Smitty5613
Member
+46|6816|Middle of nowhere, California

PureFodder wrote:

Smitty5613 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:


Call me crazy but I recon you'll find that cars are use a whole lot more in America on a day to day basis that cars. The useful aspect of cars far outweights the negative. The same cannot be said for guns.

It does seem that despite the obvious problems that gun ownership causes that America is firmly stuck in it's ways over the issue, at least for the forseable future anyway.
i think you should move to England, then you would have all guns banned and you will be happy ...... for every person who uses a gun for a crime, there are at least 100,000 who dont.... so why punish the responsible gun owners?
Because by allowing guns to be legal it not only supplies criminals with the guns but it also makes it much more sensible for criminals to arm themselves, hence more armed criminals. Why must responsible gun owners punish the rest of everyone?

Oh and going by the FBI's data there are 100 gun crimes per 100,000 americans each year.

BTW, already there.
or you could move to Massachussetts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIAiQ5zFgA4
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6831|Texas - Bigger than France

Vilham wrote:

Im lowing all these Americans defending gun ownership when all facts point towards the fact that legal guns = more homicides, accidental deaths and home-owners getting shot. It defies belief that someone wants to own a gun that badly.
I challenge you to prove legal guns = more homicides...because the other theory is that more legal guns = less homicides.

You will not find any unrefutable position on either side.

I think you've expressed your points well enough.  And I think its time to let others express their opinions.  Although I do believe your purpose is to point out English superiority which exists in your mind...although whether or not English superiority exists doesn't matter...for any party involved.

Being a cock on these forums doesn't change people's minds much.  And if you aren't changing people's minds, you are merely perpetuating the opposition in future generations since most here are young and will be around a long time.  So good job, as usual.

Last edited by Pug (2007-02-15 18:20:26)

mcjagdflieger
Champion of Dueling Rectums
+26|6600|South Jersey

UON wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

tobacco is obviously a bad product. go ahead, speak out against that too. everyone is bitching about guns except us. cultural differences. we have freedom, and we like it.
So, which shops can you buy cocaine and heroin in?
not quite sure i follow you here, im kinda tired. go ahead at laugh at me for not getting this damn cryptic message that has me baffled. in any case, i could get some about 17 feet from my apartment via the local daytona beach population(read-the ghetto), or visit my sister(edit-older sister) who coincidentally still lives with my mother. need some?

Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2007-02-15 18:24:24)

Invaderzim
Chicken wing?
+49|6737|Newcastle NSW Australia
I think it does have to do with the right to bear arm's but i also believe the some cultural aspects influence these shootings too.

Having the right to bear arms should be a brivlage not a right, guns are way to dangerous for everyone to have one. The idea that people will be detered from shooting someone because they could get shot themselves is absolutly rediculus as seen here because the person doing the shooting does not care if they die or not. If there was no right ot bear arms then this person would find it very hard to come by a gun in the first place.

Culture is also very much to blame, how many music videos do you see with someone holding a chromed up deagle or something like that? I'm sure that the prevalance of guns in todays culture has a part to play in all this
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6816|Middle of nowhere, California

Invaderzim wrote:

I think it does have to do with the right to bear arm's but i also believe the some cultural aspects influence these shootings too.

Having the right to bear arms should be a brivlage not a right, guns are way to dangerous for everyone to have one. The idea that people will be detered from shooting someone because they could get shot themselves is absolutly rediculus as seen here because the person doing the shooting does not care if they die or not. If there was no right ot bear arms then this person would find it very hard to come by a gun in the first place.

Culture is also very much to blame, how many music videos do you see with someone holding a chromed up deagle or something like that? I'm sure that the prevalance of guns in todays culture has a part to play in all this
i think it is a right if the constitution says it is......
PureFodder
Member
+225|6574

Smitty5613 wrote:

Invaderzim wrote:

I think it does have to do with the right to bear arm's but i also believe the some cultural aspects influence these shootings too.

Having the right to bear arms should be a brivlage not a right, guns are way to dangerous for everyone to have one. The idea that people will be detered from shooting someone because they could get shot themselves is absolutly rediculus as seen here because the person doing the shooting does not care if they die or not. If there was no right ot bear arms then this person would find it very hard to come by a gun in the first place.

Culture is also very much to blame, how many music videos do you see with someone holding a chromed up deagle or something like that? I'm sure that the prevalance of guns in todays culture has a part to play in all this
i think it is a right if the constitution says it is......
Then you can change your constitution, it's not like America hasn't amended the constitution before.
PureFodder
Member
+225|6574

Pug wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Im lowing all these Americans defending gun ownership when all facts point towards the fact that legal guns = more homicides, accidental deaths and home-owners getting shot. It defies belief that someone wants to own a gun that badly.
I challenge you to prove legal guns = more homicides...because the other theory is that more legal guns = less homicides.

You will not find any unrefutable position on either side.
Ok, Us has lots of guns and a high number of violent crimes comitted with guns. Canada, being the country most similar to the US, while also legaly allowing guns has a far smaller RATE of gun crimes. There are far fewer legaly owned guns PER PERSON in Canada.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,057|7061|PNW

sergeriver wrote:

It was my mistake opening this thread because people misunderstood the point.  I wanted to relate these episodes with the Right to Bear Arms.  It was not my intention to create another flame war.  I apologize.  Let's discuss that issue.  Do you believe the Right to Bear Arms increase the number of shootings that occur in US or not?  Simple.  Don't start another comparison between countries.  Shit happens everywhere.
Shit does happen everywhere, but we're all on the same planet and, like it or not, we're the same species. Someone in Argentina bringing up a question about the US will naturally invite comparison with other countries.

sergeriver wrote:

I think it's a mistake letting anyone to own a gun.  Handling a gun is easy, what is not easy is knowing how to use it properly.  That's my whole point here, nothing else, and you can disagree, that's why this is a debate.  I just don't get the concept of feeling yourself safer with a gun.  What is the police for?
It's a mistake letting just anyone own a gun. I agree with background checks, and every potential owner owes it to himself and those around (him/her) to take a safety course. But I feel safer being armed than unarmed. I don't have a gargantuan home, and I don't have a safe-room with its own underground phone line worthy of a Hollywood victim-drama.

While police here may have "to serve and protect" emblazoned on the doors of their marked squad cars, the fact of the matter is that they're usually just not close enough to react in time to save someone who is in mortal danger. The person best capable of that are the victims themselves. There are also those in the US and (I'm quite sure) elsewhere who don't exactly feel safe under police 'protection.' Ask someone who is mistakenly murdered when the cops break into the wrong house and mistake a remote control for a handgun. Or whose family is shot at by federal gunmen because a court date was shifted without their knowledge...

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Armed Man Kills 5 at Mall in Utah

This episode and the one in Philadelphia, took the lives of 8 people. 

Why do these shootings happen so often in the US?  Would they happen without the Right to Bear Arms?  Is it safe a civilian carrying a gun?  I'm asking, not making a judgement.  I want to know your opinion about these cases, because they happen frequently.
http://www.edicionnacional.com/edicion/ … culo/21084

Do these happen frequently? Because it's amazing how people ignore their problems so often in favor of heaping verbal dung on the US and our rights. Not saying you are, in this instance, but still...

(my Spanish is sloppy, so correct me if it's just an article about Big Macs and heart attacks)

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-02-16 02:11:38)

Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7099|Nårvei

A little comparison between Norway and the US.

1.Do we have the same violent computergames in Norway ?
2.Do we listen to the same kind of music as US citizens ?
3.Do we watch the same violent movies and tv-shows ?
4.Do we have people getting drunk every friday and saturday ?

5.Do we have a paranoid government teaching us to be afraid of everything ?
6.Are we allowed to have a M60 for personal safety ?
7.Can we buy tech ammunition and milk in the same store ?
8.Do we have capitol punishment to prevent further murders ?
9.Do we get our kids a membership in the NRA on their first birthday ?

The answer to questions 1 - 4 is YES !
The answer to questions 5 - 9 is NO !

A simplified explanation but i firmly believe there is some truth to it !

I would not point out the violent history of the US as an explanation cause many other countries have an equally violent past, however the fact that it`s so damn easy to get hold of a gun and ammunition could explain a lot.

Why do kids start to smoke ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !
Why do kids start to drink ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !
Why do kids start shooting guns ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !

As a silly sidenote

Can a kid in Norway go find a loaded gun in his parents bedroom ? - No he cant !
Can a kid in Norway go find a porn magazine in his parents bedroom ? - Yes he can !

So exchange guns with porn and everything is okay, he will be busy jerking off instead of killing his class mates !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Superglueman
Member
+21|6649|The Great South Land

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

Well the Utah one was some little punk ass who's parents will probably blame it on heavy metal.

I dont believe the right to bear arms is a direct link to crazy people bearing arms and killing people. For every asshole who can't handle life and goes on a shooting rampage, there are 1,000,000 who don't.

The way our world is going now we're lucky there aren't 20-30 of these a day. I'd say we're doing pretty darn good.
...and out of those 1,000,000, at least 1000 will die of gun related crime this year.... probably justifiable to you....
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,057|7061|PNW

Varegg wrote:

Why do kids start to smoke ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !
Why do kids start to drink ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !
Why do kids start shooting guns ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !

As a silly sidenote

Can a kid in Norway go find a loaded gun in his parents bedroom ? - No he cant !
Can a kid in Norway go find a porn magazine in his parents bedroom ? - Yes he can !

So exchange guns with porn and everything is okay, he will be busy jerking off instead of killing his class mates !
Gun shops in my area don't sell milk or M60's. Why does everyone in Europe seem to think that every American is more heavily-armed than Rambo?

First set:

I could get access to both cigarettes, alcohol and guns when I was a kid. If not through my parents home, then through others. But I didn't do it.

Second set:

False logic, silly as promised. Not only can you can kill people without handguns, but a handgun doesn't emit subliminal mind waves going "KILL WITH ME! KILL WITH MEEEE!"

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-02-16 02:44:01)

.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7118

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Why do kids start to smoke ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !
Why do kids start to drink ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !
Why do kids start shooting guns ? - Because its to easy to get hold of !

As a silly sidenote

Can a kid in Norway go find a loaded gun in his parents bedroom ? - No he cant !
Can a kid in Norway go find a porn magazine in his parents bedroom ? - Yes he can !

So exchange guns with porn and everything is okay, he will be busy jerking off instead of killing his class mates !
Gun shops in my area don't sell milk or M60's. Why does everyone in Europe seem to think that every American is more heavily-armed than Rambo?

First set:

I could get access to both cigarettes, alcohol and guns when I was a kid. If not through my parents home, then through others. But I didn't do it.

Second set:

False logic, silly as promised. Not only can you can kill people without handguns, but a handgun doesn't emit subliminal mind waves going "KILL WITH ME! KILL WITH MEEEE!"
Actually it does. Walk around all day carrying a hammer and you'll notice loads of things that could do with a hammering (nails and stuff, not people).
I_SUCK_999
2 old & slow to pwnd U
+5|6736|Alice Springs

PureFodder wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

so your saying because of what happened then, we cant compare what happened afterwards? even after it was abolished? his point was they reformed their gun laws, and gun crimes rose. and you say its not a valid argument because of a gov. reformation?
That's exactly what I'm saying. The massive social upheval that occured was a much more significant event than the new gun laws.

South Africa went from a White minority rule to a democracy. The South African government prior to 1993 was a police state where they could and did drag people off in the middle of the night to imprison, torture and sometimes even kill them. The swapping of govenments lead to a huge backlash by the poor majority against the minority rich white landowners which included huge numbers of deaths as the farmowners were targeted.

Anyone who thinks the change in gun laws were the signifcant factor in changing the homicide rates in South Africa during that period doen't know much about South Africa
how does the vast majority of black on black violence equate to a huge backlash - 98% of those 30000 murders/gun deaths are black killing black. nevermind the 5000 policemen killed in the line of duty.

oh and the majority of whites in South Africa are NOT rich - ever heard of working middle class. same ratio as in UK (for example)

Last edited by I_SUCK_999 (2007-02-16 03:53:18)

sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7046|Argentina
I_SUCK_999
2 old & slow to pwnd U
+5|6736|Alice Springs
What is the common denominator here - let me tell you

PARENTAL SUPERVISION

in Australia you CANNOT obtain a shooters licence without first having an approved gun safe (Police inspect premises in the Northern Territory) & of course you CANNOT buy a gun without a licence.
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7118

I_SUCK_999 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

mcjagdflieger wrote:

so your saying because of what happened then, we cant compare what happened afterwards? even after it was abolished? his point was they reformed their gun laws, and gun crimes rose. and you say its not a valid argument because of a gov. reformation?
That's exactly what I'm saying. The massive social upheval that occured was a much more significant event than the new gun laws.

South Africa went from a White minority rule to a democracy. The South African government prior to 1993 was a police state where they could and did drag people off in the middle of the night to imprison, torture and sometimes even kill them. The swapping of govenments lead to a huge backlash by the poor majority against the minority rich white landowners which included huge numbers of deaths as the farmowners were targeted.

Anyone who thinks the change in gun laws were the signifcant factor in changing the homicide rates in South Africa during that period doen't know much about South Africa
how does the vast majority of black on black violence equate to a huge backlash - 98% of those 30000 murders/gun deaths are black killing black. nevermind the 5000 policemen killed in the line of duty.

oh and the majority of whites in South Africa are NOT rich - ever heard of working middle class. same ratio as in UK (for example)
Actually South Africa still has one of the most extreme wealth distributions in the world. the rich are very rich and the poor (who make up the vast majority) are pretty damned poor. Besides which, prior to the end of Apartheid South Africa was pertty much a police state which, like most other police states, were very good at imposing totalitarian control over its citizens by use of fear and violence. With that gone crime naturally rose, having nothing to do with the ban on guns.
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+796|6974|United States of America
All this "accidental shooting" garbage is illogical to begin with. If some parent does keep a loaded pistol in their room with no security whatsoever, that person hardly deserves to be a parent. All it does is give fodder to those who are scared of 'em.

Last edited by DesertFox423 (2007-02-16 04:44:00)

.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7118

DesertFox423 wrote:

All this "accidental shooting" garbage is illogical to begin with. If some parent does keep a loaded pistol in their room with no security whatsoever, that person hardly deserves to be a parent. All it does is give fodder to those who are scared of 'em.
Problem is that there will always be stupid people and they can arm themselves just as easily as the sensible people. Accidental deaths are the inevitable result of that.
I_SUCK_999
2 old & slow to pwnd U
+5|6736|Alice Springs

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

I_SUCK_999 wrote:

PureFodder wrote:


That's exactly what I'm saying. The massive social upheval that occured was a much more significant event than the new gun laws.

South Africa went from a White minority rule to a democracy. The South African government prior to 1993 was a police state where they could and did drag people off in the middle of the night to imprison, torture and sometimes even kill them. The swapping of govenments lead to a huge backlash by the poor majority against the minority rich white landowners which included huge numbers of deaths as the farmowners were targeted.

Anyone who thinks the change in gun laws were the signifcant factor in changing the homicide rates in South Africa during that period doen't know much about South Africa
how does the vast majority of black on black violence equate to a huge backlash - 98% of those 30000 murders/gun deaths are black killing black. nevermind the 5000 policemen killed in the line of duty.

oh and the majority of whites in South Africa are NOT rich - ever heard of working middle class. same ratio as in UK (for example)
Actually South Africa still has one of the most extreme wealth distributions in the world. the rich are very rich and the poor (who make up the vast majority) are pretty damned poor. Besides which, prior to the end of Apartheid South Africa was pertty much a police state which, like most other police states, were very good at imposing totalitarian control over its citizens by use of fear and violence. With that gone crime naturally rose, having nothing to do with the ban on guns.
I was born in South Africa - half of my family are still there (can't afford the airfare out - even if there was a country that would allow them to migrate. My point is that only a very small minority of WHITES are rich - the vast majority struggle from day to day (pay packet to pay packet) - and the vast majority of crime has nothing to do with the have nots against the haves.

South Africa has massive unemployment and no welfare system at all - thus the high crime levels. The crime levels ramped up gradually after the abolishment of the "pass laws" when urban drift resulted in huge numbers of unemployed blacks flooding cities like Johannesburg and not being able to support their families in legitimate ways.
.:XDR:.PureFodder
Member
+105|7118

I_SUCK_999 wrote:

.:XDR:.PureFodder wrote:

I_SUCK_999 wrote:


how does the vast majority of black on black violence equate to a huge backlash - 98% of those 30000 murders/gun deaths are black killing black. nevermind the 5000 policemen killed in the line of duty.

oh and the majority of whites in South Africa are NOT rich - ever heard of working middle class. same ratio as in UK (for example)
Actually South Africa still has one of the most extreme wealth distributions in the world. the rich are very rich and the poor (who make up the vast majority) are pretty damned poor. Besides which, prior to the end of Apartheid South Africa was pertty much a police state which, like most other police states, were very good at imposing totalitarian control over its citizens by use of fear and violence. With that gone crime naturally rose, having nothing to do with the ban on guns.
I was born in South Africa - half of my family are still there (can't afford the airfare out - even if there was a country that would allow them to migrate. My point is that only a very small minority of WHITES are rich - the vast majority struggle from day to day (pay packet to pay packet) - and the vast majority of crime has nothing to do with the have nots against the haves.

South Africa has massive unemployment and no welfare system at all - thus the high crime levels. The crime levels ramped up gradually after the abolishment of the "pass laws" when urban drift resulted in huge numbers of unemployed blacks flooding cities like Johannesburg and not being able to support their families in legitimate ways.
So the increase in crime level has in fact nothing to do with the change in firearms laws.
I_SUCK_999
2 old & slow to pwnd U
+5|6736|Alice Springs
exactly -  the economic reality of a sudden tripling of the minimum wage resulted in large numbers of factory's automating to save costs. thus massive unemployment.

example - the factory my father used to work at had a workforce of 300 labourers prior to th change of government - now they have 20 in total and their output is increased. (they manufacture artillery shells for the SA army)

example 2 - domestic help in white family homes - majority of Bantu ladies previously employed (small cash wage plus food & accommodation) are now also unemployed.

while the anti discrimination changes were critical - some of the economic changes were ill thought out (i.e. too much too soon).
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7099|Nårvei

Finally someone that cares to do some backround check, good post

Think this proves access to firearms is a major factor here !
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6656|Columbus, Ohio

Varegg wrote:

5.Do we have a paranoid government teaching us to be afraid of everything ?
6.Are we allowed to have a M60 for personal safety ?
7.Can we buy tech ammunition and milk in the same store ?
8.Do we have capitol punishment to prevent further murders ?
9.Do we get our kids a membership in the NRA on their first birthday ?
You do know every state has different laws on the stuff you mention?
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7099|Nårvei

usmarine2007 wrote:

Varegg wrote:

5.Do we have a paranoid government teaching us to be afraid of everything ?
6.Are we allowed to have a M60 for personal safety ?
7.Can we buy tech ammunition and milk in the same store ?
8.Do we have capitol punishment to prevent further murders ?
9.Do we get our kids a membership in the NRA on their first birthday ?
You do know every state has different laws on the stuff you mention?
It was a general comparison, but you get my point dont you ?

Besides i bet the death by firearms is different in every state as well ?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
usmarine2007
Banned
+374|6656|Columbus, Ohio
Within the Western world, nearly 90% of all murders are committed by males..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders

If this is true, shall we abolish men?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard