BF2S Forums Gun control logic

Turquoise wrote:

Banning guns might work for countries that don't have many guns, but it looks like the U.K. may eventually have to allow handguns.  You've got too many chavs to not do that in the long run.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

I agree 100% they do have things done for them, it is called handing out a paycheck.

It's also called lobbyism.

Lobbying is nothing more than legalized bribery,

lowing wrote:

what does that have to do with the liberal mindset of entitlement and my connection that it is that entitlement attitude that causes more crime in the states?

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

kylef wrote:

You want a country that has fairly *low* gun crime rates in comparison to the likes of the US to allow handguns? You gotta be freakin' kidding me..

That's why I said the long run.  Give it a few decades.  You'll see gun crime rise in the U.K. soon even with gun control.

Well, they've certainly had a dramatic increase in violent crime over the last decade. I doubt adding the responsibility of gun ownership right now is the best idea.

lowing wrote:

Yeah and, at least they are PAYING for something, which is more than what the lazy are doing.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yeah and, at least they are PAYING for something, which is more than what the lazy are doing.

Well, lobbyism concerns me more than freeloaders, because it does more damage to our society than freeloading.

In fact, a large part of this current financial crisis can be blamed on lobbyism's influence on regulations.

lowing wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good point...  I wonder why they have so much violence.  People seem to blame it on guns here, but in the U.K., they can't use that excuse.

Our violent crime is below yours I believe. Our knife crime is equal to yours and our gun crime is nearly none existent.

SO if you are concerned about vioent crime why not ban knives as well, since it seems to be such a problem

Last edited by FatherTed (2009-04-03 16:03:20)

Turquoise wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good point...  I wonder why they have so much violence.  People seem to blame it on guns here, but in the U.K., they can't use that excuse.

Our violent crime is below yours I believe. Our knife crime is equal to yours and our gun crime is nearly none existent.

Right, but that shows you have an equal potential for violence as we do.  The only difference is you have less tools to work with.

I would've figured you were a less violent people than us.

Last edited by FatherTed (2009-04-03 16:17:59)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well, lobbyism concerns me more than freeloaders, because it does more damage to our society than freeloading.

In fact, a large part of this current financial crisis can be blamed on lobbyism's influence on regulations.

I do not like lobbying either but it is hardly more damaging to society than freeloaders, especially to the extent of the freeloading we have in America.

Whatever lobbying brings to a company, it includes company growth which then creates jobs. How is that worse than freeloading which brings nothing to the table for the expense.

Because speculation and leveraging can do far more damage than any freeloader.

Observe Enron, for example.  The fall of that company due to amazing amounts of greed almost singlehandedly sent us into a recession.

The point is...  when a rich and powerful person acts on the impulse of entitlement, they do far more damage than any poor person really could.

Power makes all the difference.

Pug wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

how could you possibly ban knives lol.

edit

also, i think the attitude in our gov is to restrict damage done. For example, i'm pretty sure that a)psychologically it's much harder to stab someone, than it is to shoot them, and b) i'm pretty certain you're more likely to die from being shot than stabbed.

I did some googling, some interesting stuff out there.  Here's one comment from here:
http://homepage.usask.ca/~sta575/cdn-fi … ntrol.html

source wrote:

c) the claim that comparison of American statistics to those of selected gun-banning foreign countries proves that guns cause crime and banning them reduces it --

Differentials in international crime rates reflect basic socio-cultural and economic differences that have nothing to do with gun laws. After all: 1) Western Europe has not just far less gun violence but less violence of all kinds per capita; 2) This difference between the U.S. and Western Europe was even greater before the latter's gun laws were adopted in the 1920s and 1930s; 3) Those laws were adopted to control political violence -- to which those countries have always been far more subject than the U.S.; 4) As American violence skyrocketted from the mid-1960s on, violence rates increased even more rapidly in the gun banning countries (particularly gun violence); 5) In such equally crime- free countries as Switzerland, Israel and New Zealand there is even more gun availability than there is in the U.S.{13} d) The claim that guns are generally not useful and not used for self-defense --

The definitive study finds that, while handguns are used in vast numbers of crimes annually, they are even more often used by good citizens to repel crime (c. 581,000 crimes vs. c. 645,000 defense uses, annually).{14}

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

how could you possibly ban knives lol.

edit

also, i think the attitude in our gov is to restrict damage done. For example, i'm pretty sure that a)psychologically it's much harder to stab someone, than it is to shoot them, and b) i'm pretty certain you're more likely to die from being shot than stabbed.

I dunno it is your mentality that thinks you can ban guns and no bad guys will have them.  I find your reasoning that your govt would rather see its citizens stabbed instead of shot laughable.

The mentality isn't that 'if we ban guns (which by the way, we don't) the baddies won't have any'. It's fact that if someone really wants to get a gun, they could get one. Fuck, if i spent a day or two looking i could probably get one.

The mentality is; the less guns out there in the populace, the better. Sure, criminals might still get them, but the chances are due to costs/procurement issues, the average thief won't get his hands on any. You very very rarely hear of 'home invasion' involving firearms in GB, for the aforementioned reason. The other times guns are used (gang warfare, or sectarian shite over here), the police are normally monitoring.

And on your last point, would you rather be stabbed or shot?

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

I dunno it is your mentality that thinks you can ban guns and no bad guys will have them.  I find your reasoning that your govt would rather see its citizens stabbed instead of shot laughable.

The mentality isn't that 'if we ban guns (which by the way, we don't) the baddies won't have any'. It's fact that if someone really wants to get a gun, they could get one. Fuck, if i spent a day or two looking i could probably get one.

The mentality is; the less guns out there in the populace, the better. Sure, criminals might still get them, but the chances are due to costs/procurement issues, the average thief won't get his hands on any. You very very rarely hear of 'home invasion' involving firearms in GB, for the aforementioned reason. The other times guns are used (gang warfare, or sectarian shite over here), the police are normally monitoring.

And on your last point, would you rather be stabbed or shot?

A criminal is probably not going to go through whatever pain in the ass process you have in placew in order to get a gun, only law abiding citizens would. So you are punishing the lawful not the law breakers.

Me, I would rather be shot to death than stabbed to death. Sorry.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

A criminal is probably not going to go through whatever pain in the ass process you have in placew in order to get a gun, only law abiding citizens would. So you are punishing the lawful not the law breakers.

Me, I would rather be shot to death than stabbed to death. Sorry.

Lowing, what's the average crime commited? Murder or burglary?

And i didn't say to death, i said shot or stabbed. Like i said before, you are (probably) far more likely to survive a stab wound than being shot

And i'm sorry, but those two points are practically indisputable. On the other hand, you'll probably resort to bollocks semantics to make a point.

I am going to guess robbery, which is exactly why lawful citizens should own guns, to protect themselves.

I see, so I can be shot to death while only allowed to be wounded by a knife in your scenerio, kinda biased ain't it? Also if I were to have a gun ( of which I own several) I will not have to worry about getting shot stabbed or robbed.( if I am at home.)