know if that is a city law or just a crappy store.
GetSplit
Member
+3|6679|Bloomington, IL
They should change it to "The right to arm bears"  that'd be sweet

https://shop.com.edgesuite.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/210000/214000/214018/products/6798418.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard