Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18

 

2007-04-18 19:08:17
smtt686
this is the best we can do?
+95|6933|USA
I cant understand how you can tell me (or anyone for that matter) what they can and cannot do.  I don't understand how you can lecture me.  In the U.S. they are allowed to carry guns and whether you like it or not, well thats just too damn bad.   

How can you, actually, how dare you tell someone what they can and cannot do, or what you should do when from another country, state, political or religious belief.  Hell, your not even my dad.  I mean really.  What I do, as long as i am not breaking a law or getting in your business is none of your business.

Get off your fucking soapbox and find someone who cares or even a new hobby.  Your dislike of weapons because someone does not like it is beyond stupid.
 
I don't care if you like it or not, but that's the way we do things here.  Don't like it, oh well. 

Oh by the way, i don't own a gun, but I am glad I can if I so choose.
2007-04-18 19:21:45
Doctor Strangelove
Real Battlefield Veterinarian.
+1,758|6770

Miller wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:


But kills as a whole go down.
That is a step in logic.  Who is to say someone won't just go and get a bat and beat your head in instead?   Guns make it easier to kill people, but its not like there is some special aura of a gun that makes you want to kill some one.

You are assuming that since there are a lot of gun deaths, if you outlaw guns there will be no more deaths.  That COULD be true, but is not NECESSARILY true.
Try to prove that kills as a whole go down, then tell me if rape and break in's go down too.  I could kill someone with my BF2 CD, just let me get it out of the computer first.  Wait wait, I'd rather shoot the bastard and not give him a chance to get within arms reach. Plus, if kills go down from banning firearms, is it because criminals care to keep within the law or because people that actually obey the law stop using guns?

Look, would you rather fight with a knife or a gun? I would go with the gun, but that's just me and other neo-cons... I'll take you one on one, you get the knife and defend yourself. Also, if any student or professor at VT had a weapons permit, maybe they could have used their weapon to stop the shooter?
By saying "would you rather fight with a knife or gun" you answer your own question. The Gun is much more effective at killing than a knife. with a gun it is just point, click, dead but with a knife one must run up to a person and stab them many times in the correct location. Knives are also easier to defend against. If someone runs up to you with a knife trying to stab you, you could grab the knife, or run away. If you tried either when an assaiante uses a gun, then you will likely be shot.

The claim about the VT professor having a gun is a valid one, and is why I am not in favor of banning guns altogether, just make them difficult to obtain and make checks of people who want to buy them more thorough. Had guns laws been less lax in virginia the Cho might not have been able to aquire a gun, and would not have been able to kill nearly as many people.
2007-04-18 19:31:29
imortal
Member
+240|6966|Austin, TX

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Why is this still being discussed? If guns are banned kills by knives go up.
But kills as a whole go down.
Okay, here is some fun math for you.

City:  Dallas, Texas
Gun status;  ownership legal, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 1,188,580
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 202
murder rate: 1 murder per 5,884 people
murder per 10,000 population: 1.70

City:  Washington DC
Gun status;  ownership illegal, Concealed carry illegal.
Population: 572,059
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 195
murder rate: 1 murder per 2933 people
murder per 10,000 population: 3.41

City:  Kennesaw, Georgia
Gun status;  ownership REQUIRED, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 21,675
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 0
murder rate: unable to determine.
murder per 10,000 population: 0

City:  Atlanta, Georgia
Gun status;  ownership legal, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 416,474
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 90
murder rate: 1 murder per 4627 people
murder per 10,000 population: 2.16

Does this tell you anything?
2007-04-18 19:32:35
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

usmarine2005 wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

That's kinda true... but you can't kill 32 people with a knife without being stopped.
So if he killed 10 people with a knife, what debate would we be having?
2007-04-18 19:33:05
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

imortal wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Why is this still being discussed? If guns are banned kills by knives go up.
But kills as a whole go down.
Okay, here is some fun math for you.

City:  Dallas, Texas
Gun status;  ownership legal, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 1,188,580
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 202
murder rate: 1 murder per 5,884 people
murder per 10,000 population: 1.70

City:  Washington DC
Gun status;  ownership illegal, Concealed carry illegal.
Population: 572,059
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 195
murder rate: 1 murder per 2933 people
murder per 10,000 population: 3.41

City:  Kennesaw, Georgia
Gun status;  ownership REQUIRED, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 21,675
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 0
murder rate: unable to determine.
murder per 10,000 population: 0

City:  Atlanta, Georgia
Gun status;  ownership legal, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 416,474
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 90
murder rate: 1 murder per 4627 people
murder per 10,000 population: 2.16

Does this tell you anything?
It tells me I could interpret these stats 10 different ways to China.
2007-04-18 19:34:04
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

imortal wrote:

doctastrangelove1964 wrote:

Miller wrote:

Why is this still being discussed? If guns are banned kills by knives go up.
But kills as a whole go down.
Okay, here is some fun math for you.

City:  Dallas, Texas
Gun status;  ownership legal, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 1,188,580
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 202
murder rate: 1 murder per 5,884 people
murder per 10,000 population: 1.70

City:  Washington DC
Gun status;  ownership illegal, Concealed carry illegal.
Population: 572,059
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 195
murder rate: 1 murder per 2933 people
murder per 10,000 population: 3.41

City:  Kennesaw, Georgia
Gun status;  ownership REQUIRED, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 21,675
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 0
murder rate: unable to determine.
murder per 10,000 population: 0

City:  Atlanta, Georgia
Gun status;  ownership legal, Concealed carry legal.
Population: 416,474
Murder/manslaughter: (2005) 90
murder rate: 1 murder per 4627 people
murder per 10,000 population: 2.16

Does this tell you anything?
No, because it's dead easy to smuggle a gun from one state to another.  That is: by making guns illegal in one state, criminals will be able to obtain them almost as easily from another state whilst law abiding citizens will not.
2007-04-18 19:38:49
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Bubbalo wrote:

No, because it's dead easy to smuggle a gun from one state to another.  That is: by making guns illegal in one state, criminals will be able to obtain them almost as easily from another state whilst law abiding citizens will not.
Would you say that if all states made guns illegal, criminals would find a way to smuggle them in?
2007-04-18 19:40:25
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

usmarine2005 wrote:

Would you say that if all states made guns illegal, criminals would find a way to smuggle them in?
Somehow countries in Europe do just fine despite having Russia right next door.  Policing is stricter on international borders than it is on intranational borders.
2007-04-18 19:41:39
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Would you say that if all states made guns illegal, criminals would find a way to smuggle them in?
Somehow countries in Europe do just fine despite having Russia right next door.  Policing is stricter on international borders than it is on intranational borders.
I would agree with that except for border size and geography.
2007-04-18 19:44:55
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6870|Mountains of NC

banning guns will NOT stop fucked up ppl, like the VTech killer, if they want to kill they will kill - he could have turned this into another Oklahoma City situation


would you be screaming " Ban fertilizer"
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
2007-04-18 19:45:16
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

usmarine2005 wrote:

I would agree with that except for border size and geography.
Meaning?
2007-04-18 19:46:24
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

SEREMAKER wrote:

would you be screaming " Ban fertilizer"
Certain fertilizers are restricted in Australia due to their usefuleness in bomb making.  The world keeps turning, we use other fertilizers.
2007-04-18 19:46:53
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I would agree with that except for border size and geography.
Meaning?
The land borders may be simple to control, but the ocean, lakes, and gulf borders are pretty much impossible to monitor.
2007-04-18 19:50:15
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

Bubbalo wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

would you be screaming " Ban fertilizer"
Certain fertilizers are restricted in Australia due to their usefuleness in bomb making.  The world keeps turning, we use other fertilizers.
You know what I find absolutely ridiculous?  Fertilizer manufacturers put industrial chemicals and waste into their product, and then wonder why it is used in bombs.  Stop putting industrial waste in fertilizer, maybe then you won't be able to fashion a bomb using it.

Carry on with the topic.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-18 19:50:25)

2007-04-18 19:50:34
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863
So, you're worried about a massive arms shipment magically arriving?  There are big problems with this theory.

1)  Sea borders aren't impossibly to monitor with modern technology.

2)  Someone has to build the guns, and once America isn't building them they can put pressure on Russia.  That knocks out the world's biggest mass producers of guns right there.

3)  It still greatly restricts access, meaning that far fewer potential criminals will be armed

4)  Australia only has sea borders, yet we do fine, for the most part (there have been homicides involving firearms, but only ever targetted assasination/organised crime related stuff: that is, crimes that would happen anyway, they just would have garrotted or poisoined them instead)
2007-04-18 19:52:18
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Bubbalo wrote:

So, you're worried about a massive arms shipment magically arriving?  There are big problems with this theory.

1)  Sea borders aren't impossibly to monitor with modern technology.

2)  Someone has to build the guns, and once America isn't building them they can put pressure on Russia.  That knocks out the world's biggest mass producers of guns right there.

3)  It still greatly restricts access, meaning that far fewer potential criminals will be armed

4)  Australia only has sea borders, yet we do fine, for the most part (there have been homicides involving firearms, but only ever targetted assasination/organised crime related stuff: that is, crimes that would happen anyway, they just would have garrotted or poisoined them instead)
I know dude.  But if you take away guns from people who have always been allowed to have guns, the smuggling would become out of control IMO.  And I thought some guns were legal in Australia?
2007-04-18 20:03:03
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

usmarine2005 wrote:

I know dude.  But if you take away guns from people who have always been allowed to have guns, the smuggling would become out of control IMO.  And I thought some guns were legal in Australia?
Some guns are legal to some people: basically farmers, can't have fully auto, not sure about semi auto, rifles and shotguns only, because they have a legitimate need (i think).  The weapons involved the crimes were pistols, I'm pretty sure.  And people everywhere were allowed to have guns, the trick to banning them is to do it slowly to allow police time to ensure each step is followed (e.g. rather than coming out tomorrow and banning all guns, you ban certain types of guns in groups, allowing police to catch up after each step).
2007-04-18 20:05:16
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I know dude.  But if you take away guns from people who have always been allowed to have guns, the smuggling would become out of control IMO.  And I thought some guns were legal in Australia?
Some guns are legal to some people: basically farmers, can't have fully auto, not sure about semi auto, rifles and shotguns only, because they have a legitimate need (i think).  The weapons involved the crimes were pistols, I'm pretty sure.  And people everywhere were allowed to have guns, the trick to banning them is to do it slowly to allow police time to ensure each step is followed (e.g. rather than coming out tomorrow and banning all guns, you ban certain types of guns in groups, allowing police to catch up after each step).
Kind of makes me think of what happened during prohibition.  Criminals are usually one step ahead of law enforcement.
2007-04-18 20:09:02
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I know dude.  But if you take away guns from people who have always been allowed to have guns, the smuggling would become out of control IMO.  And I thought some guns were legal in Australia?
Some guns are legal to some people: basically farmers, can't have fully auto, not sure about semi auto, rifles and shotguns only, because they have a legitimate need (i think).  The weapons involved the crimes were pistols, I'm pretty sure.  And people everywhere were allowed to have guns, the trick to banning them is to do it slowly to allow police time to ensure each step is followed (e.g. rather than coming out tomorrow and banning all guns, you ban certain types of guns in groups, allowing police to catch up after each step).
Wasn't there a guy in Tasmania that had an AK-47 and shot a bunch of people?  Wasn't there some guy who shot a bunch of asian tourists?  Let's see if I can find more concrete info...

edit:  I guess I morphed one event into two.  And it was an AR-15, not an AK.

Nonetheless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-18 20:11:15)

2007-04-18 20:18:08
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kind of makes me think of what happened during prohibition.  Criminals are usually one step ahead of law enforcement.
Which was often homebrewing rather than smuggling.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Wasn't there a guy in Tasmania that had an AK-47 and shot a bunch of people?  Wasn't there some guy who shot a bunch of asian tourists?  Let's see if I can find more concrete info...

edit:  I guess I morphed one event into two.  And it was an AR-15, not an AK.

Nonetheless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant
Your point?

And, before you respond, I suggest you look at the part of the article which talks about the fact that many of Australia's harsh gun laws are a result of that shooting.  Or is reading your own source a little hard for you?
2007-04-18 20:20:14
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7063

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kind of makes me think of what happened during prohibition.  Criminals are usually one step ahead of law enforcement.
Which was often homebrewing rather than smuggling.
And smuggled to the speakeasy.  People will find a way to make guns.
2007-04-18 20:22:21
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kind of makes me think of what happened during prohibition.  Criminals are usually one step ahead of law enforcement.
Which was often homebrewing rather than smuggling.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Wasn't there a guy in Tasmania that had an AK-47 and shot a bunch of people?  Wasn't there some guy who shot a bunch of asian tourists?  Let's see if I can find more concrete info...

edit:  I guess I morphed one event into two.  And it was an AR-15, not an AK.

Nonetheless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant
Your point?

And, before you respond, I suggest you look at the part of the article which talks about the fact that many of Australia's harsh gun laws are a result of that shooting.  Or is reading your own source a little hard for you?
I understand that.  I am simply rebutting this -

Bubbalo wrote:

4)  Australia only has sea borders, yet we do fine, for the most part (there have been homicides involving firearms, but only ever targetted assasination/organised crime related stuff: that is, crimes that would happen anyway, they just would have garrotted or poisoined them instead)
and this -

Bubbalo wrote:

The weapons involved the crimes were pistols, I'm pretty sure.
However, I may have interpreted what you said wrong on the second one.
2007-04-18 20:24:47
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I understand that.  I am simply rebutting this -

Bubbalo wrote:

4)  Australia only has sea borders, yet we do fine, for the most part (there have been homicides involving firearms, but only ever targetted assasination/organised crime related stuff: that is, crimes that would happen anyway, they just would have garrotted or poisoined them instead)
and this -

Bubbalo wrote:

The weapons involved the crimes were pistols, I'm pretty sure.
However, I may have interpreted what you said wrong on the second one.
Both of which were referring to life after restriction (hereafter LAR).  It's like if I said that air travel meant that people could travel much faster and you said "Nuh-uh, it took Australia's first governer general more than half a year to get to Australia".  Of course it did.  That was before air travel.
2007-04-18 20:25:44
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,983|6934|949

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Kind of makes me think of what happened during prohibition.  Criminals are usually one step ahead of law enforcement.
Which was often homebrewing rather than smuggling.
No, actually there were large smuggling operations involving Canadian liquor.   Large amounts of liquor consumed in speak-easys were not home-brewed.

How about this - I stick to US history, you stick to AUS.
2007-04-18 20:28:35
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6863

usmarine2005 wrote:

And smuggled to the speakeasy.  People will find a way to make guns.
You have watched way too many MacGuyver episodes.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

No, actually there were large smuggling operations involving Canadian liquor.   Large amounts of liquor consumed in speak-easys were not home-brewed.
Right, so the firearms will be smuggled in from Canada...........except that a sudden jump in production like that might, just maybe, give authorities a hint.

 

Pages: 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 18

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard