It's got a point, I agree for sure, but still, all it takes is even 1% realizing what's going on and suddenly there is a rather significant force in your homeland to deal with. I'm rather conservative (actually libertarian) and I despise bush and everything that has happend in this country in the name of security. I know I'm not the only one.
Sure, but so long as the government commands the loyalty of the US Army, they could suppress you. Further, you seem to imagine a sudden change. The Nazi's takeover was slow and subtle.
I know it wouldn't be sudden, in fact I happen to believe it's happening now, but my point is that if it ever get's that bad, we still have a massive ammount of arms lying around, and revolutions have a tendancy to snowball. Remember, it was a minority that founded the United States. Most people didn't care or were still loyal to the King.
You were fighting an enemy an ocean away, and had the support of their worst enemy. Hardly comparable.
Sorry that I didn't have time to read through eight pages to post.
As a mental health professional, I have to argue that the logic of the author of the original article SUCKS! And by the way that is a professional term
The article was VERY poorly written, and the arguments used to assign Freudian defense mechanisms were used in a manor that is consistent with malpractice.
Aside from that, the debate is still a valid one. I would like to hear what our European friends have to say on the issue of poverty. My research has lead me to believe that one of the best indicators of elevated crime rates (among other social concerns, such as abortion, and teen pregnancy rates, as well as drug and alcohol abuse), is a high concentration of poverty. My question to our European brethren is "do your (more) socialist tendencies protect the middle class in such a way that poverty is not so extreme that mass segments of the population are not driven to Murder? To what do you attribute your lower crime/murder rates?
As a final note, don't be quick to blame the US murder rate on National history. EVERY country has a rich history of violence. Some relatively peaceful countries have a history of horrendous violence that stretches back for over a millennium. And don't forget that many of the people from the US that are here share parts of that history as well.
As a mental health professional, I have to argue that the logic of the author of the original article SUCKS! And by the way that is a professional term
The article was VERY poorly written, and the arguments used to assign Freudian defense mechanisms were used in a manor that is consistent with malpractice.
Aside from that, the debate is still a valid one. I would like to hear what our European friends have to say on the issue of poverty. My research has lead me to believe that one of the best indicators of elevated crime rates (among other social concerns, such as abortion, and teen pregnancy rates, as well as drug and alcohol abuse), is a high concentration of poverty. My question to our European brethren is "do your (more) socialist tendencies protect the middle class in such a way that poverty is not so extreme that mass segments of the population are not driven to Murder? To what do you attribute your lower crime/murder rates?
As a final note, don't be quick to blame the US murder rate on National history. EVERY country has a rich history of violence. Some relatively peaceful countries have a history of horrendous violence that stretches back for over a millennium. And don't forget that many of the people from the US that are here share parts of that history as well.
If US would ban guns for..lets say 10-20 years. If murder rate dint go down I will eat my keyboard and give you all I own (which isn't much). Many murders happens in your own home, probably by mistake. And if someone picks up a knife on you its a LOT easier to runaway from that than a guy with a gun. People with weapons love the "power" they get. The law that gives right to bear arms is just very old and very stupid, and so is the people supporting it.
London has lot's of poverty, but in my opinion it's in small 'pockets' spread out quite evenly. Where you get massive sink estates you do get more crime, but it tends be very localised with that area and immediately around it. You also need to remember that generally murder is not very profitable at all, as you can't rob someone twice if you shoot them. It only becomes profitable if someone else is taking your 'business' away. The middle classes are actually a much better source of income when they regularly visit the poorer areas to buy drugs, and gangs of dealers will usually have a monopoly of a particular estate. When you have larger areas of extreme poverty it's harder for a gang to maintain control, and so you are bound to get more rivalries. Alot of crimes on the sink estates won't ever make it into the figures, but generally the worse ones can be identified and steps taken to remedy the problem in that local area.Shopvac wrote:
Aside from that, the debate is still a valid one. I would like to hear what our European friends have to say on the issue of poverty. My research has lead me to believe that one of the best indicators of elevated crime rates (among other social concerns, such as abortion, and teen pregnancy rates, as well as drug and alcohol abuse), is a high concentration of poverty. My question to our European brethren is "do your (more) socialist tendencies protect the middle class in such a way that poverty is not so extreme that mass segments of the population are not driven to Murder? To what do you attribute your lower crime/murder rates?
I can't remember if I said this in this thread or another gun related thread, but I'll post again anyways.Sacula wrote:
If US would ban guns for..lets say 10-20 years. If murder rate dint go down I will eat my keyboard and give you all I own (which isn't much). Many murders happens in your own home, probably by mistake. And if someone picks up a knife on you its a LOT easier to runaway from that than a guy with a gun. People with weapons love the "power" they get. The law that gives right to bear arms is just very old and very stupid, and so is the people supporting it.
In the United States there are something like 250,000,000 guns according to a poll conducted (I can't remember who did it, was a neutral poll though) a couple years ago. I honestly think that's a low number, because a lot of people who have guns would have lied and said they didn't have a gun, I honestly believe there are more gun's than there are people in the United States. Gun's aren't like cars, a gun that's over 100 years old still works just fine with a little regular maintnence, and almost no one throws away a gun.
But to get to my point, because there are so many guns, I seriously doubt a ban on gun sales would impact crime in the United States, and a complete ban on guns would never happen, at least not in my lifetime. Would you want to be the cop going door to door asking for people to hand over there guns?
By the way, gun's are a great investment, in the past ten years they have outpaced housing, gold and the stock market for investment return. A Colt Python bought for the average price of $400 10 years ago will today sell for almost $1500 or more if it's excellent condition. Gun's are also a rather safe investment, the only ones that ever seem to go down in value are brand new guns, and even then 10 years down the road you can still sell something you bought brand new for about the same ammount you bought it, if not more.
120 years is pretty much balls on anyway, but I never said it.jonsimon wrote:
Yes, and 120 years is the bare minimum assuming every generation hits puberty before 10 and has a child at the age of 10. So, your allegation of 12 generations is equal to a minimum of 120 years.Horseman 77 wrote:
I never claimed any of these things, address what I said only. I said 12 generations. You said 120 years I did not, I said " doesn't take a Set amount of time ". 15 is prime breeding age, most have a child by then.
It is common to see a toddler in the street at 2am with no adult nearby. This is part of the problem unique to the USA
And for the record, I've never heard of or seen a toddler in any street anywhere at anytime.
you need to drive thru nyc at least once north of 110 street.
And capt. go back to ranting about hero cop killers
A lot of the above "pro gun" arguments have been made on a couple of false premises. Come to that, so have a lot of the anti-gun remarks too.
1) America is not especially ridden with criminals. If you look at the statistics for most westernised socities, the prison population is roughly 0.1%-0.15% of the overal population. (Around 60,000 in UK prisons on a population of 60,000,000). This holds up in the US, too. If you look at the figures closely and run a significance sample over them, the disparity in figures virtually vanishes.
2) Statistically, you are most likely to be killed by someone you know; even more likely to be someone in your immediate family. Being killed by a) a random sociopath/psycopath b) a terrorist attack c) any complete stranger is incredibly rare, and if it happens to you or someone you know, either you're very unlucky or you're not part of the "normal" population. By this I mean that if you associate with gun-toting crime syndicates, you're far more likely to be killed by a gun-toting criminal than the average guy in the street.
3) Most crime-related murders happen, as mentioned above, to people involved in crime. The unfortunate exceptions to this rule tend to be people like shopkeepers or bystanders with a hero complex.
4) If you remove guns from the civilian population, you do not:
a) Set up the civilian population for mass geoncide, as stated by the original article's author at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=690
b) Make gun-related crime rates soar
c) Leave people completely helpless.
5) The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that it's every American's right to own a gun. It says that it's every American's right to own a gun, if that American is part of "a well-organized militia". NRA membership doesn't count.
Let's look at this sensibly and logically. Of you gun owners out there, how many of you have pulled your gun out, either at home or in public, pointed it at a criminal who intends to harm you and your family?
Going to go way out on a limb here... Probably not very many of you. Which then begs the question, if so few gun-owning members of the public ever have to pull their weapons out, why do civilians need guns to protect themselves against criminals?
Those of you who HAVE pulled your piece out and pointed it, in anger, at a body who harbours criminal intent against you- er, did it work? Did the criminal go "Oh hell, a guy with a gun. Well that's ME done.". No, my guess is either you a) Had to shoot him/her. b) Got shot.
In the UK, there's very strong evidence (by this, I mean it's about as close to proof as you can get in the real world) that shows that carrying a knife as a form of self-defence does NOT protect you from knife-wielding muggers. Instead, the proportion of people injured during a mugging done at knifepoint is far higher for people with their own knives in their pocket? Why? Quite simply, it raises the stakes. While the perp is the only guy with the weapon, you're basically at their mercy, and they don't have to USE it to get you to do what they want. As soon as you're holding a knife too, you're a very real threat to them again, and in order to either continue with their crime or possibly even just to escape, they may need to use it.
In 1997 a guy walked into a school over here in the UK and shot a bunch of kids and some teachers. In response, handguns (which had already been fairly tightly controlled) were outlawed. Yup, it hasn't stopped criminals getting hold of them or using them. That's virtually impossible to do, and it'd be an exercise in futility. What it does stop is accidental discharges that injure people, it helps reduce the incidents of momentary crimes of passion (If you haven't got a gun on your belt when your husband confesses to his adultery, you can't shoot him with it, can you), and all the rest of it.
A lot of that scientific psycho-analytical babble in the opening article stems from Sigmund Freud. Speaking as a mental health professional (Psych Nurse on a Psychological Intensive Care Unit, low security locked wards here in the UK), it's mostly crap. If I told you that the reason teenage girls often bond well with their fathers (y'know, Daddy's girl type stuff) is because they envy their father's penis, feel that they once had one but it got cut off, and bond less well with their mothers because they're scared their mum will find out they desire their father... well, you'd laugh at it right? But that's Freud, too. Guys, you know the reason you never got on well with your dad? 'Cause you love your mother and you're scared your father will chop your penis off if he finds out. Again, Freud. Again, more or less completely discredited in modern pscyhiatric care.
Although infamous coping strategies are somewhat more relevant to the world in which we live today, it is important to remember that they are abstract theories- they are a set of "stories" if you will that are used to help explain human behaviour. They're not natural laws and they're certainly not there to explain why everyone who believes any random individual who so feels like it should be allowed to buy a firearm.
On a lighter vein- if you *do* want to murder someone, don't use a firearm for crying out loud! They're noisy, they leave a ton of forensic evidence, they can fairly easily be traced, and they're messy. Either inject a highly concentrated solution of Lo-Salt (you know, the low-sodium, high-potassium 'healthier' salt) into a vein (needles don't come with serial numbers or rifling), or just ram a frozen sausage down their throat until they choke on it (as the sausage thaws, your fingerprints on it are melted off.) :p Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any deaths a result of this post...
1) America is not especially ridden with criminals. If you look at the statistics for most westernised socities, the prison population is roughly 0.1%-0.15% of the overal population. (Around 60,000 in UK prisons on a population of 60,000,000). This holds up in the US, too. If you look at the figures closely and run a significance sample over them, the disparity in figures virtually vanishes.
2) Statistically, you are most likely to be killed by someone you know; even more likely to be someone in your immediate family. Being killed by a) a random sociopath/psycopath b) a terrorist attack c) any complete stranger is incredibly rare, and if it happens to you or someone you know, either you're very unlucky or you're not part of the "normal" population. By this I mean that if you associate with gun-toting crime syndicates, you're far more likely to be killed by a gun-toting criminal than the average guy in the street.
3) Most crime-related murders happen, as mentioned above, to people involved in crime. The unfortunate exceptions to this rule tend to be people like shopkeepers or bystanders with a hero complex.
4) If you remove guns from the civilian population, you do not:
a) Set up the civilian population for mass geoncide, as stated by the original article's author at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=690
b) Make gun-related crime rates soar
c) Leave people completely helpless.
5) The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that it's every American's right to own a gun. It says that it's every American's right to own a gun, if that American is part of "a well-organized militia". NRA membership doesn't count.
Let's look at this sensibly and logically. Of you gun owners out there, how many of you have pulled your gun out, either at home or in public, pointed it at a criminal who intends to harm you and your family?
Going to go way out on a limb here... Probably not very many of you. Which then begs the question, if so few gun-owning members of the public ever have to pull their weapons out, why do civilians need guns to protect themselves against criminals?
Those of you who HAVE pulled your piece out and pointed it, in anger, at a body who harbours criminal intent against you- er, did it work? Did the criminal go "Oh hell, a guy with a gun. Well that's ME done.". No, my guess is either you a) Had to shoot him/her. b) Got shot.
In the UK, there's very strong evidence (by this, I mean it's about as close to proof as you can get in the real world) that shows that carrying a knife as a form of self-defence does NOT protect you from knife-wielding muggers. Instead, the proportion of people injured during a mugging done at knifepoint is far higher for people with their own knives in their pocket? Why? Quite simply, it raises the stakes. While the perp is the only guy with the weapon, you're basically at their mercy, and they don't have to USE it to get you to do what they want. As soon as you're holding a knife too, you're a very real threat to them again, and in order to either continue with their crime or possibly even just to escape, they may need to use it.
In 1997 a guy walked into a school over here in the UK and shot a bunch of kids and some teachers. In response, handguns (which had already been fairly tightly controlled) were outlawed. Yup, it hasn't stopped criminals getting hold of them or using them. That's virtually impossible to do, and it'd be an exercise in futility. What it does stop is accidental discharges that injure people, it helps reduce the incidents of momentary crimes of passion (If you haven't got a gun on your belt when your husband confesses to his adultery, you can't shoot him with it, can you), and all the rest of it.
A lot of that scientific psycho-analytical babble in the opening article stems from Sigmund Freud. Speaking as a mental health professional (Psych Nurse on a Psychological Intensive Care Unit, low security locked wards here in the UK), it's mostly crap. If I told you that the reason teenage girls often bond well with their fathers (y'know, Daddy's girl type stuff) is because they envy their father's penis, feel that they once had one but it got cut off, and bond less well with their mothers because they're scared their mum will find out they desire their father... well, you'd laugh at it right? But that's Freud, too. Guys, you know the reason you never got on well with your dad? 'Cause you love your mother and you're scared your father will chop your penis off if he finds out. Again, Freud. Again, more or less completely discredited in modern pscyhiatric care.
Although infamous coping strategies are somewhat more relevant to the world in which we live today, it is important to remember that they are abstract theories- they are a set of "stories" if you will that are used to help explain human behaviour. They're not natural laws and they're certainly not there to explain why everyone who believes any random individual who so feels like it should be allowed to buy a firearm.
On a lighter vein- if you *do* want to murder someone, don't use a firearm for crying out loud! They're noisy, they leave a ton of forensic evidence, they can fairly easily be traced, and they're messy. Either inject a highly concentrated solution of Lo-Salt (you know, the low-sodium, high-potassium 'healthier' salt) into a vein (needles don't come with serial numbers or rifling), or just ram a frozen sausage down their throat until they choke on it (as the sausage thaws, your fingerprints on it are melted off.) :p Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any deaths a result of this post...
Exactly.Masaq wrote:
A lot of the above "pro gun" arguments have been made on a couple of false premises. Come to that, so have a lot of the anti-gun remarks too.
1) America is not especially ridden with criminals. If you look at the statistics for most westernised socities, the prison population is roughly 0.1%-0.15% of the overal population. (Around 60,000 in UK prisons on a population of 60,000,000). This holds up in the US, too. If you look at the figures closely and run a significance sample over them, the disparity in figures virtually vanishes.
2) Statistically, you are most likely to be killed by someone you know; even more likely to be someone in your immediate family. Being killed by a) a random sociopath/psycopath b) a terrorist attack c) any complete stranger is incredibly rare, and if it happens to you or someone you know, either you're very unlucky or you're not part of the "normal" population. By this I mean that if you associate with gun-toting crime syndicates, you're far more likely to be killed by a gun-toting criminal than the average guy in the street.
3) Most crime-related murders happen, as mentioned above, to people involved in crime. The unfortunate exceptions to this rule tend to be people like shopkeepers or bystanders with a hero complex.
4) If you remove guns from the civilian population, you do not:
a) Set up the civilian population for mass geoncide, as stated by the original article's author at http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat … asp?ID=690
b) Make gun-related crime rates soar
c) Leave people completely helpless.
5) The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that it's every American's right to own a gun. It says that it's every American's right to own a gun, if that American is part of "a well-organized militia". NRA membership doesn't count.
Let's look at this sensibly and logically. Of you gun owners out there, how many of you have pulled your gun out, either at home or in public, pointed it at a criminal who intends to harm you and your family?
Going to go way out on a limb here... Probably not very many of you. Which then begs the question, if so few gun-owning members of the public ever have to pull their weapons out, why do civilians need guns to protect themselves against criminals?
Those of you who HAVE pulled your piece out and pointed it, in anger, at a body who harbours criminal intent against you- er, did it work? Did the criminal go "Oh hell, a guy with a gun. Well that's ME done.". No, my guess is either you a) Had to shoot him/her. b) Got shot.
In the UK, there's very strong evidence (by this, I mean it's about as close to proof as you can get in the real world) that shows that carrying a knife as a form of self-defence does NOT protect you from knife-wielding muggers. Instead, the proportion of people injured during a mugging done at knifepoint is far higher for people with their own knives in their pocket? Why? Quite simply, it raises the stakes. While the perp is the only guy with the weapon, you're basically at their mercy, and they don't have to USE it to get you to do what they want. As soon as you're holding a knife too, you're a very real threat to them again, and in order to either continue with their crime or possibly even just to escape, they may need to use it.
In 1997 a guy walked into a school over here in the UK and shot a bunch of kids and some teachers. In response, handguns (which had already been fairly tightly controlled) were outlawed. Yup, it hasn't stopped criminals getting hold of them or using them. That's virtually impossible to do, and it'd be an exercise in futility. What it does stop is accidental discharges that injure people, it helps reduce the incidents of momentary crimes of passion (If you haven't got a gun on your belt when your husband confesses to his adultery, you can't shoot him with it, can you), and all the rest of it.
A lot of that scientific psycho-analytical babble in the opening article stems from Sigmund Freud. Speaking as a mental health professional (Psych Nurse on a Psychological Intensive Care Unit, low security locked wards here in the UK), it's mostly crap. If I told you that the reason teenage girls often bond well with their fathers (y'know, Daddy's girl type stuff) is because they envy their father's penis, feel that they once had one but it got cut off, and bond less well with their mothers because they're scared their mum will find out they desire their father... well, you'd laugh at it right? But that's Freud, too. Guys, you know the reason you never got on well with your dad? 'Cause you love your mother and you're scared your father will chop your penis off if he finds out. Again, Freud. Again, more or less completely discredited in modern pscyhiatric care.
Although infamous coping strategies are somewhat more relevant to the world in which we live today, it is important to remember that they are abstract theories- they are a set of "stories" if you will that are used to help explain human behaviour. They're not natural laws and they're certainly not there to explain why everyone who believes any random individual who so feels like it should be allowed to buy a firearm.
On a lighter vein- if you *do* want to murder someone, don't use a firearm for crying out loud! They're noisy, they leave a ton of forensic evidence, they can fairly easily be traced, and they're messy. Either inject a highly concentrated solution of Lo-Salt (you know, the low-sodium, high-potassium 'healthier' salt) into a vein (needles don't come with serial numbers or rifling), or just ram a frozen sausage down their throat until they choke on it (as the sausage thaws, your fingerprints on it are melted off.) :p Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any deaths a result of this post...
I can imagine that. Somebody is sleeping quietly in their bedroom when you come up with a frozen sausage and---WHAM!!! Even so, you can tell that is a murder or the person had a very odd eating habit.
Lets see, Three days have elapsedSpearhead wrote:
Sorry, it's far from common.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is common to see a toddler in the street at 2am with no adult nearby. This is part of the problem unique to the USA
You're either delusional or you see hallucinations.....
Sep 7, 11:34 PM EDT
Girl finds baby in Bronx park, police look for parents
NEW YORK (AP) -- A girl walking through a park found a baby lying in the grass, police said.
The baby, less than a day old, was wearing a light blue outfit and a pink bonnet. She was wrapped in a white blanket that said, "Thank Heaven for little girls."
Paramedics, who took the baby to a hospital, said Thursday she appeared to be in good health.
09-11-06 City briefs Infant left on Queens cops' steps
Queens police were investigating who left a healthy infant boy on the steps of the 103rd Precinct stationhouse in Jamaica.An officer making a routine stationhouse security check about 9 p.m. Saturday found the days-old infant in a large, black, diaper bag, wrapped in a yellow blanket."This is not a case where we're doing a big manhunt and trying to arrest someone," a spokesman said. "We are concerned about the mother."The 2000 Safe Haven law allows a person to bring a newborn to a representative of a police station, firehouse or hospital and leave the child with no questions
Now who's either delusional or you seeing hallucination? Huh loud mouth ?
sorry I had asparagus this morning, Just swallow fast and you won't notice
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-11 15:48:36)
I hear this one a lot, and it's a bunch of BS. All you've gotta do is read the writings of the founding fathers to understand that the 2nd ammendment is 1) allowing militia's to be formed and 2) everyone right to bear arms, not just militia's. Thomas Jefferson wrote a lot on the subject, and it always seemed pretty obvious to me in his writings that he meant for the 2nd ammendment to apply to everyone, not just militia members.Masaq wrote:
5) The 2nd Amendment doesn't say that it's every American's right to own a gun. It says that it's every American's right to own a gun, if that American is part of "a well-organized militia". NRA membership doesn't count.
However, that's just my opinion, and what you said is just opinion. The truth is it hasn't really been defined well yet, the courts have yet to give a significant ruling on whether it's an indidual right, or a state right.
I don't care what city you're in, you're bullshitting.Horseman 77 wrote:
You live in Fla. what do you know about NYC? all you can do is insult and poorly at that.Spearhead wrote:
Sorry, it's far from common.Horseman 77 wrote:
It is common to see a toddler in the street at 2am with no adult nearby. This is part of the problem unique to the USA
You're either delusional or you see hallucinations.....
If guns are the problem why aren't murders rampant in the Armed Forces with all the young people carrying Automatic weapons?
Jonison says people will Kill out of rage just because they posses a weapon.
I don't even TK in BF2 do You?
Why would I kill in reality just because I am armed?
Do your penis make you rape? its ridiculous.
Oh yeah, because they've been intensely trained and brainwashed in the military. I don't even think soldiers are allowed to take their rifles home, they belong to the military after all.
People have killed in passion. It's probably one of the most common motivations for assault. Barfights are all examples. Next you'll tell me barfights are fairytales. And why can't anyone spell my name right? Take two seconds to read it, Jonsimon. Like Jon and Simon, but one word.
Because you're not only armed but angered to the point of irrationality.
You've never heard of thinking with your second head? Most rape probably is contributable to an irrational lust for a family member or close friend.
Well I have carried a weapon, its a heavy responsibility and I managed it well. I had drawn and aimed a weapon and never killed anyone " in a rage " Again do you ever TK in BF2 ??
I will send you pictures of little tykes out at night. I love your Rape diagnoses. Tooo funny.
I will send you pictures of little tykes out at night. I love your Rape diagnoses. Tooo funny.
I never said 'everyone with a gun kills in anger', your personal experience does not dispute the fact that some people can act irrationally when angered .Horseman 77 wrote:
Well I have carried a weapon, its a heavy responsibility and I managed it well. I had drawn and aimed a weapon and never killed anyone " in a rage " Again do you ever TK in BF2 ??
I will send you pictures of little tykes out at night. I love your Rape diagnoses. Tooo funny.
And that's just road rage.
I personally try not to teamkill, but I'm sure there are people that do it out of frustration. If you are insinuating assaults are not committed out of anger you surely are a fool.
Last edited by jonsimon (2006-09-06 17:03:39)
Brainwashed??? Seriously. Try to be a bit more polite, I dont really care if you like the military or not but you could have just left it at intensely trained. I find military service to be one of the more honorable things to be a part of. Rather than slinging dope on a street corner.jonsimon wrote:
Oh yeah, because they've been intensely trained and brainwashed in the military. I don't even think soldiers are allowed to take their rifles home, they belong to the military after all.
Cancel the battle of insults You are unarmed.jonsimon wrote:
I never said 'everyone with a gun kills in anger', your personal experience does not dispute the fact that some people can act irrationally when angered .Horseman 77 wrote:
Well I have carried a weapon, its a heavy responsibility and I managed it well. I had drawn and aimed a weapon and never killed anyone " in a rage " Again do you ever TK in BF2 ??
I will send you pictures of little tykes out at night. I love your Rape diagnoses. Tooo funny.
And that's just road rage.
I personally try not to teamkill, but I'm sure there are people that do it out of frustration. If you are insinuating assaults are not committed out of anger you surely are a fool.
I am saying " criminals commit crimes " possessing a gun will not ever make you become a criminal, Starting to see a pattern yet ?
As for toddlers on the street being " bullshit " Thats not even the Greatest hits, these people are animals and routinely throw their babies into the trash. At least 3 times a year someone will find a baby in the garbage sometimes dead some times not. Don't you ever read about it in the news? where do you live ?
Nice dodge. As soon as I prove people act in rage, you say you've been claiming something altogether different but equally mislead. True, only criminals commit crimes, this is a tautology, but this is not to say that criminals cannot be average Joe's BEFORE they snap. Normal people become criminals, and thusly, arming normal people is arming criminals.Horseman 77 wrote:
Cancel the battle of insults You are unarmed.jonsimon wrote:
I never said 'everyone with a gun kills in anger', your personal experience does not dispute the fact that some people can act irrationally when angered .Horseman 77 wrote:
Well I have carried a weapon, its a heavy responsibility and I managed it well. I had drawn and aimed a weapon and never killed anyone " in a rage " Again do you ever TK in BF2 ??
I will send you pictures of little tykes out at night. I love your Rape diagnoses. Tooo funny.
And that's just road rage.
I personally try not to teamkill, but I'm sure there are people that do it out of frustration. If you are insinuating assaults are not committed out of anger you surely are a fool.
I am saying " criminals commit crimes " possessing a gun will not ever make you become a criminal, Starting to see a pattern yet ?
As for toddlers on the street being " bullshit " Thats not even the Greatest hits, these people are animals and routinely throw their babies into the trash. At least 3 times a year someone will find a baby in the garbage sometimes dead some times not. Don't you ever read about it in the news? where do you live ?
Mind elaborating on who 'these people' are? Or perhaps presenting news evidence since you seem so convinced it exists?
Road rage is altogether another subject, road rage crimes are commited with firearms only 20% of the time, from a recent study by some gov't agency, can't remember right now, and those type of crimes only account for less than 1% of all violent crime associated with firearms.......jonsimon wrote:
Nice dodge. As soon as I prove people act in rage, you say you've been claiming something altogether different but equally mislead. True, only criminals commit crimes, this is a tautology, but this is not to say that criminals cannot be average Joe's BEFORE they snap. Normal people become criminals, and thusly, arming normal people is arming criminals.
Mind elaborating on who 'these people' are? Or perhaps presenting news evidence since you seem so convinced it exists?
So what are you trying to prove, that people go nutz sometimes, whooppeee, your still not really making a good case for anything.
And another thing:
Fixed it for ya, the number of people that go nutz and use firearms is not even enough to dent the surface of the number of deaths and injuries prevented every year by firearms.Normal people become CAN criminals, and thusly, arming normal people is arming POSSIBLE criminals.
Last edited by AlbertWesker[RE] (2006-09-06 21:17:11)
How can you demonstrate (not prove, because proving something beyond reasonable doubt is virtually impossible over internet forums) that carrying firearms *prevents* deaths? Please, I'd be interested to see the evidence for this.
Police evidence over here is fairly conclusive- people who have been victims of crime tend to carry knives more, and people who carry knives tend to get injured by other knife-carriers more than people who don't.
Firearms aren't legal over here so I can't draw on any UK-based research to back up the following assumption; but using a bit of common sense and logic would suggest that if a knife as a deterrent doesn't work, a handgun as a deterrent probably won't either. The old knife-fighters of the previous two centuries were generally considered more dangerous at close range than someone with a revolver- knives aren't piddly little toys in comparision to guns, they're just as dangerous. A knife blow to the upper arm can kill, if medical aid isn't quick enough. Likewise, a single unlucky stab to the thigh or torso can be enough to cause a major bleed or damage a vital organ sufficiently to cause death.
If the threat of that doesn't stop people carrying knives, how would the threat of a gun work any better?
As for the argument that only criminals comit crimes and no law-abiding citizen would ever use their handgun against anyone other than a criminal... well, it's shaky.
For a start, we're all criminals. I've jumped amber lights at junctions, exceeded the speed limit, overtaken on the inside when a granny was holding up the outside lane... That's just the traffic violations. I own some mp3s I don't have master copies of, I have some cracks for programs I wouldn't otherwise use, the odd TV epiosde or two as well. You guys who all claim that only criminals comit crimes? Can you honestly, hand on heart/appropriate holy book/swear on life of loved one - that you've *never* commited a crime?
It's a reasonable assumption then that you all have. Everyone has the capability to act like a criminal- the people with the strongest held beliefs are usually the ones most willing to defend them. When I did my nurse training, a lecturer on communication skills asked how many of us would be willing to kill in order to protect our families; a good 60% of the class raised their hands. He pointed out that if you told the press that "60% of Nurses Willing to KILL" and backed it up with a research paper, most of the public would probably never step into a hospital again.
Everyone gets aggresive urges at times. Even if you're not aware of it, if you have a perfect way of controlling your emotions and remaining calm, the emotion is still kicked up by the brain. If self control snaps, you're left with an angry and aggresive person- which in itself isn't innately bad, it's just a survival strategy from our evolutionary past.
It's foolish to say that any average joe hasn't got it in him to kill, we all have. The question I'm posing is, does owning a firearm make you more likely to use lethal force if and/or when you loose that control. I'd say the answer was yes.
Scenario: You're in bed, you've got your .45 magnum under your pillow, your wife starts to suspect you're having an affair with your secretary and thinks you're about to run away with her to Vegas. This is not quite true (it's her sister you're fleeing with), so you begin a desperate attempt to deny it all. Arguement ensues.
Finally the truth comes out- you're heading to Vegas with her sister. Your wife knows you keep a huge handgun under your pillow, she grabs it, she fires it at you and the shot hits your abdomen. In about 20 minutes you'll be dead, probably regardless of whether or not medical attention gets to you.
Now, the question here is: If your wife couldn't get that gun because you didn't own one, and she had to use a knife to kill you in her fit of rage- what would happen. She'd have to get out of bed, walk downstairs, turn on the kitchen lights, find the biggest damn knife she could, run back upstairs, work out you'd locked yourself in the bathroom, unlock the door from the outside using the blade of the knife... by the time she's in a position to commit bodily harm, she's spent a good few minutes getting herself into that position. She's had time to cool down, for her brain to think it over. Chances are, she won't be so willing to use the knife on you as she would be during the actual arguement itself.
Now, sensible gun owners should be saying "But I keep my guns in a locked box, in a locked room, with the ammo kept separately!". If that is indeed the case, well- how much help is that gun going to be when a crazed axe murderer climbs into your bedroom?! And if it's not going to be any use for that, well, isn't that why you keep it? Surely it's an exercise in pointlessness then- might as well get rid.
Police evidence over here is fairly conclusive- people who have been victims of crime tend to carry knives more, and people who carry knives tend to get injured by other knife-carriers more than people who don't.
Firearms aren't legal over here so I can't draw on any UK-based research to back up the following assumption; but using a bit of common sense and logic would suggest that if a knife as a deterrent doesn't work, a handgun as a deterrent probably won't either. The old knife-fighters of the previous two centuries were generally considered more dangerous at close range than someone with a revolver- knives aren't piddly little toys in comparision to guns, they're just as dangerous. A knife blow to the upper arm can kill, if medical aid isn't quick enough. Likewise, a single unlucky stab to the thigh or torso can be enough to cause a major bleed or damage a vital organ sufficiently to cause death.
If the threat of that doesn't stop people carrying knives, how would the threat of a gun work any better?
As for the argument that only criminals comit crimes and no law-abiding citizen would ever use their handgun against anyone other than a criminal... well, it's shaky.
For a start, we're all criminals. I've jumped amber lights at junctions, exceeded the speed limit, overtaken on the inside when a granny was holding up the outside lane... That's just the traffic violations. I own some mp3s I don't have master copies of, I have some cracks for programs I wouldn't otherwise use, the odd TV epiosde or two as well. You guys who all claim that only criminals comit crimes? Can you honestly, hand on heart/appropriate holy book/swear on life of loved one - that you've *never* commited a crime?
It's a reasonable assumption then that you all have. Everyone has the capability to act like a criminal- the people with the strongest held beliefs are usually the ones most willing to defend them. When I did my nurse training, a lecturer on communication skills asked how many of us would be willing to kill in order to protect our families; a good 60% of the class raised their hands. He pointed out that if you told the press that "60% of Nurses Willing to KILL" and backed it up with a research paper, most of the public would probably never step into a hospital again.
Everyone gets aggresive urges at times. Even if you're not aware of it, if you have a perfect way of controlling your emotions and remaining calm, the emotion is still kicked up by the brain. If self control snaps, you're left with an angry and aggresive person- which in itself isn't innately bad, it's just a survival strategy from our evolutionary past.
It's foolish to say that any average joe hasn't got it in him to kill, we all have. The question I'm posing is, does owning a firearm make you more likely to use lethal force if and/or when you loose that control. I'd say the answer was yes.
Scenario: You're in bed, you've got your .45 magnum under your pillow, your wife starts to suspect you're having an affair with your secretary and thinks you're about to run away with her to Vegas. This is not quite true (it's her sister you're fleeing with), so you begin a desperate attempt to deny it all. Arguement ensues.
Finally the truth comes out- you're heading to Vegas with her sister. Your wife knows you keep a huge handgun under your pillow, she grabs it, she fires it at you and the shot hits your abdomen. In about 20 minutes you'll be dead, probably regardless of whether or not medical attention gets to you.
Now, the question here is: If your wife couldn't get that gun because you didn't own one, and she had to use a knife to kill you in her fit of rage- what would happen. She'd have to get out of bed, walk downstairs, turn on the kitchen lights, find the biggest damn knife she could, run back upstairs, work out you'd locked yourself in the bathroom, unlock the door from the outside using the blade of the knife... by the time she's in a position to commit bodily harm, she's spent a good few minutes getting herself into that position. She's had time to cool down, for her brain to think it over. Chances are, she won't be so willing to use the knife on you as she would be during the actual arguement itself.
Now, sensible gun owners should be saying "But I keep my guns in a locked box, in a locked room, with the ammo kept separately!". If that is indeed the case, well- how much help is that gun going to be when a crazed axe murderer climbs into your bedroom?! And if it's not going to be any use for that, well, isn't that why you keep it? Surely it's an exercise in pointlessness then- might as well get rid.
Last edited by Masaq (2006-09-07 02:38:26)
Sorry no dodge "thusly, arming normal people is arming criminals" realy needs no reply and I won't hold you to task for telling me what I have seen or not seen with my own eyes but if you want to answer any of the 10 or so questions you haven't, feel free.jonsimon wrote:
Nice dodge. As soon as I prove people act in rage, you say you've been claiming something altogether different but equally mislead. True, only criminals commit crimes, this is a tautology, but this is not to say that criminals cannot be average Joe's BEFORE they snap. Normal people become criminals, and thusly, arming normal people is arming criminals.Horseman 77 wrote:
Cancel the battle of insults You are unarmed.jonsimon wrote:
I never said 'everyone with a gun kills in anger', your personal experience does not dispute the fact that some people can act irrationally when angered .
And that's just road rage.
I personally try not to teamkill, but I'm sure there are people that do it out of frustration. If you are insinuating assaults are not committed out of anger you surely are a fool.
I am saying " criminals commit crimes " possessing a gun will not ever make you become a criminal, Starting to see a pattern yet ?
As for toddlers on the street being " bullshit " Thats not even the Greatest hits, these people are animals and routinely throw their babies into the trash. At least 3 times a year someone will find a baby in the garbage sometimes dead some times not. Don't you ever read about it in the news? where do you live ?
Mind elaborating on who 'these people' are? Or perhaps presenting news evidence since you seem so convinced it exists?
like do you have a drivers license ? where do you live.
just one more tibbit for you to address. Why are murder rates and rapes inside prisons over 10 times higher than anywhere else. All those guns again ?
As for the "Eventually the Murder rate would drop after a ban" logic
Private ownership of firearms has dramatical decreased year after year and murder rates climb.
Where Concealed carry is allowed, Murder rates and crime drop.
The total bans would be as effective as the drug bans. Besides you can make a gun easy, Before mass production techniques came into play Your local blacksmith made and repaired you guns.
Guns are not complex The best and most popular 1911 colt was made in ...you guessed it 1911.
Not cutting edge stuff really but you forgot to address that too.
Cars are indeed deadly weapons yet we never see the hit and runs or even the Nudge and bumps you speak of happen out of rage day and night do we ?
We never see Murders in the Army despite the fact that hundreds of thousands are armed with Real assault Rifles Oh they are brainwashed lol !
Legally owned and legally acquired fire arms are almost never used in crimes. oops never mind.
Vermont has the most Legally own automatic weapons in the Country and never has one been used in a crime EVER
Vermont is the most armed state in the Nation ( Almost every single vehicle Sports a gun rack complete with a rifle )
and Rage killings never happen? WTF it has the lowest murder rate in the country. Why ?
it boasts five killings a year of which 4 are self defense.
But you know all this because I said it all before READY DODGE !
Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-09-07 16:07:54)
Murder rate in state pens 4 per 100,000. Murder rate outside 5.5 per 100,000. You are less likely to be murdered in jail than on the streets of America.Horseman 77 wrote:
Why are murder rates and rapes inside prisons over 10 times higher than anywhere else? All those guns again
No, I'm pretty sure you didn't address my evidence. With the exception of the driver's license bit, you haven't posed any of these questions.Horseman 77 wrote:
Sorry no dodge "thusly, arming normal people is arming criminals" realy needs no reply and I won't hold you to task for telling me what I have seen or not seen with my own eyes but if you want to answer any of the 10 or so questions you haven't, feel free.
Permit, have yet to take my test, but drive often. Michigan.Horseman 77 wrote:
like do you have a drivers license ? where do you live.
Someone already addressed this for me.Horseman 77 wrote:
just one more tibbit for you to address. Why are murder rates and rapes inside prisons over 10 times higher than anywhere else. All those guns again ?
Your statement doesn't address the statement in quotes. Sorry.Horseman 77 wrote:
As for the "Eventually the Murder rate would drop after a ban" logic
Private ownership of firearms has dramatical decreased year after year and murder rates climb.
Proof? Specifically, multiple consistent examples.Horseman 77 wrote:
Where Concealed carry is allowed, Murder rates and crime drop.
Right, all my friends have their own forges at home. It's the hot (geddit?) new thing.Horseman 77 wrote:
The total bans would be as effective as the drug bans. Besides you can make a gun easy, Before mass production techniques came into play Your local blacksmith made and repaired you guns.
Guns are not complex The best and most popular 1911 colt was made in ...you guessed it 1911.
Not cutting edge stuff really but you forgot to address that too.
There are documented hit and runs, it is actually a very specific crime. You don't see your neighbors having sex every day, but that doesn't mean it never happens.Horseman 77 wrote:
Cars are indeed deadly weapons yet we never see the hit and runs or even the Nudge and bumps you speak of happen out of rage day and night do we ?
Yes, soldiers all undergo extensive screening and training, both physical and mental, just for this purpose.Horseman 77 wrote:
We never see Murders in the Army despite the fact that hundreds of thousands are armed with Real assault Rifles Oh they are brainwashed lol !
Proof? Or when you said "oops" did you realize you didn't have any?Horseman 77 wrote:
Legally owned and legally acquired fire arms are almost never used in crimes. oops never mind.
If verifiable, I'm sure there's plenty of reason for such a phenomenon that I cannot begin to elaborate upon without any extensive research on the area.Horseman 77 wrote:
Vermont has the most Legally own automatic weapons in the Country and never has one been used in a crime EVER
Vermont is the most armed state in the Nation ( Almost every single vehicle Sports a gun rack complete with a rifle )
and Rage killings never happen? WTF it has the lowest murder rate in the country. Why ?
it boasts five killings a year of which 4 are self defense.
Kindly point me to such a post, good sir.Horseman 77 wrote:
But you know all this because I said it all before READY DODGE !