So here you just admitted that having a gun wouldnt stop a corrupt government, therefore your original point was???AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
I agree with you, but your the one making my comments ridicolous by not actually reading them and only making assumptions about the underlying things that I don't agree with. I agree the government would pwn anyone, an uprising would be ridicolous. But your the one who extrapolated my small comment into an overblown "conspiracy theory". How about you READ before making a comment. Thanks.Vilham wrote:
Im not being rude to you, im just ridiculing your comments which are ridiculous. Having guns wont stop anything. If the government were to take over they would need the armies cooperation, meaning tanks and fully trained soldiers something your little pistol wont stop. Stop coming up with comments that just dont make any sense if you actually stop to think them through.
my original commentI said how would they ever even be ABLE to do so, I didn't say they would be able to. Please learn how to read, and good day once again.Yes, of course it works, but at what cost, how would the people ever be able to overcome a corrupt government?
The facts speak for themselves that guns dont help:
In England probably about 10-20 criminals die each year from people protecting themselves. Maybe another 1000 or so wounded.
Our homocide rate is maximum 1.5 per 100,000 people.
In America each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police. They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Your homocide rate is minimum 6 per 100,000 people.
Now please tell me which case is worse and please explain how killing these criminals help lower the homocide rate?
In England probably about 10-20 criminals die each year from people protecting themselves. Maybe another 1000 or so wounded.
Our homocide rate is maximum 1.5 per 100,000 people.
In America each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police. They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Your homocide rate is minimum 6 per 100,000 people.
Now please tell me which case is worse and please explain how killing these criminals help lower the homocide rate?
Last edited by Vilham (2006-10-30 10:40:37)
I have to ask - What is wrong with wounding or killing in self defense?
As for your opinion that our culture is flawed, of course. Every culture has flaws. Who ever heard of a perfect culture?
KJ
As for your opinion that our culture is flawed, of course. Every culture has flaws. Who ever heard of a perfect culture?
KJ
Since I am a law abiding citizen, if they took away my gun, i would then be forced to bring a knife to a gunfight. Not even remotely fair!
if no one had a gun. then it would be fair.smtt686 wrote:
Since I am a law abiding citizen, if they took away my gun, i would then be forced to bring a knife to a gunfight. Not even remotely fair!
You fail to see if those criminals were not killed or wounded citizens would be killed or wounded. That means it is possible that 11,000-20,000 lives are saved every year. Like I said, your still not seeing the other side man, guns save lives, guns do kill people, but ultimately it is the END USER who is responsible for their own actions, I do not fault guns, I FAULT PEOPLE.Vilham wrote:
The facts speak for themselves that guns dont help:
In England probably about 10-20 criminals die each year from people protecting themselves. Maybe another 1000 or so wounded.
Our homocide rate is maximum 1.5 per 100,000 people.
In America each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police. They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Your homocide rate is minimum 6 per 100,000 people.
Now please tell me which case is worse and please explain how killing these criminals help lower the homocide rate?
If you want to get rid of guns, you better damn be willing to get rid of cars, which kill more than 2x the people annually and you REALLY better be willing to get rid of cigarrettes because they kill over 3-4x that guns kill.
Dude, you don't farking have guns. I repeat, "no crap" that it is lower.CameronPoe wrote:
Bollocks. Multiply the number by 6 and you get 90 deaths as opposed to 4500. (US pop. 300m, UK pop. 50m)DesertFox423 wrote:
No crap. That's like comparing the automobile crash deaths of the US to that of Vatican City.Mortifed_Kangaroo wrote:
Lets compare the UK and USA
USA HAND GUN DEATHS 4500
UK (Where not even the cops carry guns) HAND GUN DEATHS 15
ANOTHER BETTER COMPARISON- You're comparing the number of testicles a man has to the amount a woman has.
Key word- estimatedVilham wrote:
Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.
They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Lol great way to cause the cycle to continue. I thought most Americans were Christians, i dont believe it says kill anyone who trys to harm you in the bible. The fact that your population needs to kill this number of people in self defence just shows that your culture IS flawed, as Cameron said however its too late for you, you cant take the guns away so the cycle continues but please for the love of god stop arguing that legal gun ownership is a good thing when your in the only country in the world where this applies.
There is no statistic for "Oh, that death was self defense, that one was suicide, and this is from a driveby"
The responsible gun owners have the restraint and know when to use it. Contrary to your belief, people here are no longer cowboys in the Old West. You talk from an utterly defenseless society where because you are unfamiliar with something, it's bad.
Sorry did you just read the stats? It quite clearly points towards guns mean more deaths be it criminals or civilians. Guns are UNESSECARY whereas cars are nessecary to society. Im more than willing to ban cigs.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
You fail to see if those criminals were not killed or wounded citizens would be killed or wounded. That means it is possible that 11,000-20,000 lives are saved every year. Like I said, your still not seeing the other side man, guns save lives, guns do kill people, but ultimately it is the END USER who is responsible for their own actions, I do not fault guns, I FAULT PEOPLE.Vilham wrote:
The facts speak for themselves that guns dont help:
In England probably about 10-20 criminals die each year from people protecting themselves. Maybe another 1000 or so wounded.
Our homocide rate is maximum 1.5 per 100,000 people.
In America each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police. They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Your homocide rate is minimum 6 per 100,000 people.
Now please tell me which case is worse and please explain how killing these criminals help lower the homocide rate?
If you want to get rid of guns, you better damn be willing to get rid of cars, which kill more than 2x the people annually and you REALLY better be willing to get rid of cigarrettes because they kill over 3-4x that guns kill.
Dont deny that access to guns makes it easier to kill because it does. Protecting yourself means killing or at least wounding so badly the person is fucked for the rest of their lives. Guns were designed for killing, its what they do well, they damage things. Stop pretending they are for anything else.
HAHAHA you just proved his point! No Guns = less deaths! u muppet!DesertFox423 wrote:
Dude, you don't farking have guns. I repeat, "no crap" that it is lower.CameronPoe wrote:
Bollocks. Multiply the number by 6 and you get 90 deaths as opposed to 4500. (US pop. 300m, UK pop. 50m)DesertFox423 wrote:
No crap. That's like comparing the automobile crash deaths of the US to that of Vatican City.
ANOTHER BETTER COMPARISON- You're comparing the number of testicles a man has to the amount a woman has.
Trust me im familiar with guns. That doesnt make me think they should be legal or that they are "cool". You guys collect guns as if they were toys, they are NOT they are highly dangerous and designed to kill.DesertFox423 wrote:
Key word- estimatedVilham wrote:
Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.
They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Lol great way to cause the cycle to continue. I thought most Americans were Christians, i dont believe it says kill anyone who trys to harm you in the bible. The fact that your population needs to kill this number of people in self defence just shows that your culture IS flawed, as Cameron said however its too late for you, you cant take the guns away so the cycle continues but please for the love of god stop arguing that legal gun ownership is a good thing when your in the only country in the world where this applies.
There is no statistic for "Oh, that death was self defense, that one was suicide, and this is from a driveby"
The responsible gun owners have the restraint and know when to use it. Contrary to your belief, people here are no longer cowboys in the Old West. You talk from an utterly defenseless society where because you are unfamiliar with something, it's bad.
The point being that if there were no guns infesting American society only 75 people would die per annum as opposed to 4500.DesertFox423 wrote:
Dude, you don't farking have guns. I repeat, "no crap" that it is lower.
ANOTHER BETTER COMPARISON- You're comparing the number of testicles a man has to the amount a woman has.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-30 13:38:17)
Dumbass. You can't compare them. That's the point.Vilham wrote:
HAHAHA you just proved his point! No Guns = less deaths! u muppet!DesertFox423 wrote:
Dude, you don't farking have guns. I repeat, "no crap" that it is lower.CameronPoe wrote:
Bollocks. Multiply the number by 6 and you get 90 deaths as opposed to 4500. (US pop. 300m, UK pop. 50m)
ANOTHER BETTER COMPARISON- You're comparing the number of testicles a man has to the amount a woman has.
1. I don't trust you.Vilham wrote:
Trust me im familiar with guns. That doesnt make me think they should be legal or that they are "cool". You guys collect guns as if they were toys, they are NOT they are highly dangerous and designed to kill.
2. They're as cool as a hemi is for gearheads.
3. They're tools, not toys. They are highly dangerous in the wrong hands, which is why you learn about them.
I suppose that's good from a short term human standpoint. But then why don't we also do away with bad drivers, who kill just as many people? Also, illegal immigration. Already mooching off of government services, how much more will it affect us when more of the population is out of work due to this. Long term demand for goods will be higher than production.CameronPoe wrote:
The point being that if there were no guns infesting American society only 75 people would die per annum as opposed to 4500.
Firearms are even less of a threat than stupidity, which is probably the larger factor in many of these deaths. A firearm alone is not dangerous but when you add irresponsible people who may also be intoxicated, anything can happen.
Final thought- if you somehow managed to take away this freedom, idiots would just find a new way to kill themselves.
Last edited by DesertFox423 (2006-10-30 13:45:40)
If stuidity is a factor why hasnt your country killed itself off yet? As to driving read what i have posted 2 or 3 times already, driving is nessecary for society, guns arent!DesertFox423 wrote:
I suppose that's good from a short term human standpoint. But then why don't we also do away with bad drivers, who kill just as many people? Also, illegal immigration. Already mooching off of government services, how much more will it affect us when more of the population is out of work due to this. Long term demand for goods will be higher than production.CameronPoe wrote:
The point being that if there were no guns infesting American society only 75 people would die per annum as opposed to 4500.
Firearms are even less of a threat than stupidity, which is probably the larger factor in many of these deaths. A firearm alone is not dangerous but when you add irresponsible people who may also be intoxicated, anything can happen.
Final thought- if you somehow managed to take away this freedom, idiots would just find a new way to kill themselves.
Its also nice to see how much you value human life, quite clearly very lowly.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-10-30 13:52:35)
Prove that they aren't.Vilham wrote:
If stuidity is a factor why hasnt your country killed itself off yet? As to driving read what i have posted 2 or 3 times already, driving is nessecary for society, guns arent!DesertFox423 wrote:
I suppose that's good from a short term human standpoint. But then why don't we also do away with bad drivers, who kill just as many people? Also, illegal immigration. Already mooching off of government services, how much more will it affect us when more of the population is out of work due to this. Long term demand for goods will be higher than production.CameronPoe wrote:
The point being that if there were no guns infesting American society only 75 people would die per annum as opposed to 4500.
Firearms are even less of a threat than stupidity, which is probably the larger factor in many of these deaths. A firearm alone is not dangerous but when you add irresponsible people who may also be intoxicated, anything can happen.
Final thought- if you somehow managed to take away this freedom, idiots would just find a new way to kill themselves.
Also, I swear...you people are severely inhibiting me from viewing the Battlefield 2 related forums at this time.
Your joking i hope, how can anyone think guns are nessecary for society, JUST LOOK OUTSIDE YOUR OWN COUNTRY, try travelling the world abit.DesertFox423 wrote:
Prove that they aren't.Vilham wrote:
If stuidity is a factor why hasnt your country killed itself off yet? As to driving read what i have posted 2 or 3 times already, driving is nessecary for society, guns arent!DesertFox423 wrote:
I suppose that's good from a short term human standpoint. But then why don't we also do away with bad drivers, who kill just as many people? Also, illegal immigration. Already mooching off of government services, how much more will it affect us when more of the population is out of work due to this. Long term demand for goods will be higher than production.
Firearms are even less of a threat than stupidity, which is probably the larger factor in many of these deaths. A firearm alone is not dangerous but when you add irresponsible people who may also be intoxicated, anything can happen.
Final thought- if you somehow managed to take away this freedom, idiots would just find a new way to kill themselves.
Also, I swear...you people are severely inhibiting me from viewing the Battlefield 2 related forums at this time.
a) First off, banning guns in USA is just not feasible so this is all hypothetical.DesertFox423 wrote:
I suppose that's good from a short term human standpoint. But then why don't we also do away with bad drivers, who kill just as many people? Also, illegal immigration. Already mooching off of government services, how much more will it affect us when more of the population is out of work due to this. Long term demand for goods will be higher than production.CameronPoe wrote:
The point being that if there were no guns infesting American society only 75 people would die per annum as opposed to 4500.
Firearms are even less of a threat than stupidity, which is probably the larger factor in many of these deaths. A firearm alone is not dangerous but when you add irresponsible people who may also be intoxicated, anything can happen.
Final thought- if you somehow managed to take away this freedom, idiots would just find a new way to kill themselves.
b) You can't ban stupidity, you can ban guns.
c) Driving is a necessity in many paths of life. Guns are not necessary in many paths of life. You can't ban cars. You can ban guns.
d) Illegal immigration - do something about it! I'm sick and tired of Americans moaning about something as simple as shutting your border tight and repatriating the fuckers who do get in.
e) Supply, demand and productivity are not measures I use in assessing quality of life. I value being able to have peace of mind walking outside at night without having to carry a gun.
f) Your final thought suggests that people who carry firearms are scrambling to kill the nearest animate object - not a view I would imagine you wish to portray. I don't see any evidence of 'idiots' finding new and exciting ways to kill people here in Ireland. Maybe things are different in other countries with strict gun regulation like France, the UK, etc. but I doubt it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-30 14:41:43)
Australia had racial riots in Sydney about 5 months ago not one person was killed. How many people do you think could have been killed if we were able to carry guns???
Vilham you are the most immature stupid little generalizing fucker I have ever had the displeasure of meeting on these forums.
Go away.
Take your gross stereotypical attitude somewhere else I am fucking sick of your dumb ass comments.
Go away.
Take your gross stereotypical attitude somewhere else I am fucking sick of your dumb ass comments.
Having a gun doesn't mean you have the guts to shoot it.Phantom2828 wrote:
I don't think so.MECtallica wrote:
No! I would imagine the man would overpower her, steal the gun and shoot her with it. There would be more murder then.Phantom2828 wrote:
Imagine this. Every woman has a nice little gun that they keep with them at all times and criminals know this.
Do you think there would be any more rape?
All it takes is one bullet to put you down. All the women would have to do is point and pull.
There is almost no way she would get the gun taken.
I am not a scared citizen that feels the need to have guns around the house or under the bed for protection by any means. But, I do take comfort in the fact that our country has been able to keep some of the laws that our forefathers placed down in their wisdom. There is a reason that right to bear arms is so high up on the list. This country wanted to be seperate from the rational and thought processes of other countries. We wanted to be distinct, in doing so we may have increased gun crimes with in our own borders.
Isn't it logical to think that having guns with varied degrees of retrictions has done nothing to help with the problems that we have now? I am not saying an out-right ban on guns is the way to go. Banning the right to bear arms would only bring about an even worse result. I don't say that as some conspiracy theorist, I say from a historical prospective. Try to think of some other things that have been banned that now plaque our country. Recreational drugs? Motorcycle helmet laws? Health Insurance? Now these may be viewed as lesser of evils in some eyes, including mine, I only point out these restictions to help support my thoughts regarding the wrongfullness of banning firearms in general.
I live in Louisiana, so that alone already has placed me in a number of people groups for all those reading this. Yes, I do own a number of firearms, I hunt, I fish, I enjoy having the freedom to learn to live off the land. Some of my fondest memories are growing up in the woods learning to shoot, learning to fish, and ultimately learning to survive on my own accord. Guns have taught me such great life lessons as respect. You can't pick up and gun of any type from a little pellet gun to a .45 and not give it respect. The gun was indended for one thing, to shoot. Now to shoot, what you may ask? To that I say whatever is within its legal limitations. Whether that be paper targets (which I really enjoy), vermin on your property, deer on your lease, or ducks in your pond.
I am all about some guns. There should be no ban on them just because of a select few that do not respect them or use them in the correct manner. I am a strong advocate for stricter gun laws, being, if you commit a crime that involves the use of a firearm whether used or not your prison time should be much harsher.
Excuse my spelling errors and my rambling,
Isn't it logical to think that having guns with varied degrees of retrictions has done nothing to help with the problems that we have now? I am not saying an out-right ban on guns is the way to go. Banning the right to bear arms would only bring about an even worse result. I don't say that as some conspiracy theorist, I say from a historical prospective. Try to think of some other things that have been banned that now plaque our country. Recreational drugs? Motorcycle helmet laws? Health Insurance? Now these may be viewed as lesser of evils in some eyes, including mine, I only point out these restictions to help support my thoughts regarding the wrongfullness of banning firearms in general.
I live in Louisiana, so that alone already has placed me in a number of people groups for all those reading this. Yes, I do own a number of firearms, I hunt, I fish, I enjoy having the freedom to learn to live off the land. Some of my fondest memories are growing up in the woods learning to shoot, learning to fish, and ultimately learning to survive on my own accord. Guns have taught me such great life lessons as respect. You can't pick up and gun of any type from a little pellet gun to a .45 and not give it respect. The gun was indended for one thing, to shoot. Now to shoot, what you may ask? To that I say whatever is within its legal limitations. Whether that be paper targets (which I really enjoy), vermin on your property, deer on your lease, or ducks in your pond.
I am all about some guns. There should be no ban on them just because of a select few that do not respect them or use them in the correct manner. I am a strong advocate for stricter gun laws, being, if you commit a crime that involves the use of a firearm whether used or not your prison time should be much harsher.
Excuse my spelling errors and my rambling,
I love the way you cant out argue my purpose over exageration so you resort to swearing at me. If you stop posting stupid comments like guns are nessecary and that they decrease homocides i might stop taking the piss out of you for being plain stupid.Phantom2828 wrote:
Vilham you are the most immature stupid little generalizing fucker I have ever had the displeasure of meeting on these forums.
Go away.
Take your gross stereotypical attitude somewhere else I am fucking sick of your dumb ass comments.
For the sake of argument, could it be because citizen numbers are greater than the police force, and that their response times aren't quite as questionable? I value my own life and the lives of honest, hardworking people than five times the amount of criminal casualties you listed.Vilham wrote:
Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.
They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-30 16:21:17)
No you are trying to make yourself look superior by bashing Americans, which BTW is failing miserably.
You have been owned numerous times in this argument so apparently you can't read along with your inability to act your age.
You have been owned numerous times in this argument so apparently you can't read along with your inability to act your age.