PDA

View Full Version : GUNS!!



Pages : [1] 2

marooko
06-27-2008, 07:43 AM
Own 'em. Go sue happy NRA. I support you.

chairmenmeow47
06-27-2008, 08:16 AM
i've got two tickets to the gun show right here ;)

marooko
06-27-2008, 08:20 AM
i was waiting for the gun show jokes. haha.

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 08:34 AM
this is never going to end.

JustSteve
06-27-2008, 08:34 AM
they're going to have to pry the gun from heston's cold, dead hands...for reals now.

menikmati
06-27-2008, 08:37 AM
http://lovemyjeep.mu.nu/archives/cops.JPG

marooko
06-27-2008, 08:42 AM
they're going to have to pry the gun from heston's cold, dead hands...for reals now.

theres gonna be a shoot out at my house if they ever try to come for them.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 08:50 AM
I'd really like to know how many people have died in this country to an American handgun. Definitely hundreds, possibly thousands. Thanks for that, NRA, real bang-up job you've been doing.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 08:55 AM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

marooko
06-27-2008, 09:09 AM
I'd really like to know how many people have died in this country to an American handgun. Definitely hundreds, possibly thousands. Thanks for that, NRA, real bang-up job you've been doing.

read quote below.


Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

very true. it cracks me up how this is so misunderstood. like people wouldnt kill each other if we didnt have guns.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 09:35 AM
very true. it cracks me up how this is so misunderstood. like people wouldnt kill each other if we didnt have guns.

Yup. If that were the case, then people would resort to other weapons such as knives, bats, etc.

JustSteve
06-27-2008, 09:35 AM
there would be far less murders if there wasn't such a proliferation of guns because most of the people doing the killing are cowards and wouldn't have the balls to walk up and kill someone with their hands.

marooko
06-27-2008, 09:45 AM
there would be far less murders if there wasn't such a proliferation of guns because most of the people doing the killing are cowards and wouldn't have the balls to walk up and kill someone with their hands.

and who's fault is that? the gun manufacturers right? yes, because people shouldnt take responsibility for their own actions, they need to blame it on someone else.

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 09:48 AM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

people with guns kill more people.


Yup. If that were the case, then people would resort to other weapons such as knives, bats, etc.

they would. but it takes a lot more effort. banning guns wouldn't eliminate murders, but I think it would reduce them. have you ever heard of a drive by stabbing? or someone going into a school and killing five kids with a baseball bat? and what about holding up a bank with a knive? that'd be very productive.

algunz
06-27-2008, 09:51 AM
Guns don't kill people. People with guns and moustaches kill people.


The only guns in my world is my name.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 09:55 AM
people with guns kill more people.



they would. but it takes a lot more effort. banning guns wouldn't eliminate murders, but I think it would reduce them. have you ever heard of a drive by stabbing? or someone going into a school and killing five kids with a baseball bat? and what about holding up a bank with a knive? that'd be very productive.

It's highly impossible to do a 'drive by stabbing'. So far no one has entered a school and blugeoned kids to death with a baseball bat. Not talking about crimes involving public places, however crimes are committed where one beats another to death with a bat. For example, a man beat his wife to death with a baseball bat in Texas. Recently a mother beat the shit out of a sex offender that was talking to her daughter. He didn't die, but do you think that took a lot of effort to go and beat the shit out of someone with a bat? People will still commit crimes regardless of what weapon they choose.

marooko
06-27-2008, 09:55 AM
people with guns kill more people.



they would. but it takes a lot more effort. banning guns wouldn't eliminate murders, but I think it would reduce them. have you ever heard of a drive by stabbing? or someone going into a school and killing five kids with a baseball bat? and what about holding up a bank with a knive? that'd be very productive.

people have help up banks with a simple note. no weapon brandished. also, i myself am much more prone to stabbing someone than shooting them. a stabbing is much more personal, it means something. it says you mean it.

sonofhal
06-27-2008, 09:56 AM
We have gun control here. It sucks. Have you tried doing a drive-by with a baseball bat? It's fucking difficult, man.

marooko
06-27-2008, 09:57 AM
It's highly impossible to do a 'drive by stabbing'. So far no one has entered a school and blugeoned kids to death with a baseball bat. Not talking about crimes involving public places, however crimes are committed where one beats another to death with a bat. For example, a man beat his wife to death with a baseball bat in Texas. Recently a mother beat the shit out of a sex offender that was talking to her daughter. He didn't die, but do you think that took a lot of effort to go and beat the shit out of someone with a bat? People will still commit crimes regardless of what weapon they choose.

there is also a video of some guys in china that ran in a bank with bats and started fucking everyone up. they didnt get away with it, but obviously its not out of the question.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 10:02 AM
Although rare, people have been killed from the other person kicking them and punching them with their bare fists.

marooko
06-27-2008, 10:04 AM
very true. my brother went to jail for a similar situation. kid was in a coma for 2 weeks. luckily he didnt die. they were waiting to see if they were gonna charge them all with murder, or attempted murder. no weapons involved at all.

Hannahrain
06-27-2008, 10:09 AM
Are we really going to have this conversation? I sort of thought we were smarter than that.

Guns do kill people. That's pretty much their singular purpose. Sure, there are exceptions. Hunting, paintball, and the occasional squirtgun. But the main purpose of a gun is to efficiently end someone else's life, or at least maim them significantly. Of course people commit crimes without them. But no matter how adept I am at wielding a machete or how trained I am in some ancient martial art, I can't use those things to spontaneously kill thirty people in a matter of minutes from a clock tower because my wife left me and I stopped taking my meds.

Blinken
06-27-2008, 10:12 AM
http://www.theacru.org/blog/2007/05/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/



[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)


The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).


This all comes from a recent Harvard study.

If you look at the murder rates of DC which had very strong anti-gun laws until yeterday, you see an INCREASE in murders from when the bans went into effect to now.

Hannahrain
06-27-2008, 10:17 AM
As an addendum to my previous post, I would like to show my support for circus-sideshow knifethrowing as what should be the world's leading method of remote violence.

marooko
06-27-2008, 10:24 AM
Are we really going to have this conversation? I sort of thought we were smarter than that.

Guns do kill people. That's pretty much their singular purpose. Sure, there are exceptions. Hunting, paintball, and the occasional squirtgun. But the main purpose of a gun is to efficiently end someone else's life, or at least maim them significantly. Of course people commit crimes without them. But no matter how adept I am at wielding a machete or how trained I am in some ancient martial art, I can't use those things to spontaneously kill thirty people in a matter of minutes from a clock tower because my wife left me and I stopped taking my meds.

sure, not from a clock tower, but a well trained person with a knife can kill another before they draw their weapon. several people in fact.

Hannahrain
06-27-2008, 10:27 AM
Okay. Yes, that's true. But you're talking about a well-trained person. The issue isn't whether or not people kill people with other methods. It's that guns are basically Murder for Dummies. Killing someone shouldn't be as easy as pressing the "on" button on a coffee maker.

marooko
06-27-2008, 10:29 AM
ideally, killing someone shouldnt be an alternative.

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 10:35 AM
I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't other ways to kill people. just that other ways of killing people aren't as easy as shooting them. it takes more effort & determination. and I think that would reduce the murder rate. some people will still kill, no doubt. I just think it would be fewer.

I'm a little confused about that harvard study -- why are they comparing the combined murder rate of three countries with the murder rate of nine other countries? was the rate of the nine other countries combined? still, interesting find.

amyzzz
06-27-2008, 10:40 AM
I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. I don't want to live in a fascist state in which only the government and criminals get their hands on guns, but I don't like the idea of teenagers getting guns and killing children in schools. There should be more controls on who is allowed to own them I guess and more enforcement of those controls.

marooko
06-27-2008, 10:42 AM
do you own one? you already have to jump through hoops to own a gun. especially in California.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 10:46 AM
sure, not from a clock tower, but a well trained person with a knife can kill another before they draw their weapon. several people in fact.

This premise is just ridiculous. Where the fuck do you get such preposterous authority from? Did you just finish watching a Steven Seagal movie or something?


Fucking Ricans.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 10:47 AM
A brief lesson in Irish terrorist weaponology of the last thirty years.

In Ireland, offensive firearms are illegal. Shotguns and hunting rifles require a fairly convoluted licensing process, but are the only firearms that can be owned by civilians. Our police officers do not carry firearms, a fact which has made it almost unheard of for a cop to die in the line of duty. More of our police officers have died in traffic accidents than to gun shot wounds.

At the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, bombings always got the biggest headlines because they were inherently shocking events that had a high civilian casualty rate. However, they tended to generate bad publicity for the organisations in question. Bomb making is difficult and risky - you can still sometimes recognise IRA men in a crowd by shrapnel scars or missing fingers. Bombs then, weren't the primary weapon.

Assault rifles, such as kalashnikovs and armalites often feature in propaganda, but are rarely actually used due to the difficulty in concealing them and using them effectively.

Sniper rifles were devastating to morale, and the IRA famously wrought havoc with at least one Barrett light fifty, but once again they required a lot of thinking to keep hidden. The Barrett was eventually captured, but not before blowing quite a few British troops apart. The Barrett was American, incidentally, but was only used in comparatively rural areas with lots of hiding places and visual range.

The primary workhorse weapon of terrorist organisations in Ireland was always the concealed handgun. The explosives come from Libya. The assault rifles come from Eastern Europe. But our handguns always came from America, because it was just so easy to get them there.

You just walk into somebody's house when they're not home, and get the nice little legally-purchased gun they've got hidden in the bedroom. They probably even have ammo in it. You steal enough to order, then sell 'em to your IRA contact. He then disassembles them and ships them home in separate boxes of tools, or car parts. Somebody in Ireland just puts the pieces back together, and each gun will kill dozens of people before it's put out of use.

You follow somebody's car on a motorbike and wait until a traffic light. Or hell, just walk up to them on the street in broad daylight. But most likely, you walk into a pub with that in your pocket, shoot who you're after, and leave. Even if everybody in there had guns- and that's not unknown - you're already gone. None of those would be possible without the handgun, the single biggest killer in Northern Ireland's conflict, and almost invariably obtained from America.

The "aw, people would find some other weapon" argument doesn't wash for shit. Rifles don't fit on motorbikes. Sawn-offs are cumbersome and don't have range. Knives are messy, evidence wise. The murders those guns facilitated simply would not have been possible otherwise, because they provided speed and discretion that no other weapon would. That's why some homeowner bought it in the first place, rather than a warhammer or something. Without those guns, people would be alive today. That's a fact.

So I get queasy when the NRA starts talking about guns and the threat of terrorism. They've been letting our guys get hold of them for something like 30 years. But then ours are white and English-speaking, so they're freedom fighters, right?

marooko
06-27-2008, 10:50 AM
This premise is just ridiculous. Where the fuck do you get such preposterous authority from? Did you just finish watching a Steven Seagal movie or something?


Fucking Ricans.

nope. was playing call of duty 4.

Blinken
06-27-2008, 10:50 AM
I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't other ways to kill people. just that other ways of killing people aren't as easy as shooting them. it takes more effort & determination. and I think that would reduce the murder rate. some people will still kill, no doubt. I just think it would be fewer.

I'm a little confused about that harvard study -- why are they comparing the combined murder rate of three countries with the murder rate of nine other countries? was the rate of the nine other countries combined? still, interesting find.

They are comparing the nine countries with the lowest against the nine with the highest. Same number of countries on each side.

You right in that you THINK that it will help. Alot of people THINK that but when actual studies are done it is shown to have the opposite effect.

marooko
06-27-2008, 10:56 AM
This premise is just ridiculous. Where the fuck do you get such preposterous authority from? Did you just finish watching a Steven Seagal movie or something?


Fucking Ricans.

also, do you own a gun? its not as easy as it looks to hit a target, a moving target at that.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 11:00 AM
You beat me to the punch Blinken.


also, do you own a gun? its not as easy as it looks to hit a target, a moving target at that.


It really isn't easy trying to hit a target, especially if you're aiming for a certain spot.

chairmenmeow47
06-27-2008, 11:02 AM
i'm from arizona and they practically issue guns at birth so i'm used to them.

and the only advice i am going to contribute is to never go shooting in a tank top. i totally have a small shell casing scar on my chest :x

marooko
06-27-2008, 11:04 AM
i'm from arizona and they practically issue guns at birth so i'm used to them.

and the only advice i am going to contribute is to never go shooting in a tank top. i totally have a small shell casing scar on my chest :x

im sorry, ivy, but i LOL'ed. I got one caught in my safety goggles, luckily it didnt leave a mark.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 11:09 AM
I just remembered the video of that girl that got owned by the recoil of a desert eagle. Hehehe!

amyzzz
06-27-2008, 11:17 AM
do you own one? you already have to jump through hoops to own a gun. especially in California.
I see the reports every once in a while of mass shootings in schools, restaurants, and workplaces. The laws are apparently not stringent enough.

SFChrissy
06-27-2008, 11:18 AM
I have 2 guns that have been passed down thru 3 generations...they are so vintage that they aren't even registered. I keep them with my mom who lives out of state or else I would probably shoot the hell out of my ex because he's so antagonistic...

Unfortunately I know to many people who have been killed or injured by pussy ass drive by shootings. What's with so-cal??? My friends dad was getting on the freeway and merged infront of some guy carelessly but not road rage style (he was being an old man) and the guy shot his back window out in broad daylight in redlands...WTF!!!

Heresy
06-27-2008, 11:20 AM
I see the reports every once in a while of mass shootings in schools, restaurants, and workplaces. The laws are apparently not stringent enough.

Maybe these kids got a hold of their parents' guns or illegally purchased them.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 11:28 AM
If I remember right, Seung-Hui Cho owned his guns legally, diagnosed mental illness and all.

miscorrections
06-27-2008, 11:30 AM
It doesn't matter how the kids are getting the guns. Have any of you been forced to sit and wait for an agonizing two hours when you know that in the room across the hall a class full of your friends is being held at gunpoint? I defy any of you who have experienced that to be pro-gun.

allyjoy
06-27-2008, 11:32 AM
In Scotland they've banned sharp knives because of the high rate of knifings... UK doesn't allow guns and somehow the Scots are finding ways to murder one another at rapid rates. Eventually they won't be able to own anything... point is: if someone has the intention of doing harm to another, they are going to do it whether it be with fist, club, knife or gun. Guns can make it easier, but it doesn't change the fact that people are going to kill one another.

chairmenmeow47
06-27-2008, 11:35 AM
or how about have any of you ever been violently attacked by someone? i have, and it sure as hell would have been nice to have someone with a gun around.

i would hesitate, so i don't own one. but i'm smart enough to teach myself how to use one in case anything ever happens. i don't like the idea of guns being only in the hands of criminals/government. i advocate safety and exposure to guns at a young age. guns will pretty much always exist, we can't change that. but only with exposure and knowledge will people understand their power and attempt to regulate their use.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 11:37 AM
People tend to survive the knifings in Scotland. And they've only had one Dunblane.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 11:40 AM
I also completely disagree with the notion that exposure to guns makes people respect them. In my experience, it makes people far more likely to see them as just a tool or an object like any other, which they aren't.

locachica73
06-27-2008, 11:43 AM
Guns will always be around, worse so if they take away our rights to them. I am not a gun advocate by any means, but I think people should have the right to choose for themselves. That is until they fuck up those rights and use the guns for illegal purposes and then I believe the punishments should be more harsh. I also think it should be more difficult to get a gun in regards to training, license and so on. I don't think the 18 year old high school drop out at walmart should be selling guns to the public.

chairmenmeow47
06-27-2008, 11:45 AM
I also completely disagree with the notion that exposure to guns makes people respect them. In my experience, it makes people far more likely to see them as just a tool or an object like any other, which they aren't.

and i've grown up in a state where guns are EVERYWHERE. i've gone shooting with a number of people, and every gun owner i've gone shooting with is dead serious about their guns. they wear protection, and stress the importance of being safe to everyone around them. they know how to handle a gun and therefore they know what it's capable of.

then you get people who have never held one before and they're waving it all over. or kids who think it's some sort of toy and BAM it goes off and that's that. i'm not naive, people are people and if they aren't going to respect a gun, perhaps no amount of training will teach fix that.

but i'm saying that once you've actually fired a weapon at something, you understand real quick how powerful a gun is, and with the right teacher, you hopefully get some guidance as to why that power should be respected.

but i was taught to shoot as a child, along with many other children in this state. and those are the people who know how to handle a gun and know better than to treat it lightly. i'm not saying every kid should get a free gun out of their mother's twat, i'm just saying education and exposure is generally the best way to handle a situation. ya know, like teaching safer sex practices as opposed to just saying "sex is wrong, don't do it because i said so".

i appreciate your points and wish that we didn't need guns in this world. but i have seen too much shit in my lifetime to leave them in the hands of criminals and the government only.

marooko
06-27-2008, 12:08 PM
I see the reports every once in a while of mass shootings in schools, restaurants, and workplaces. The laws are apparently not stringent enough.


Maybe these kids got a hold of their parents' guns or illegally purchased them.

exactly my point. do the research to see how many of these guns were acquired by illegal means.


If I remember right, Seung-Hui Cho owned his guns legally, diagnosed mental illness and all.

which should be corrected.


It doesn't matter how the kids are getting the guns. Have any of you been forced to sit and wait for an agonizing two hours when you know that in the room across the hall a class full of your friends is being held at gunpoint? I defy any of you who have experienced that to be pro-gun.

i was shot at. still pro gun.


or how about have any of you ever been violently attacked by someone? i have, and it sure as hell would have been nice to have someone with a gun around.

i would hesitate, so i don't own one. but i'm smart enough to teach myself how to use one in case anything ever happens. i don't like the idea of guns being only in the hands of criminals/government. i advocate safety and exposure to guns at a young age. guns will pretty much always exist, we can't change that. but only with exposure and knowledge will people understand their power and attempt to regulate their use.

knowledge is key. you all should know that. arent you all like super smart and stuff?

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 12:41 PM
You right in that you THINK that it will help. Alot of people THINK that but when actual studies are done it is shown to have the opposite effect.

true. and I am aware that I might be wrong. but nothing said yet convinces me that making it more difficult won't reduce the murder rate.

the problem with the article you quoted is that it makes its claim ("Gun Control Is Counterproductive") based on gun control alone, as if nothing else would influence the murder rate. that's bullshit. so Norway has guns, and a very low murder rate, while Holland has no guns and a higher murder rate. that doesn't mean that if we took away the guns in Norway their murder rate would increase. nor does it mean that if we gave people in Holland guns their murder rate would decrease. comparing the murder rates in different countries based on gun control alone is an unfair comparison. to really judge, we need to look at the same country with and without gun control. and obviously that is not an experiment we can do. we might be able to draw from historical cases, however.

also, to quote that article (http://www.theacru.org/blog/2007/05/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/), the professors who published the study "go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates." so even the authors admit that the study DOESN'T show gun control has the opposite effect.


but i'm saying that once you've actually fired a weapon at something, you understand real quick how powerful a gun is, and with the right teacher, you hopefully get some guidance as to why that power should be respected.

very well said.

JustSteve
06-27-2008, 12:52 PM
or how about have any of you ever been violently attacked by someone? i have, and it sure as hell would have been nice to have someone with a gun around.

so you may have inadvertently been shot, too?

marooko
06-27-2008, 01:03 PM
thats too funny.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 01:07 PM
Well said Ivy.

My dad is a gun collector and he has taught all my 5 brothers and I how to shoot and handle a gun when we were younger simply for our own safety and protection.

I'm for having a gun as a use of protection, not to go about and blow someone's brains out because they cut me off on the freeway or to seek revenge on my classmates because they bullied me, etc.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 01:18 PM
Know what else isn't easy? Killing someone with a knife. Anybody here ever actually stabbed somebody? It's not like the movies. They don't even necessarily stop coming at you.

Take a guess which is easier--killing someone with a knife from point-blank range ('cause, you know, you basically have to be that close to kill someone with a knife) or killing someone with a gun from the same distance. Now take a guess how easy it is to kill someone with each from, say, five feet. Just five. Now ten. Anything beyond ten feet and unless you have a shotgun, you ain't hitting shit. But I don't know anybody that's particularly lethal with a knife from 10 feet.

marooko
06-27-2008, 01:20 PM
Know what else isn't easy? Killing someone with a knife. Anybody here ever actually stabbed somebody?



not yet. but ive tried on at least 3 occasions. one day.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 01:21 PM
You've tried to stab someone on at least three occasions and failed.

CASE MOTHERFUCKING DISMISSED.

marooko
06-27-2008, 01:25 PM
the first time the dude was running away. would have been just as hard to shoot him. (14 years old)

second time the guy on my left saw the knife and warned the guy on my right who was gonna get stabbed. swung it at him, but they all ran. again, would have been just as hard to shoot. (16 years old)

3rd time, i thought i was gonna get robbed at an ATM. So i didnt really try to stab him, i was just really ready to. so in that case, yes, a gun would have made it easier. quicker. (29 years old)

Heresy
06-27-2008, 01:25 PM
Unless you shoot them in the head which is almost always a guaranteed kill, people don't always die from being shot. Depending on the type of gun and design of the bullet, and what distance it's fired at, one can be more fatal than the other. Also it depends where the person is shot.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 01:27 PM
Unless you shoot them in the head which is almost always a guaranteed kill, people don't always die from being shot. Depending on the type of gun and design of the bullet, and what distance it's fired at, one can be more fatal than the other. Also it depends where the person is shot.

I would like for you to provide the example where a bullet (you pick the caliber) and a knife are equally deadly from the same distance hitting the same location. I'd also like you to take your half-assed pontificating back to Green Bay and try selling it to the tourists.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 01:28 PM
the first time the dude was running away. would have been just as hard to shoot him.

second time the guy on my left saw the knife and warned the guy on my right who was gonna get stabbed. swung it at him, but they all ran. again, would have been just as hard to shoot.

3rd time, i thought i was gonna get robbed at an ATM. So i didnt really try to stab him, i was just really ready to. so in that case, yes, a gun would have made it easier. quicker.

Please, do explain how someone out of the reach of your arms is just as hard to shoot as stab. Detail the physical realities under which this fucking ridiculous assertion is supposed to be operating.

marooko
06-27-2008, 01:32 PM
i was on a bike and the kids ran back the direction they came from, which was from behind me. i can swing my arm and turn in that direction, but i highly doubt i could make an accurate shot in that scenario. lemme guess, you're so awesome and all knowing you can?

Blinken
06-27-2008, 01:36 PM
I would like for you to provide the example where a bullet (you pick the caliber) and a knife are equally deadly from the same distance hitting the same location. I'd also like you to take your half-assed pontificating back to Green Bay and try selling it to the tourists.

Point blank, .22 or a http://www.sz-wholesale.com/uploadFiles/hunting%20knife_608.jpg to the heart. Equally deadly. I would rather be shot by the gun than stabbed with that thing.

marooko
06-27-2008, 01:42 PM
my weapon of choice was the 6" buck knife. same affect.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 01:43 PM
Point blank? You think you can take a .22 pressed up to your heart and fired directly into your breast plate? Yeah?

I don't think you jerkoffs have much experience with people getting shot or stabbed. That knife you posted, Blink, is not as dangerous as it looks.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 01:44 PM
It's impossible to kill someone with a knife 5 to 10 feet away unless they have some super knife that is 5 to 10 feet long, or they can simply run after your ass and attack you.

However a bullet travels several hundred feet per second.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 01:45 PM
NO SHIT. Welcome to the fucking point of the discussion, d-bag.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 01:47 PM
I never said it was possible to kill someone with a knife 5 feet away though.

Blinken
06-27-2008, 01:49 PM
I was kinda just fucking around with that post, I am well aware that the .22 would kill me. I was saying if i had a choice of the two, i would rather be shot than stabbed. (I just realized one of the stories from the Wire was that Omar's brother "no Heart" Anthony survived point blank .22 to the heart. No barring on reality I know.) Of course that knife isn't as nasty as it looks, mostly because it is a bitch to use. If I wanted to kill someone with a knife, just sneak up behind them grab them and slit the throat.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 01:52 PM
A .22 to the heart won't necessarily kill you. But the fact that an EXPLOSION (yes, literally, an explosion) would be taking place directed into your chest cavity from point blank range really shouldn't be underestimated. The true delivered force of a bullet being fired is exponentially increased by range--with every foot you are closer to the target within about 10 feet, the amount of actual damage gets ridiculously higher. If the explosion actually takes place right against your flesh, it will blow a motherfucking hole in you. A knife wound will close, you just have to pull the knife out.

marooko
06-27-2008, 01:54 PM
actually in many cases, pulling the knife out(or whatever the penetrating object might be) is detrimental to survival.


there are also many variables when talking about a shooting. an old coke dealer i knew has a scar on his neck. pretty much right on his throat, from a .22. pretty much point blank. had it been a larger caliber it may have shattered his spinal column rather than ricocheting off it.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 02:00 PM
Pulling the knife out when you're not in a hospital is detrimental. Eventually the knife comes out when you get treated.

Once again, you all are continuing to compare things that aren't really comparable and acting like it's some kind of point. You're right, a larger caliber would shatter his spine. A knife never will. And it wasn't "pretty much" point blank then. A few feet away is not point blank.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:03 PM
he was being robbed. they guy was standing in front of him. no, he wasnt holding the gun to his throat, but he wasnt 5 feet away either. and a knife could easily slit a throat.

BROKENDOLL
06-27-2008, 02:07 PM
This thread reminds me of watching a fucking tennis match on TV! Back and forth, back and forth...

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:08 PM
except people win at tennis. this isnt going anywhere.

Heresy
06-27-2008, 02:09 PM
My original argument way at the beginning of this thread was:

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

If there weren't guns, people would still kill other people using knives and other weapons.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:11 PM
yeah but....

Heresy
06-27-2008, 02:12 PM
except people win at tennis. this isnt going anywhere.

A tennis match sounds like so much fun right now instead of sitting in a cold ass office.

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 02:18 PM
My original argument way at the beginning of this thread was:

Guns do not kill people. People kill people.

If there weren't guns, people would still kill other people using knives and other weapons.

and the original argument to that was that people with guns kill more people.

nobody has tried to suggest that removing guns will prevent all murders and violence. guns are not the problem, so gun control does not solve the problem.

BUT making it more difficult to kill people will reduce murders. (I have still not heard a strong counterargument to that). removing guns from the picture would make it more difficult to kill people.

it doesn't solve the problem. nobody has suggested that it would solve the problem. but it would reduce the severity of the symptoms.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 02:21 PM
Very few knives are good at killing dozens of people, for example.

Also, gun control is fucking bullshit.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:23 PM
BUT making it more difficult to kill people will reduce murders. (I have still not heard a strong counterargument to that). removing guns from the picture would make it more difficult to kill people.
.

i dont know the numbers, but im willing to bet the guns used to murder people are gotten by illegal means. i dont know how taking guns away from the legal owners is gonna make a difference. thats the argument. there is NO WAY to get rid of all guns. i dont think making them illegal to posses is gonna make it harder for people to get them. yeah, maybe for a couple years, but where theres a will, theres a way.

locachica73
06-27-2008, 02:24 PM
The world will never be rid of guns, just like we will never be rid of drugs. You can't unring a bell or uninvent a gun. If you take away peoples rights to carry a gun then people will still carry guns illegally. It's the way of the world.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:25 PM
Very few knives are good at killing dozens of people, for example.

Also, gun control is fucking bullshit.

its not very often DOZENS of people are shot in one place.

miscorrections
06-27-2008, 02:27 PM
its not very often DOZENS of people are shot in one place.

That doesn't make it any less severe when it DOES happen.

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 02:29 PM
that all depends how well it's enforced. the better enforced it is, the fewer guns will be on the street.

and I agree, it won't remove all guns, but if they're not available legally then it might well make it more difficult to obtain them illegally as well. fewer guns, fewer shootings.

BlackSwan
06-27-2008, 02:29 PM
easy solution... possession of an illegal gun = death penalty... problem solved.

republicans would love it.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:29 PM
not the point. also doesnt make a murder any less severe if its with a knife.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:30 PM
easy solution... possession of an illegal gun = death penalty... problem solved.

republicans would love it.

one step forward, two steps back. (one really)

Blinken
06-27-2008, 02:30 PM
and the original argument to that was that people with guns kill more people.

nobody has tried to suggest that removing guns will prevent all murders and violence. guns are not the problem, so gun control does not solve the problem.

BUT making it more difficult to kill people will reduce murders. (I have still not heard a strong counterargument to that). removing guns from the picture would make it more difficult to kill people.

it doesn't solve the problem. nobody has suggested that it would solve the problem. but it would reduce the severity of the symptoms.

I gave you a study(there are many more studies that say the same thing) that says that less does not mean less murders, but you didn't choose to believe it. And have given me nothing to back up your claim that less guns equals less murders. There are more murders in Washington DC per year now than there was before the handgun ban took place that is a fact. I am intereted to see how the legalization of handguns affects this number. But if the studies I read are correct we should see the murder rate drop in Washington DC in the next few years.

BlackSwan
06-27-2008, 02:31 PM
i am all for harsher punishments on all crimes except ones that involve drugs and stealing media.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 02:32 PM
Blink, your study is complete horseshit.

Blinken
06-27-2008, 02:38 PM
How is it bullshit?

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 02:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:42 PM
i dont see how wiki is a trusted source.

your finding is bullshit.

BlackSwan
06-27-2008, 02:46 PM
i dont see how wiki is a trusted source.


there is no need to hate on wikipedia.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:47 PM
dont make me stab you.

Blinken
06-27-2008, 02:47 PM
Those are numbers are porbably accurate Marooko. Wiki has problems with other things than raw statisical data. But I still stand by the study, I will read it more indepth later and compare to those numbers when i get a chance.

BlackSwan
06-27-2008, 02:48 PM
dont make me stab you.

after failing at stabbing people 3 times... that is a completely empty threat. so, ha ha your funny i guess?

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:48 PM
still wont trust wiki.

marooko
06-27-2008, 02:49 PM
after failing at stabbing people 3 times... that is a completely empty threat. so, ha ha your funny i guess?

got a point there. just dont run, help me get my ratio up.

edit: also, it was only 2 times. the 3rd one didnt pan out.

Blinken
06-27-2008, 02:53 PM
Randy so I read some of tha actual study, since I am bored at work One specific example is Luxemburg. they have Absolute bans on most guns and their murder rate is double ours and 9 times that of Germany. Most of these countries are ex-soviet bloc countries where guns where kept out of the hands of citizens and for most part most citizens don't own guns.

BROKENDOLL
06-27-2008, 02:56 PM
except people win at tennis. this isnt going anywhere. B*I*N*G*O*!!!

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 03:01 PM
Randy so I read some of tha actual study, since I am bored at work One specific example is Luxemburg. they have Absolute bans on most guns and their murder rate is double ours and 9 times that of Germany. Most of these countries are ex-soviet bloc countries where guns where kept out of the hands of citizens and for most part most citizens don't own guns.

Ex-sovient bloc countries where citizens don't own guns? Yeah? What the fuck do you think happened to all the AK's left over?

You're comparing second and third world countries to the US. Find me even the most remote evidence that the US has a lower per capita murder rate than any other industrialized Western nation and I'll suck your cock.

marooko
06-27-2008, 03:01 PM
you're gay.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 03:02 PM
At least I'm not Puerto Rican.

marooko
06-27-2008, 03:03 PM
rather be a spic than a cock sucking jew.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 03:04 PM
I'd rather not be too stupid to be able to stab people.

marooko
06-27-2008, 03:05 PM
stupid enough to not make sense out of that and exclude all context.

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 03:05 PM
I gave you a study(there are many more studies that say the same thing) that says that less does not mean less murders, but you didn't choose to believe it. And have given me nothing to back up your claim that less guns equals less murders.

hmm. apparently you didn't see my response to the article you gave me. see the quote below for my response again. and no, I don't have anything to back up my claim, but it's reasonable to suggest that making something more difficult will reduce frequency. and I have no reason to believe otherwise in terms of murder.


the problem with the article you quoted is that it makes its claim ("Gun Control Is Counterproductive") based on gun control alone, as if nothing else would influence the murder rate. that's bullshit. so Norway has guns, and a very low murder rate, while Holland has no guns and a higher murder rate. that doesn't mean that if we took away the guns in Norway their murder rate would increase. nor does it mean that if we gave people in Holland guns their murder rate would decrease. comparing the murder rates in different countries based on gun control alone is an unfair comparison. to really judge, we need to look at the same country with and without gun control. and obviously that is not an experiment we can do. we might be able to draw from historical cases, however.

also, to quote that article (http://www.theacru.org/blog/2007/05/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/), the professors who published the study "go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates." so even the authors admit that the study DOESN'T show gun control has the opposite effect.


There are more murders in Washington DC per year now than there was before the handgun ban took place that is a fact. I am intereted to see how the legalization of handguns affects this number. But if the studies I read are correct we should see the murder rate drop in Washington DC in the next few years.

that will be interesting to see. but I will point out again that the study never claimed that more guns leads to lower death rate.

marooko
06-27-2008, 03:06 PM
hmm. apparently you didn't see my response to the article you gave me. see the quote below for my response again. and no, I don't have anything to back up my claim, but it's reasonable to suggest that making something more difficult will reduce frequency. and I have no reason to believe otherwise in terms of murder.





that will be interesting to see. but I will point out again that the study never claimed that more guns leads to lower death rate.

also doesnt claim the opposite. you're in the same boat paddling different directions.

shakermaker113
06-27-2008, 03:16 PM
also doesnt claim the opposite. you're in the same boat paddling different directions.

right. it doesn't make any claims about how gun control will or will not affect murder rate. Blink seems to have missed that part. I didn't use the article to support my argument, I just pointed out it doesn't support Blink's argument.

BROKENDOLL
06-27-2008, 03:18 PM
A tennis match sounds like so much fun right now instead of sitting in a cold ass office.


and the original argument to that was that people with guns kill more people.

nobody has tried to suggest that removing guns will prevent all murders and violence. guns are not the problem, so gun control does not solve the problem.

BUT making it more difficult to kill people will reduce murders. (I have still not heard a strong counterargument to that). removing guns from the picture would make it more difficult to kill people.

it doesn't solve the problem. nobody has suggested that it would solve the problem. but it would reduce the severity of the symptoms. Please allow me to lob this ball into the tennis court...If say, you had a gun and wanted to just practice your game at a shooting range, or say, hunting....No harm done. Now, if I'm not allowed to have a gun and yet, you do, whether it's legal or not, leaves the match unfair if you should say, decide to use that shot against me. BUT...If I also have a gun, which removes that handicap from the match, you might think twice about that next shot of yours now, wouldn't you? Not much of a tennis match if one person doesn't have a racket. (Either way, I'll hear shit about my theory, so here goes!)

marooko
06-27-2008, 03:20 PM
yeah but...

BROKENDOLL
06-27-2008, 03:24 PM
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh150/pearlygate_bucket/image0077441.jpg

Blinken
06-27-2008, 03:30 PM
Ex-sovient bloc countries where citizens don't own guns? Yeah? What the fuck do you think happened to all the AK's left over?

You're comparing second and third world countries to the US. Find me even the most remote evidence that the US has a lower per capita murder rate than any other industrialized Western nation and I'll suck your cock.

The AKs mostly left those countries to go to the Middle East and Africa.

The US has had high murder rates since around 1910, I am not saying that we should compare with these countries just that it doesn't have to do with guns. More with the mentality of Americans and the social fabric of the country. Gun control in England did get strict until 1937 even then it wasn't a complete ban until later yet their murder rate did not climb the way ours did. Hmmmm what was going on in America from 1920 - 1933 when the murder rate was getting out of control? Prohibition. A reason other than guns why shit was bad. True the murder rate started climbing about 15 years before that, but it starts to decline in 1934.

The same patern can be seen from the mid 60's to the early 80's with big jumps in the late 70's early 80's with a decline until Crack became popular than they shot up again.

Comparing the murder rates from one country to another is very difficult because of each countries own social problems. The study uses multiple countries and domestic evidence to try and counter that problem. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it is better than some theories from random people.

By the way the CDC and the National Academy of the Sciences reached the same conclusions in 2003 and 2004, after reviewing ALL available studies on the subject.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 03:42 PM
Randy so I read some of tha actual study, since I am bored at work One specific example is Luxemburg. they have Absolute bans on most guns and their murder rate is double ours and 9 times that of Germany. Most of these countries are ex-soviet bloc countries where guns where kept out of the hands of citizens and for most part most citizens don't own guns.

Uh... I know American users might not have much of a need to know anything about the geography of Luxembourg, but they have a population of about sixteen people, so you can't fairly compare it to the 'States.

RotationSlimWang
06-27-2008, 03:43 PM
The AKs mostly left those countries to go to the Middle East and Africa.

The US has had high murder rates since around 1910, I am not saying that we should compare with these countries just that it doesn't have to do with guns. More with the mentality of Americans and the social fabric of the country. Gun control in England did get strict until 1937 even then it wasn't a complete ban until later yet their murder rate did not climb the way ours did. Hmmmm what was going on in America from 1920 - 1933 when the murder rate was getting out of control? Prohibition. A reason other than guns why shit was bad. True the murder rate started climbing about 15 years before that, but it starts to decline in 1934.

The same patern can be seen from the mid 60's to the early 80's with big jumps in the late 70's early 80's with a decline until Crack became popular than they shot up again.

Comparing the murder rates from one country to another is very difficult because of each countries own social problems. The study uses multiple countries and domestic evidence to try and counter that problem. Is it perfect? Of course not, but it is better than some theories from random people.

By the way the CDC and the National Academy of the Sciences reached the same conclusions in 2003 and 2004, after reviewing ALL available studies on the subject.

Know what came with prohibition? SUB-MACHINE GUNS.

marooko
06-27-2008, 03:45 PM
yes, the sub-machine gun was invented to bring back alcohol.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 03:57 PM
Luxembourg has a population of under half a million people in an area of approximately 2,586 square kilometres

They have an army of 800 people. Nobody would ever bother invading Luxembourg though, because there is absolutely fuck all to do in Luxembourg except maybe go insane from boredom and murder somebody. And even then, there's not a whole lot of people to do that to.

It is not an ex-Soviet country, but seeing as it's so small, the crime-rate will skyrocket even with a relatively low number of crimes taking place. An old lady getting tipsy on sherry before she jumps into her mobility scooter looks like a 2342% increase in drink-driving. It's an absurd comparison.

Blinken
06-27-2008, 04:01 PM
Ok point taken on Luxembourg. But that was just one country that i picked out of the study they had a number of them for examples.

marooko
06-27-2008, 04:06 PM
yeah, drink driving is fucking nuts.

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 04:08 PM
I just find it weird that it was included at all. I mean, most fucking maps don't bother including Luxembourg, 'cause the word "Luxembourg" is bigger than the outline of the country.

Also, I hate fucking Luxembourg. It's like being trapped in like... a waiting room, only it's also a country. A whole country of a waiting room. Literally, the only thing it's got in it's favour is the fact that you can do that thing where you have one foot in France and one foot in Luxembourg. Although going by that study, the side of you in Luxembourg will probably be shot, raped and robbed if you do.

marooko
06-27-2008, 04:13 PM
is it small enough where you can kinda straddle it?

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 04:27 PM
Not quite. It's in NATO though.

BlackSwan
06-27-2008, 04:43 PM
I'll invade Luxembourg, that shit will be mine!

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 04:48 PM
Ah, but like I say, it's part of NATO - if you invade Luxembourg, Britain and the US will come and sort your shit right out, good and proper.

The other side of that coin is that if somebody invades the US, Luxembourg's got your back. This fact right here is absolutely the only thing Luxembourg has to offer in terms of entertainment, so treasure it.

BlackSwan
06-27-2008, 04:52 PM
Ah, but like I say, it's part of NATO - if you invade Luxembourg, Britain and the UK will come and sort your shit right out, good and proper.

The other side of that coin is that if somebody invades the US, Luxembourg's got your back. This fact right here is absolutely the only thing Luxembourg has to offer in terms of entertainment, so treasure it.

the UK is filled with a bunch of punters and wankers (except Radiohead).

MissingPerson
06-27-2008, 05:02 PM
Meant to say "Britain and the US". :D

I've known enough British soldiers to rather not go to war with them. Not even for Luxembourg. Although, they use SA 80's, so I'd just need to fight them somewhere hot or dusty and their guns would fall apart. Then I could just use my ninja knifing skills, and bam, Luxembourg is mine.

To burn down.

Bud Luster
06-27-2008, 06:45 PM
the UK is filled with a bunch of punters and wankers (except Radiohead).

You dont even know what the fuck "punters" means.

anti-square
06-27-2008, 06:58 PM
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/full-metal-jacket.jpg

marooko
06-27-2008, 07:05 PM
such a good movie.

matsuolost
06-28-2008, 12:16 AM
rappers kill more people

shakermaker113
06-28-2008, 05:55 AM
most fucking maps don't bother including Luxembourg, 'cause the word "Luxembourg" is bigger than the outline of the country.

that's hilarious.

prettydirtything
06-28-2008, 01:17 PM
"forest for the tree's" people.....

This is an important SCOTUS decision. They (Justice Kennedy made the majority) have ruled that the words of the constitution as written in the second amendment remain in force, precedent and historical interpretations of the word "militia" notwithstanding.

We can now move the argument since the following is now a fact; a (non-felon) can own a gun, in any city in this country. Sounds like a reasonable application of the equal protections clause to me!

Now lets get on to the new argument; EVERY right under the constitution has been found by the SCOTUS to be bound by limits in some way, even speech and the right to a speedy trial in cases of clear public interest or national security. Now, we must decide WHAT LIMITS should be placed on the right to bear arms.

The court has consistently supported things like waiting periods, bans on automatic weapons etc. What they DID NOT find constitutionally acceptable are blanket bans that fly in the face of clearly explicated constitutional protections; whether based on municipalities, geography, or like in the Chicago law that will surely be struck down; limits based solely on the fact the person lived in public housing.

Now:
Commence the argument of what limits you believe should be implemented; "no felons" is a broadly accepted limit for example.

prettydirtything
06-28-2008, 01:20 PM
oh, and Blinkens comment on D.C violence getting worse is not true; the D.A was on NPR this morning and said that violence in D.C has declined since 1978, and the last three years have been at historical lows. A lot more attributable to the gentrification of D.C and the economy than gun control IMHO, but still....

MissingPerson
06-28-2008, 01:22 PM
You know, the title of the thread is just "GUNS!!"

prettydirtything
06-28-2008, 01:26 PM
You know, the title of the thread is just "GUNS!!"

dammit! you are right. I don't know shit about guns, and have never even fired one.... (potato guns anybody?)

I thought I heard somebody say "politics!" and jumped in


;-)



i am gonna go start unpopular threads by myself now....

MissingPerson
06-28-2008, 01:38 PM
I'm great at killing good threads dead. We could be the perfect forum-killing team.

miscorrections
06-28-2008, 01:43 PM
Except people actually like you.

MissingPerson
06-28-2008, 01:44 PM
You'll make me internet-blush with that kind of talk, Miscorrections.

MissingPerson
06-28-2008, 02:19 PM
See, told you. Good thread, dead.

MissingPerson
06-28-2008, 05:29 PM
Anyway, guns-

Like I mentioned earlier, over here, even our cops don't carry guns. As a result, back when I went abroad the first few times, it freaked the fuck out of me when a cop went strolling past with a gun strapped on. It still kind of weird to me that there is a gun is just there on the street and everybody's cool about it.

This, to me, is a fairly healthy attitude to have regarding guns. It's not like a wrench or an iPod or something - it's neither a tool nor a piece of machinery like any other. It's a gun, with the capacity to kill one person for every bullet, a piece of equipment designed for the sole purpose of blowing a lump out of another person. That is all it exists for. I don't really think people should be comfortable around guns knowing that, even if they need to carry them regularly, because that is some heavy shit right there.

I'm on dial-up, so going back to the previous page to find out who said it would take about a month, but somebody fairly reasonably suggested that firing a gun feels important. It's an inherently momentous thing to do.

I don't think this is so, at all. Something like a Desert Eagle or a Mosin Nagant, yes, those guns have the kind of kick that does nearly as much to the person shooting as it does to the sucker getting shot. They're big, heavy pieces of kit, that take a lot of experience and maintenance to use well. You have one of those in your hands, you know all about it.

But... take something like a Steyr AUG. A Steyr is an ingenious piece of engineering. The scope is built into the carry handle, the mag is transparent so you can see how much ammo you've got, and you can swap out the parts for specific jobs in a few minutes. It's accurate and it's reliable. You could launch one of those things into space, wait for it to land back on earth and still shoot somebody twenty eight times without one miss. And there's room in the stock for a Mars Bar. It's awesome.

It's also something like 70% plastic. It feels like carrying a giant syringe. There's fuck all recoil to it. The trigger action is remarkably similar to an XBox controller, and any idiot can use it. Firing a Steyr feels of little more consequence than firing a Nerf gun. It does not feel like an action that is capable of ending a life.

As for hitting a moving target - not too easy, but quite possible. And psychologically, it's far easier than stabbing somebody until they're dead.

boarderwoozel3
06-28-2008, 10:12 PM
^That post took quite an turn...

miscorrections
06-28-2008, 10:14 PM
Any weapon that makes impersonal death possible should have never been invented.

BROKENDOLL
06-28-2008, 10:39 PM
^That post took quite an turn... No Shit! I haven't got anything on "Sharpshooter" there, when it comes to killing a thread!

MissingPerson
06-29-2008, 05:33 AM
Army Reserve. We learned to shoot static targets from 300 and kill forum threads from the next continent over. With deadly accuracy.

emtgreg
06-29-2008, 10:13 AM
Army Reserve. We learned to shoot static targets from 300 and kill forum threads from the next continent over. With deadly accuracy.

hahaha BEST STATEMENT EVER :)

marooko
06-29-2008, 06:38 PM
go buy one.

Hawkings
06-30-2008, 07:27 PM
very true. it cracks me up how this is so misunderstood. like people wouldnt kill each other if we didnt have guns.


Actually they wouldn’t, it is much harder and statistics bear this out. Since Australia instituted much tighter gun control laws in 1996, surprise, homicides and robberies have declined. I don’t mind guns, I don’t think Democrats should hurt election chances over this issue ever, there are far more important issues. GO GUNS !

As 39% of households in the US have guns and many feel strongly about keeping them, you will never lose your guns. Even ruby ridge and Waco, are rallying calls to people that want to defend private gun ownership. God forbid you try and take them from Meth producing cultists, but thats a whole different rant.

I don’t think it’s much of an issue. I personally don’t own a gun but don’t think anyone would be able to stop gun ownership in the US due to our tradition or gun ownership, powerful gun lobby that can decide a close election, and the sheer amount of firearms in the country (enough for every man woman and child to own 2).

I think if penalties for using a gun in a crime were mandatory 10 years or if illegal to own guns we’d be safer but we can’t in this country, it will never happen. The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent. Guns are far more likely to be used on family members or self than actually stopping a crime.


In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624
(39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents;
and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War. If similar 1st world countries like France, the UK have 1200 or less each and Italy, Canada, Japan have far less than that, while we have 16k and also a high level of private gun ownership it makes you wonder. (Canada has a similar level of gun ownership but hunting rifles not handguns where they have less than 2% the US levels).

Actually in countries with very serious gun restrictions there are far less murders proportional to their populations than in the US. Take England and Japan for example. Japan has .05 (or 1.1 depending on estimate used) murders per 100k people while the US has 5.7, while UK has 2.03, France 1.64 per 100k per year. To be fair, between 1991-2000, our average was 9.8 and declined to current 5.5, so there are certainly ways to mitigate this beyond gun laws and many other factors involved (? diversity, opportunities, economic disparity, punishment, level of police ?). Of the 36 richest nations on earth, the US alone accounted for 45% of the gun deaths. 12k-16k die per year in the US due to murder compared to little of over one thousand down several hundred in various Western Europen Countries and Japan. That is just the cost of gun ownership. We will never try to take them, 12k isn’t so bad, 42k a year in the US die a year in auto accidents and were not going to ban cars either. In return we get to feel secure we can repel foreign invasions or our own tyrannical governments should they want old people to have health care or something.

There are far too many guns in the population now, too much mythology behind our traditions since the beginning of private gun ownership to ever dream of any real restrictions. To much fear/paranoia in the media, politics and the public, so the public is scared and feels they need them(see Bowling for Columbine for MM's 'Fear Hypothesis' on why we love our guns and will never let them go).

The founding Fathers and the rifles of their time in “a well regulated militia” is now automatic pistols. As kids we might imagine Cowboys vs. Indians, learn about the plucky Revolutionary War citizen soldier and play army. Other countries introduced private gun ownership much later than the US did and it wasn’t part of their creation or founding myth. As such I don’t think we’ll ever get rid of guns in the US. It is a cost and likely worth it to keep them, I certainly won’t argue otherwise. Please don’t muddle the issue thou saying removing guns wouldn’t reduce deaths, it would.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur-crime-murders

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


http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/?page=women

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200701040006

marooko
06-30-2008, 07:56 PM
im gonna go ahead and guess the first murder was not done with a gun. guns or not, people are gonna kill other people. why are so many of you not as adamant about tougher drug laws? lemme guess, because the poor people have a problem and we need to help them. its sooo sad. fuck off. go OD, but before you do, shoot your junkie friend as well.

Hawkings
06-30-2008, 08:25 PM
im gonna go ahead and guess the first murder was not done with a gun. guns or not, people are gonna kill other people. why are so many of you not as adamant about tougher drug laws? lemme guess, because the poor people have a problem and we need to help them. its sooo sad. fuck off. go OD, but before you do, shoot your junkie friend as well.


but it certainly makes it harder. Less mass murders with knives, harder to look a someone and slowly do something, at a stop light, during a crime, drive by, robbery, in rage at family member, etc... people would be willing to shoot a criminal dead but far less likely to do something more personal after they subdued them. Do you really not see any difference, that ease of use for which the machine was designed makes it easier to perform. Fully auto wouldn't matter, what about mortars, grenades, legalize them, it's still people that kill people right ? wouldn't increase deaths at all, neither would giving them to people in anger management classes and families referred for domestic violence, 0% increase with availability.

The distance and quickness of the action doesn't make it anymore likely at all ? If you actually had a gun (maybe you did) handy during your 3 stabbling attempts that didn't work out would you have killed someone, that didn't need to die, ending or ruining your life and theirs ? Your example alone prevented 3 murders or serious injuries. Go ahead own a gun, get 20 and defend America but why is it hard to consider the possibility there is a price for this freedom. Then we can argue if its worth it. 12-16k a year isn't that many in a country of 280 million, far less than smoking related deaths, auto accidents, etc...

By the way drugs are typically used by people on themselves so different argument. If you don't think drugs are good, great don't take them. Want to argue to ban them, fine, knock yourself out. Note i'm not really worked up by the much higher suicide rate with prevelance of guns http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_re_us/gun_deaths_suicide;_ylt=AgYLA.eha_lzvVFGcgwKbPG9j7 AB.

Offending gun lobby can cost you and election, it's in our constitution, in our traditions, too many of them already, we'll never get rid of them, it's a non issue, not quite sure where the F!$! junkies hope you die stuff came from. Freedom of speech ok, along with 2nd ammendment but not differences of opinions ?

Why are you personally so into guns ? I wasn't raised around them, fired a pistol a few times when camping and target practice but don't have a personal affinity. Home has been robbed, grandparents several times but no violent assaults. So I am not invested in them. Were you raised around them ? Worry about tyranny or foreign occupation, been personally a victim of violent crime and feel empowered by them ? Hunter or live in area with dangerous wildlife that worries handgun limits would carry over to rifles ? none of the above ?

marooko
07-01-2008, 06:52 AM
why are you so against guns? what if there were no guns and the murder weapon of choice was a knife, you gonna ban those too?

Hawkings
07-01-2008, 07:24 AM
i'm not really so against guns. I think most 1st world nations have stricter laws and do fine. If we didn't have private hand gun ownership less people would die so it just seems like a national health issue. Hand guns aren't necessary for hunting and I think the we would be safer with them off the street and homes, but it's impractical given our traditions in the US, peoples views about firearms in the US, the sheer numbers and political realities. The firearms deaths are an acceptable part of the US, 3-4 per 10k murders per year over similar countries (1-2 per 10k vs. 5 per 10k). Much more important issues are Foreign Policy, the shrinking of the middle class, energy policy, 10 trillion national debt, trade deficit, capital flight, etc...

As I said I wasn't raised around them so it's easier for me to dismiss them, to me it's an abstract issue of looking at costs and benifit. I don't see people having items designed to kill as being important or relavent in a modern nation but life experiences could always change this. I think the fundamental disagreement is whether the fact they make it easier to kill someone is at least part of why we have many times higher murder rate of any comparable Western Nations. Again if you, in your personal example of having tried to knife 3 people, once when 14, presumably when upset, had a gun instead, would you have shot them ? Lethality and availability have absolutely no bearing on murders ?

ah well these discussions turn solipsist anyways, I'll try to stick to non-political topics, your thread was just timely and thought provoking. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

marooko
07-01-2008, 07:38 AM
to answer a couple earlier questions, i was never raised around guns. and personal attacks, not anymore frequent than anyone else who grew up on fairly mean streets. i dont feel empowered by them, i feel its a right people wanna take away, and i dont agree with that.

as for making it easier to kill, well thats obvious, thats why i never addressed that part of anyones argument, its a non-argument. of coarse it makes it easier. anything you use to kill someone besides your hands is usually used because it makes it easier. what do we do with that stuff, go down the line and start banning them?

and if i had a gun when i tried to knife someone at 14, no, i wouldnt have used it. i dont see guns as a murder weapon. i also dont see knives as a murder weapon, its just my weapon of choice.

now if someone broke in to my house, yes, i would unload a clip before i pull out my knife. and really, thats dependent on how far each of them are from me.

i agree hunting isnt necessary anymore, but does that mean we should ban it because it usually involves guns? or just because it isnt nice. many people save a lot of money doing that, they eat what they catch. i dont see the problem with that.

we just disagree, im ok with that. are you?

Hawkings
07-01-2008, 07:48 AM
we just disagree, im ok with that. are you?

of course. Are you against all gun limits and laws ? Most countries allow hunting rifles and not handguns, so hunting isn't so much of the issue. You wouldn't need to go very far down the line of banning weapons, because the lethality/distance (distance creates more detachment from the violence) of guns is what makes them so much worse than knives, swords or whatever. Many people do things when upset or desperate, the availability of handguns makes these encounters more lethal. Based on comparisons with similar societies I would think availability of handguns plays at least some role in our larger number suicides, gun accidents and murders. It sounds like you view it as a fundamental right that you wouldn't want infringed upon, which is fine. I think our society might be safer without them, but it is not something that impacts us as much as pocketbook issues, healthcare or whatver. It's a trade off. It's not a fundamental right in, to name a few, Australia, England, Japan, France, and as such it is possible to envision life without them. I know someone that was assulted and very seriously injured during a robbery, he didn't feel safe at home. He got a gun and feels much more secure. Others I know have them due to fears of civil unrest and for self protection.

marooko
07-01-2008, 08:13 AM
im generally a paranoid person, my gun makes me feel safer as well. my house was broken in to a few months ago, my handgun was stolen, if its found that gun was used illegally and the person is busted, im all for extremely strict penalties. when i came home and noticed my door was kicked in, it was pretty nerve racking. the first thing i thought of was my gun and the possibility that someone was in there with it, right now. i busted out my knife and ran inside. figured one of wasnt walking out. i dont have children and children dont come to my home, so it wasnt locked up. it was in the storage container under my bed, but it wasnt locked. even if it was, the box was small enough to just grab and leave with.

as for hunting rifles, im not gonna argue myself. ill just say some of the most well know murders were committed with rifles.

as for people acting out of desperation, they just need help. and need to suffer the consequences on their actions. i just dont like the idea of banning, blocking or outlawing things all the time. because some people choose to misuse these things. they should be punished severely IMO.

marooko
07-01-2008, 08:18 AM
by the way, i like this discussion. mainly because you dont seem to be a dick and looking down from your high horse like many on here.

Hawkings
07-01-2008, 09:24 AM
hehe, yeah not to bad a discussion. Closest i came to intruder was along time ago coming home and TV was on the ground, drawers opened, etc.. I was confused then realized must be an intruder and went for my baseball bat, it turned out they took off through a window they had come in through. When i delivered pizzas a fair amount of the drivers had them under their seats which i thought was kind of intense. I think police organizations might not like motorists being allow to have firearms in passenger compartment. One of the people i know with a gun, kinda casually, had a gun literally because he feared class warfare after the LA Riots.

marooko
07-01-2008, 09:34 AM
did you have any trouble sleeping after the intrusion? i took it pretty hard. mainly the invasion of privacy, i was fucking pissed. then for several weeks after, i couldnt sleep right, just waiting to hear someone trying to get in. sucked. not really scared, just mad. like Chuck Norris, i was just waiting.

Hawkings
07-01-2008, 10:08 AM
i think i was ok but had nightmares for a while and was really mad, if I saw the person would have freaked me out alot more. Hard to remember thou, was probably 15 years ago.

paganman7
07-01-2008, 10:39 AM
Although I support tougher gun laws, and would not be sad if they completely disappeared, I read two stories this morning that would seem to dispute many claims that anti-gun people (myself included) have made over the years.

First, a man in China walked into a police station, and killed 5 cops...with a knife.

Second, a study was recently published which concluded that half of all gun-related deaths are suicides.

While I'm still pretty anti-gun, I have to be open, and consider compelling stories such as these, even if they are contrary to my beliefs (I am a scientist after all!)

RotationSlimWang
07-01-2008, 11:03 AM
Well, I mean if one guy in China did it, then by all means change your entire opinion.

marooko
07-01-2008, 11:05 AM
Although I support tougher gun laws, and would not be sad if they completely disappeared, I read two stories this morning that would seem to dispute many claims that anti-gun people (myself included) have made over the years.

First, a man in China walked into a police station, and killed 5 cops...with a knife.

Second, a study was recently published which concluded that half of all gun-related deaths are suicides.

While I'm still pretty anti-gun, I have to be open, and consider compelling stories such as these, even if they are contrary to my beliefs (I am a scientist after all!)

thing is, they'll never disappear. they'll just be taken from the people who use them responsibly. the people that posses them, acquire them, and use them illegally, guess what, they'll still have them.

chairmenmeow47
07-01-2008, 12:04 PM
you couldn't be more wrong, lisa. if i didn't have this gun, the king of england could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. *pushes lisa* do you want that? *pushes her harder* huh?! do ya?!

*shoots submit reply button*

marooko
07-01-2008, 12:14 PM
who's lisa?

paganman7
07-01-2008, 12:27 PM
Well, I mean if one guy in China did it, then by all means change your entire opinion.


Fuck off twat.

I'm pretty sure I said explicitly that I still maintain my original position. For a reasonably bright guy, you possess the reading comprehension skills of a hillbilly with a chromosomal abnormality.

chairmenmeow47
07-01-2008, 12:32 PM
who's lisa?

*shakes head* marooko, you're slackin on your pimpin!!!

go watch an episode of the simpsons called "the cartridge family" and get back to me. one of my absolute favourites :)

marge, i have a surprise for you...

http://ivy.aholic.us/gallery/d/653200-2/homer_gun.jpg?g2_GALLERYSID=d24f2652d10ae3664baa04 c329e3da20

marooko
07-01-2008, 12:37 PM
oh shit. ima haffa do dat.

edit: after some thought, i remember hearing that clip dropped on a radio show, but i havent seen the episode.

Roadkillhighway951
07-01-2008, 01:28 PM
guns dont kill people, the bullets do
guns dont kill people, people with small penises kill people

RotationSlimWang
07-01-2008, 01:50 PM
Fuck off twat.

I'm pretty sure I said explicitly that I still maintain my original position. For a reasonably bright guy, you possess the reading comprehension skills of a hillbilly with a chromosomal abnormality.

For a reasonably bright pagan (read: fairly stupid) you possess a remarkable ability to ignore the fact that a man with a knife probably couldn't kill very many cops had said cops had guns to shoot his ass with.

paganman7
07-01-2008, 01:58 PM
For a reasonably bright pagan (read: fairly stupid) you possess a remarkable ability to ignore the fact that a man with a knife probably couldn't kill very many cops had said cops had guns to shoot his ass with.



Holy hell you bore the shit out of me.

You try to attack me by saying that I was so malleable as to change my stance on gun control based on a single story. Then, once you realized that you were wrong and my position had not actually changed, you start attacking my actual stance.

Honestly homie, you just like to argue, don't you?

RotationSlimWang
07-01-2008, 02:30 PM
Apparently you're not particularly familiar with hyperbole.



I have a news article about a man who killed 6 Mounties with hyperbole once.

marooko
07-01-2008, 02:55 PM
mounties dont even count, so your story is irrelevant.

Heresy
07-01-2008, 03:32 PM
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2008/06/666990/firearmsbear.jpg

marooko
07-01-2008, 06:13 PM
I'm great at killing good threads dead. We could be the perfect forum-killing team.

apparently you didnt kill it, you just put it to sleep. stay away.

woogie846
07-01-2008, 06:46 PM
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/2008/06/666990/firearmsbear.jpg

Woah! That's a crazy picture!

marooko
07-02-2008, 07:48 AM
i was watching 30 days last night (or whatever its called) and it just so happened to be about guns. ive never watched the show, but i had to check this out. a lady who was way anti gun went to stay with a family who was in to guns and the dad owned a gun shop i think. they went to shoot clay discs and when she fired the gun, she immediately started crying. i immediately started laughing. it was wonderful. turned out pretty good though because i think they each got a good perspective of the others views and opinions. might have to watch that show again.

prettydirtything
07-07-2008, 11:24 AM
front page of the Washington Post web site right now.... I lol'd.

Turning the Gun on Ourselves (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602118.html?hpid=topnews)
Study finds people who own guns are more likely to use them for suicide than for self-defense.

Key line for me that implies gun controls reduce violent acts:

"Overwhelmingly, the research suggests suicide is usually an act of impulsive desperation -- an impulse that passes. Most people who survive suicide attempts do not go on to kill themselves later on. "Gun owners are no more likely than non-gun-owners to be suicidal. But within the window of a mad impulse, people who have lethal means at their disposal are much more likely to kill themselves than those who lack such means."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602118.html?hpid=topnews

marooko
07-07-2008, 11:59 AM
front page of the Washington Post web site right now.... I lol'd.

Turning the Gun on Ourselves (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602118.html?hpid=topnews)
Study finds people who own guns are more likely to use them for suicide than for self-defense.

Key line for me that implies gun controls reduce violent acts:

"Overwhelmingly, the research suggests suicide is usually an act of impulsive desperation -- an impulse that passes. Most people who survive suicide attempts do not go on to kill themselves later on. "Gun owners are no more likely than non-gun-owners to be suicidal. But within the window of a mad impulse, people who have lethal means at their disposal are much more likely to kill themselves than those who lack such means."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602118.html?hpid=topnews

that doesnt really say anything.

menikmati
07-07-2008, 12:22 PM
you can just hang yourself with an electrical cord, or a hose, or a sheet...you don't need a gun.

marooko
07-07-2008, 12:29 PM
thats what i was thinking.

marooko
07-07-2008, 12:32 PM
or a belt. ala Bob.

"Bob"

I had a friend that took a belt, took a belt and hung himself
Hung himself in the doorway of the apartment where he lived
His woman and his little bro came home from the grocery store
Only to find him dangling in the apartment where he lived

I had a friend who shaved his head
Put his Doctor Martins on
And drew such wondrous pictures in the apartment where he lived
He praised my creativity, though he spoke sarcastically
Oh, the conversations in the apartment where he lived

I had a friend that took a belt, took a belt and hung himself
Hung himself in the doorway of the apartment where he lived
Rock, she thought him spiteful; Ler, he thought him pitiful
Me, I've never been back to the apartment where he lived

MissingPerson
07-07-2008, 01:10 PM
Uh... okay, I can post in detail about this one too, but I think I might just creep everybody out again.

MissingPerson
07-07-2008, 01:15 PM
To elaborate - my dad's job puts him in the position of First Responder, basically if you die suddenly or are nonfatally injured anywhere in a few dozen mile radius, there's a good chance he'll get there before the paramedics do. Before the lawyers, even.

Anyway, generally speaking, there's two different suicide categories. Guys who do it with a belt or carbon monoxide whatever tend to have thought about it a lot, and decided they want to die so much that the pain's worth it. GSW suicides are quicker, and do tend to lean towards the impulse category. Drunks etc.

shakermaker113
07-07-2008, 01:37 PM
that doesnt really say anything.

yes it does. see MissingPerson's post above.

marooko
07-07-2008, 02:20 PM
no one on the pro gun side is arguing that guns dont make death easier.

shakermaker113
07-07-2008, 02:36 PM
no one on the pro gun side is arguing that guns dont make death easier.

but there are a lot of arguments saying that restricting guns won't reduce the death rate. the above references to gun related suicides suggest otherwise.

marooko
07-07-2008, 02:43 PM
suggest

there is no sure way to tell. the only way to surely tell is to remove all guns, which will never happen.

shakermaker113
07-07-2008, 02:52 PM
there is no sure way to tell. the only way to surely tell is to remove all guns, which will never happen.

have you really run out of better arguments?

marooko
07-07-2008, 02:56 PM
thats your argument, not mine. im pro gun. what else you got?

shakermaker113
07-07-2008, 03:12 PM
thats your argument, not mine. im pro gun. what else you got?

"there is no sure way to tell" was my argument? funny, it sounded like you were saying that.

marooko
07-07-2008, 03:18 PM
i figured you would say that.


but there are a lot of arguments saying that restricting guns won't reduce the death rate.

this is where i was going with that.

shakermaker113
07-07-2008, 05:46 PM
this is where i was going with that.

oh. that wasn't my argument, that was me trying to paraphrase some of the pro-gun arguments. let me try and put it more clearly. you said:


no one on the pro gun side is arguing that guns dont make death easier.

I agree with that. BUT a lot of the pro gun arguments have argued that restricting gun use won't help. I don't agree with that, we've seen no evidence to suggest it's true, and the recent references suggest otherwise.

marooko
07-08-2008, 06:49 AM
this again? whether or not its your argument, your bringing it up. my rebuttal was mentioned above. you asked if thats all i had, and im essentially, asking the same thing.

shakermaker113
07-08-2008, 07:43 AM
your rebuttal was "we will never know". if that's your strongest argument, I'm certainly not going to be convinced.

marooko
07-08-2008, 07:53 AM
im not trying to convince you. its a simple fact. we cant go back in time. we'll never get rid of all guns.

shakermaker113
07-08-2008, 07:57 AM
sure. alright. fair point. I thought you might have actually been trying to contribute to the conversation. but I guess not.

marooko
07-08-2008, 08:03 AM
contributing to a conversation is different that trying to convince someone. im all for conversation, but im not trying to convince people to think like i do. you're your own person, who am i to change that? i can agree to disagree. we just dont see eye to eye on this. its come down to the argument that there wouldnt be as many murders if there werent any guns. yes, studies "suggest" this, but there is "no" sure way to tell. you're(not you) just not gonna get rid of all the guns in any one place. on top of that, im gonna guess the majority of guns used in murders are acquired illegally. do you really think thats gonna stop if they take away my gun? its like when they make big pot busts here in cali. yeah, sales and trafficking slow down, but they sure as hell dont stop. on top of that, they always go back to normal. same with meth. same with crack. these things are done illegally. im not saying we shouldnt fight any of it., but to think one can stop it......insanity.

TomAz
07-08-2008, 10:38 AM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

You can extend this logic beyond guns, you know. I insist on the right to bear nuclear arms!

TomAz
07-08-2008, 10:47 AM
Yes I know what you right wing gun nuts will say. You will say "weapons of mass destruction are different from guns. They're designed to kill thousands of people." Yeah. so what? They're a more efficient way of killing. Just like guns are more efficient than baseball bats.

If you think it should be illegal for a person to have his own stockpile of nukes, then you agree with this premise: there is a line, somewhere. At some point, you cross the line from personal rights into public endangerment. In the case of nukes, the greater public good takes precedence over any personal right.

What about tanks (with live ammunition)? Should it be legal for individual citizens to own armored artillery? Fighter jets?

handguns are just a point in the continuum. You can say "people kill people" all you want, but I find it unpersuasive, myself.

allyjoy
07-08-2008, 10:58 AM
I want a tank

reverb
07-08-2008, 11:07 AM
http://foetusized.org/cdimages/guns-fr2.jpg

marooko
07-08-2008, 11:08 AM
Yes I know what you right wing gun nuts will say. You will say "weapons of mass destruction are different from guns. They're designed to kill thousands of people." Yeah. so what? They're a more efficient way of killing. Just like guns are more efficient than baseball bats.

If you think it should be illegal for a person to have his own stockpile of nukes, then you agree with this premise: there is a line, somewhere. At some point, you cross the line from personal rights into public endangerment. In the case of nukes, the greater public good takes precedence over any personal right.

What about tanks (with live ammunition)? Should it be legal for individual citizens to own armored artillery? Fighter jets?

handguns are just a point in the continuum. You can say "people kill people" all you want, but I find it unpersuasive, myself.

Tom, you can make a better argument than that. That's just silly and you know it. Nukes. Ha.

Edit: The HAO has a bone to pick with RV owners already, what do you think they would say about a jet or atank in your driveway? Come on now.

TomAz
07-08-2008, 11:24 AM
Way to not address the point, mookie.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 11:29 AM
What is the purpose of owning a gun in todays society? I understand the need for them 100 + years ago, but why now?

Has this already been discussed?

TomAz
07-08-2008, 11:30 AM
The right wing gun nuts will tell you that the purpose is to protect oneself from criminals and other violence. That if the rapist or drunk in a bar has to think twice about whether or not you're armed, they are less likely to attempt to do you harm.

I think it's the Charlton Heston syndrome myself -- people compensating for shortcomings in other areas.

chairmenmeow47
07-08-2008, 11:35 AM
What is the purpose of owning a gun in todays society? I understand the need for them 100 + years ago, but why now?

Has this already been discussed?

personal protection.

and i think that's where i draw the line with guns vs. nukes/tanks/rocket launchers, ect.

i don't think that weapons of mass destruction in that sense are necessary for personal protection, whereas i can think of multiple situations where a gun would have saved my ass. not even if i had the gun, but if someone else would have.

i know that's not the best argument, but those are my feelings on it.

Roadkillhighway951
07-08-2008, 11:37 AM
loose lips sinks ships and with a big gun loose lips abound in great numbers

Young blood
07-08-2008, 11:40 AM
personal protection.

and i think that's where i draw the line with guns vs. nukes/tanks/rocket launchers, ect.

i don't think that weapons of mass destruction in that sense are necessary for personal protection, whereas i can think of multiple situations where a gun would have saved my ass. not even if i had the gun, but if someone else would have.

i know that's not the best argument, but those are my feelings on it.

Was it because of the situation you put yourself in or did the situation happen by chance? I see a lot of gun owners putting them in situations where violence may be necessary.

The gun is not the problem its the mental state of the situation that is usually the problem.

EDIT: I should use a different word than "Problem" but for now it stays.

chairmenmeow47
07-08-2008, 11:56 AM
Was it because of the situation you put yourself in or did the situation happen by chance? I see a lot of gun owners putting them in situations where violence may be necessary.

The gun is not the problem its the mental state of the situation that is usually the problem.

EDIT: I should use a different word than "Problem" but for now it stays.

i guess i might have "put myself" in some of the situations; however i was a minor in most of those situations so i'm not sure i knew what i was doing. i wasn't like talkin mad shit to the rival gang or anything, lol. i was just a young, stupid kid who didn't deserve a lot of the stuff that happened to me, rape, being half choked to death by my first friend, being pushed down two seperate flights of stairs, having anti-freeze poured down my throat, ect.... i guess since i was a minor the other minor's wouldn't have had guns either, but i'm just trying to point out that while it's not the wild west anymore, bad stuff still happens and we can't just sit around and hope it goes away.

i'm not saying the gun needs to be pulled out and fired, but if there's a possibility where a criminal could be holding a gun to your head, you should have the right to hold one right back at theirs. i think it's extremely naive to think that guns being illegal would make them go away. it hasn't worked for "absitnence only" education, it hasn't worked for the drug war, and it definitely won't work for this.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 12:05 PM
Violence is a mental illness that needs to be addressed. I agree that there are situations in which guns are "wished" as a necessity. Yes, violence happens everyday but to say guns/violence is the only way to achieve peace is fucking bullshit. Its a farce.

I personally do think guns should be illegal. Its to late to rectify Pandora's box, but if we could understand and change the perceptions and need for violence and anger guns might be a tool of the past.

chairmenmeow47
07-08-2008, 12:08 PM
Violence is a mental illness that needs to be addressed. I agree that there are situations in which guns are "wished" as a necessity. Yes, violence happens everyday but to say guns/violence is the only way to achieve peace is fucking bullshit. Its a farce.

I personally do think guns should be illegal. Its to late to rectify Pandora's box, but if we could understand and change the perceptions and need for violence and anger guns might be a tool of the past.


yeah, if you figure out a way to make people not violent and angry, i'm all for banning guns. till that day, at least give me a fighting chance, lol. i'm a girl. and unless i decide i want to make ultimate fighting a career, you have no idea how hard it is to try to push a man off you until you actually have to try... and fail.

the violence and anger are the problem, but they are also human.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:09 PM
Way to not address the point, mookie.

marookie would have been funnier. you're off today. how about you start with an argument on fully automatic weapons, which we cant have? ie, foreplay. come on tom, you cant just go for the tang right away, lets make out first.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 12:15 PM
I agree its human nature to be pre-wired for violence and anger. Im not discounting that fighting off a "man" is easy, but who's to say that your gun can help you in that situation. It possible that you could let your guard/senses/instinct fail you because you always had your gun close to you and you think you are out of harms way.

I wish i did have the answer to change the thought process of violent people, but I don't, but I also dont think having a gun at your side, is your best protection.

chairmenmeow47
07-08-2008, 12:19 PM
I agree its human nature to be pre-wired for violence and anger. Im not discounting that fighting off a "man" is easy, but who's to say that your gun can help you in that situation. It possible that you could let your guard/senses/instinct fail you because you always had your gun close to you and you think you are out of harms way.

I wish i did have the answer to change the thought process of violent people, but I don't, but I also dont think having a gun at your side, is your best protection.

i agree, i also think that the person could take it from you. i personally know i would probably hesitate, which is why i don't carry a gun.

but if i had kids, i wouldn't hesitate for a second to protect them. i think it should always be used as a last resort. but i'd rather have a gun in my pocket than lint if i'm going to have to throw down with someone, lol.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:22 PM
i would rather throw down than get in a gun fight. but if someone just kicked in my door, be for damn certain im gonna shoot to kill. im not gonna wait the minute for the alarm company to call. the 3-10 mins for the cops to come, or to see if the guy wants to fight or not. ill announce im armed, and if i see movement towards me ill fire. for that situation and for target shooting is why i have a gun. i NEVER get mad and think about my gun. i rarely even think about my gun at all, unless i havent shot it in a month.

menikmati
07-08-2008, 12:22 PM
I've never shot a gun.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 12:24 PM
My number one question for never owning a gun, What if my kids found my gun? Kids snoop they are curious creatures I would never want their blood on my hands.

menikmati
07-08-2008, 12:25 PM
There's a 12 gauge in the closet.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:25 PM
My number one question for never owning a gun, What if my kids found my gun? Kids snoop they are curious creatures I would never want their blood on my hands.

you would be an irresponsible gun owner if it wasnt double locked and the ammunition stored elsewhere. along with that, charges should be filed.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 12:27 PM
you would be an irresponsible gun owner if it wasnt double locked and the ammunition stored elsewhere.

by then the robber has killed you and your kids.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:28 PM
i unlock my gun at night, and i dont have kids. if i ever do have kids, i will have to rethink my gun situation.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 12:29 PM
So what im saying is make tons of money and build a fortress....orrrr understand that life happens, you and your family are more likely to be killed by cancer than some asshole breaking in your house to steal your tv.

chairmenmeow47
07-08-2008, 12:30 PM
you would be an irresponsible gun owner if it wasnt double locked and the ammunition stored elsewhere. along with that, charges should be filed.

also, i would hope that you would at some point edcuate them on gun safety. if you're going to have a gun in the house, everyone should be trained and aware of it's power. my parents had a gun in my house. i knew what it was, i'd fired it, and i knew to stay the fuck away from something that powerful.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:31 PM
also, i would hope that you would at some point edcuate them on gun safety. if you're going to have a gun in the house, everyone should be trained and aware of it's power. my parents had a gun in my house. i knew what it was, i'd fired it, and i knew to stay the fuck away from something that powerful.

definitely a must.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:31 PM
So what im saying is make tons of money and build a fortress....orrrr understand that life happens, you and your family are more likely to be killed by cancer than some asshole breaking in your house to steal your tv.

i cant shoot cancer.

chairmenmeow47
07-08-2008, 12:38 PM
you did but whats to say your kids will do the same? Just because you did doesnt mean they will.

you're right, it doesn't mean they will. but a kid is more likely to properly use a condom if they've been educated than a kid who's never seen one before.

but again, that's why you keep it locked up and educate your kids. a lot of people out here have guns and have kids, so i guess i'm just more used to this. it's not like every family who owns a gun has kids who end up like that idiot on 90210, lol.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:41 PM
Firearms were used in 25.6 percent of the total murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults collectively during 2000. Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) were involved in 31.5 percent of these crimes, and knives or cutting instruments were employed in another 15.0 percent. Other dangerous weapons were used in 27.9 percent of the offenses.

i wish they stated some of the other weapons. haha. this was just my first search. dont have the time to do more.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/cius2000.htm

feel free to look, for or against. any info is good.

RotationSlimWang
07-08-2008, 12:45 PM
What is the purpose of owning a gun in todays society? I understand the need for them 100 + years ago, but why now?

Has this already been discussed?

100 plus years ago? What, there's not evil in the world anymore?

Go ask some Holocaust survivors whether they might have benefited from keeping a shottie in the closet. Personally with the way government in this country seems to be going I'm eagerly anticipating the need to shoot some American military in the fucking head one day. I ain't afraid of other countries, but I'll be goddamned if I want to permit a police state. Arm the civilians and you can always must a revolution if necessary.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:47 PM
i wasnt gonna go get all black helicopter on you guys, but i agree.

chairmenmeow47
07-08-2008, 12:49 PM
i wasnt gonna go get all black helicopter on you guys, but i agree.

what?! i wanna see you go all "black helicopter" just so i know what the fuck you are talking about, lol :rotfl

Young blood
07-08-2008, 12:50 PM
100 plus years ago? What, there's not evil in the world anymore?

Go ask some Holocaust survivors whether they might have benefited from keeping a shottie in the closet. Personally with the way government in this country seems to be going I'm eagerly anticipating the need to shoot some American military in the fucking head one day. I ain't afraid of other countries, but I'll be goddamned if I want to permit a police state. Arm the civilians and you can always must a revolution if necessary.

yeah!!! hitler comes into play! I can always count on you Randy. Teach peace, preach peace, practice peace. My arguments were not for taking away guns its too late for that.

marooko
07-08-2008, 12:54 PM
what?! i wanna see you go all "black helicopter" just so i know what the fuck you are talking about, lol :rotfl

conspiracy.


My arguments were not for taking away guns its too late for that.

then what? srsly.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 12:59 PM
Ignorance will always resort to guns.

marooko
07-08-2008, 01:03 PM
and violence. gun or no gun.

TomAz
07-08-2008, 01:16 PM
Homicide rates in western europe since the middle ages (this has no bearing on anything, but I think it's interesting):

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/111.1/images/monkkonen_fig02a.gif

RotationSlimWang
07-08-2008, 01:19 PM
What the fuck, J? You're being retarded. So your complaint is that there's no reason to own guns but obviously we can't take them away because it's a gun-owning world? Here's an idea: you can live in hundreds of countries in the world where you can't get a gun. In ours you can, and I'm appreciative. You never know when a motherfucker might need to get shot. It happens.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 01:28 PM
What the fuck, J? You're being retarded. So your complaint is that there's no reason to own guns but obviously we can't take them away because it's a gun-owning world? Here's an idea: you can live in hundreds of countries in the world where you can't get a gun. In ours you can, and I'm appreciative. You never know when a motherfucker might need to get shot. It happens.

Way to be retarded and misconstrue my opinion/fact, and turn into your diatribe bullshit. Im happy that if I ever need a gun I can get one too. GOD FUCKIN BLESS AMERICA, but I will never need a gun because its against my mantra. Im better than a gun. I only hope someday we all can be better than needing a gun, we must change our views and outlook on violence and anger, and for you paranoid assholes please get some help.

marooko
07-08-2008, 01:36 PM
paranoia is the black helicopter. reality is the spike in home invasions in my area. that doesnt mean i feel i "need" to have one. i just like it, and am glad i can have one and do have one.

RotationSlimWang
07-08-2008, 01:48 PM
Way to be retarded and misconstrue my opinion/fact, and turn into your diatribe bullshit. Im happy that if I ever need a gun I can get one too. GOD FUCKIN BLESS AMERICA, but I will never need a gun because its against my mantra. Im better than a gun. I only hope someday we all can be better than needing a gun, we must change our views and outlook on violence and anger, and for you paranoid assholes please get some help.

I don't happen to own a gun either. And I would just love it if the world was a peaceful place where nobody wanted to hurt each other. I'd also like it if drugs showed up under my pillow every night and my bed had a vagina. What the fuck is your point?

marooko
07-08-2008, 01:51 PM
I'd also like it if drugs showed up under my pillow every night and my bed had a vagina.

in theory this would be wonderful. in reality i dont know if i would get out of bed. wouldnt be able to hold a job, pay rent etc. then id be out on the street, possibly with no bed.

Young blood
07-08-2008, 01:58 PM
I don't happen to own a gun either. And I would just love it if the world was a peaceful place where nobody wanted to hurt each other. I'd also like it if drugs showed up under my pillow every night and my bed had a vagina. What the fuck is your point?

My point is, guns are as pointless as arguing with you. They are an unnecessary tool of days gone by.


EDIT: It may be time for hoodit. I hate this fucking debate/topic.

TomAz
07-08-2008, 02:07 PM
http://blogs.chron.com/tmi/SayWBullets.jpg

Newro7ic
07-08-2008, 02:37 PM
My eyes hurt from reading this thread, and for the record, I am pro-gun control, but don't believe they should be banned completely.

The silliest thing I keep reading is that most guns used for committing crimes are probably acquired illegally. If hand guns were banned, or production greatly reduced, there would be less guns to acquire illegally. Point in case, marooko's gone was STOLEN from his house, and has since, most likely, been sold on the street and used in conjunction with a crime.

Less gun production, accompanied by the continued destruction of illegal guns, will greatly reduce the amount of guns available and acquired illegally, and thus reduce the amount used in violent crime.

That's just logic.

marooko
07-08-2008, 02:59 PM
until another way is found. also, the way my gun was acquired illegally is not the only way. a show i was watching, which was stated earlier(the show itself) was giving statistics on how guns were acquired by illegal means(not stated earlier), the majority were from illegal transactions at gun stores. also as stated earlier, yes, the usage and acquisition of guns illegally would be reduced if banned. until another way to acquire them was found. you think the rest of the world is gonna stop making guns?

RotationSlimWang
07-08-2008, 03:05 PM
My point is, guns are as pointless as arguing with you. They are an unnecessary tool of days gone by.


EDIT: It may be time for hoodit. I hate this fucking debate/topic.

Okay, what I don't get is the "days gone by" shit. What fucking day was the day of guns when now isn't, exactly?

Newro7ic
07-08-2008, 03:15 PM
until another way is found. also, the way my gun was acquired illegally is not the only way. a show i was watching, which was stated earlier(the show itself) was giving statistics on how guns were acquired by illegal means(not stated earlier), the majority were from illegal transactions at gun stores. also as stated earlier, yes, the usage and acquisition of guns illegally would be reduced if banned. until another way to acquire them was found. you think the rest of the world is gonna stop making guns?

I don't think anyone has ever argued that gun control would completely remove gun violence from the equation. It's about reducing the amount of violence. It's always been about reduction. As said by someone in this thread previously, Pandora's Box has already been opened and cannot be closed. It's about doing everything possible to improve the situation.

I have not devoted my life to finding a solution, and I wish I could say that I leave it to the more capable people of the world to do so... unfortunately, the people that should be capable (the ones who "run" the show around here), are completely incompetent at every turn. If anyone had an easy solution, or even a half way decent solution, I hope that people would be open to listening. Instead people try to argue their "God" given right to arms.

There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Some very good, and others very bad. I think both sides need to give a little, but by no means are we anywhere close to a middle ground. The U.S. has been run by the far right for far too long to say otherwise. I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

Sorry, that last bit of tangent is neither here nor there. Continue on with the endless argument.

marooko
07-08-2008, 03:20 PM
I don't think anyone has ever argued that gun control would completely remove gun violence from the equation. It's about reducing the amount of violence. It's always been about reduction. As said by someone in this thread previously, Pandora's Box has already been opened and cannot be closed. It's about doing everything possible to improve the situation.

I have not devoted my life to finding a solution, and I wish I could say that I leave it to the more capable people of the world to do so... unfortunately, the people that should be capable (the ones who "run" the show around here), are completely incompetent at every turn. If anyone had an easy solution, or even a half way decent solution, I hope that people would be open to listening. Instead people try to argue their "God" given right to arms.

There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Some very good, and others very bad. I think both sides need to give a little, but by no means are we anywhere close to a middle ground. The U.S. has been run by the far right for far too long to say otherwise. I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

Sorry, that last bit of tangent is neither here nor there. Continue on with the endless argument.

yeah, because only the right wingers bear arms.

im not trying to say it would eliminate gun violence, or anyone is implying that. im actually agreeing that it would reduce violent crimes with guns....until another way to acquire them is found.

Newro7ic
07-08-2008, 03:33 PM
yeah, because only the right wingers bear arms.

im not trying to say it would eliminate gun violence, or anyone is implying that. im actually agreeing that it would reduce violent crimes with guns....until another way to acquire them is found.

The right winger thing wasn't entirely a jab at bearing arms, it was just a jab at the getting things moving in any sort of reasonable direction for the 21st century. Hence the neither here nor there comment. I know plenty of people on the left who love their right to bear arms. That's fine by me.

And yes, another way to acquire them will be found, but at least the market won't be flooded with them, as is the case now.

We can go back and forth and say "but this", "until that", "unless this"... There's no denying that the amount of production, accompanied by strict controls and the destruction of all arms recovered by police, or your agency of choice, wouldn't help reduce violent crimes by guns, and most likely violent crimes as a whole.