Gun Control

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Rok @ Apr 17 2007, 07:39 PM) </div><div class='quotemain'>It's bull in that there will never be no guns. There will always be guns, you give some person the right materials and you got yourself a gun. And with gun control, it still doesn't stop such things as happening. There are ways to getting around gun control. And sh*t like this shooting will continue to happen. People just need to realize that.</div>I never said there would ever be a situation with no guns, but by banning guns then you would begin to see a severe drop off in murders and gun crime. You can get guns in the UK too, but with them being illegal its a lot harder and you see them used less.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I never said there would ever be a situation with no guns</div>I know you didn't, I did.
 
That's besides the point. But, at least making guns illegal or making it more strict to get one, we may catch some people trying to get guns illegally which would at least prevent some killings (could be me, or you)...
 
Drugs are illegal, yet the drug problem in this country is rediculas. Drugs still get passed ICE, they still make they way onto the streets, and drug users still get them. if Guns were to be banned, we'd see the exact same thing. the black market for them would cause them to still be entered into our country, and they'd still be a problem. I agree that we need to get the illegal guns off the street, because those are the guns which cause problems. the people who hunt, and use their weapons for protection do not buy black market guns because those usually come with a bad history, and those people who hunt usually want the top notched in weaponary, you're not going to get that in a gun you buy off the street usually.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Apr 17 2007, 08:52 PM) </div><div class='quotemain'>if Guns were to be banned, we'd see the exact same thing. the black market for them would cause them to still be entered into our country, and they'd still be a problem.</div>Then please tell me why there are not as many gun murders in countries that they are illegal in?Of course there would still be a problem but it would be drastically reduced.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Milgod @ Apr 17 2007, 02:58 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Then please tell me why there are not as many gun murders in countries that they are illegal in?</div> I'm guessing most of the countries your referring to are European countries. I'll be willing to bet that they don't have half of our population of poor/violent minorities....which here are a majoy percentage of crime. I'll be willing to bet most of the European countries don't have anything close to our gang problems, also mainly involving minorities. Obviously gun murders would be lowered with those kind of gun laws in the US....but I think we have more of a problem to begin with than those countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Then please tell me why there are not as many gun murders in countries that they are illegal in?Of course there would still be a problem but it would be drastically reduced.</div>Many of those countries are small so their borders are easier to secure, others also don't report the correct number of violent homicides that take place in their country. France and Spain are both guilty of doctoring their crime statistics, I remember about 12 years ago there was a huge uproar about it in France. Those countries also don't have the assclown members of the media like we do in the US, who report every little thing weather it's important or not. than there is the population differnce. the US has over 300 million people, third to Chinas 2 billion and Indians 1 1/2 billion(Just so you know I'm rounding these numbers). With that many people you're going to have much more crime. China is a totaltarian state which pretty much has an iron grip on it's citizens, which does prevent a lot of the violence; but I don't think thats a fair trade off. India is ravaged with crime, it just doesn't get the news coverage that crime does in the US.
 
Look at the facts.

As of 2000, Florida ranked #4 in population but ranked #21 in suicides. Since the right-to-carry law was enacted in Florida the following changes occured. The homicide rate dropped 36%, firearm homicides dropped 37%, and handgun homicides dropped 41%. In the ten states that adopted right-to-carry laws the results were: * "no change in the suicide rate * a 0.5% rise in accidental firearm deaths * 5% decline in rapes * 7% decline in aggravated assaults * 8% decline in murder and * 845 fewer multiple victim public shootings.."[/quote]
"Approximatey 11% of gun owners and 13% of handgun owners have used their firearms for protection from criminals at the rate of about 760,000 times a year." "There are also two million defensive gun uses per year.""After Washington DC enacted their hand gun ban their homicide rate rose 200% while the overall U.S. rate only rose 12%." "Of the 6.3 million violent crimes of rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault only 8% involved firearms.""For decades the U.S. Dept of Justice's Crime Victimization Survey has shown that resistance with a gun is by far the safest course of action when one is confronted by a criminal. The probability of serious injury from a criminal confrontation is 2.5 times greater for women offering no resistance than resisting with a gun."
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."20 * 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."21 * 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."22
* Washington, D.C. has, perhaps, the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.* Objection: Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.* Answer: Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas. The murder rates are:
Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.15* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.
Nationwide. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed: * States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;12 and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.
Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2* Of the 2.5 million self-defense cases, as many as 200,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.3* Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).4 And readers of Newsweek learned in 1993 that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The "error rate" for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."5* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
. England and Canada's murder rates were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates. 1142. The murder rates in England, Canada and Japan have risen tremendously since passing their gun control laws.115 And most crime rates in England have now surpassed the rates in the U.S.: * In 1998, a study conducted by a British professor and a U.S. statistician found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study that was published by the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ). "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double America's."116 * The murder rate in the United States is higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years."117 3. United States: Take away the guns, and there is still more murder. United States' NON-GUN murder rate is higher than the TOTAL murder rates in England, Canada or Japan.118 In other words, Americans kill each other more often with weapons other than guns -- such as with knives, fists and feet. * It is absurd to claim that the U.S. has more murders because it has more guns. If one were to "magically" make every gun disappear in the U.S., the hard fact is that Americans would still kill each other-without guns-more often than the citizens of England, Canada or Japan kill each other will ALL types of weapons. * The problem is not the type of weapons used, but rather, the failure in America to keep violent criminals off the street. (See point 2 under Myth #2 above.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know of anyone, EVER, who has used a gun to protect their own lives.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Captain @ Apr 16 2007, 12:40 PM) </div><div class='quotemain'>Oh bullcrap. This isn't a gun issue. It's why the H-E Double hockey sticks was there no precautionary measures after the first killing?"Okay, there is someone dead and the killer is on the loose. Should we issue a lockdown?""No, I don't think so. Let's just continue like normal and maybe he'll go away."And wouldn't you think if teachers were allowed to have a gun in the classroom, that they could have taken out this animal before so many died?Dennis Prager said it best.</div>It is a gun issue...would he get 31 people with a knife...? No. Maybe 2.I feel bad. It's like starting this thread made it happen just to prove a point.Edit: Nevermind. I didn't have cable yesterday so I'm way behind and won't bother with this. But if there was gun control I doubt students at schools would get guns so easily. I don't think Columbine or VT would've happened with those laws or else it would have been limited.And with gun control laws you wouldn't have to worry about the high school gangstas pulling out their daddy's gun if you look at them funny. What a coincidence, there's a bomb or shooting threat at our school on Friday. It was all over the news. Should be fun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Apr 17 2007, 08:16 PM) </div><div class='quotemain'>It is a gun issue...would he get 31 people with a knife...? No. Maybe 2.I feel bad. It's like starting this thread made it happen just to prove a point.Edit: Nevermind. I didn't have cable yesterday so I'm way behind and won't bother with this. But if there was gun control I doubt students at schools would get guns so easily. I don't think Columbine or VT would've happened with those laws or else it would have been limited.And with gun control laws you wouldn't have to worry about the high school gangstas pulling out their daddy's gun if you look at them funny. What a coincidence, there's a bomb or shooting threat at our school on Friday. It was all over the news. Should be fun.</div>Gun control would do crap here. A college kid, perfect record, had ID, did a background check. Maybe he would have to wait 5 more days. Big whoop.Did you even read the above facts on gun control?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MaRdYC26 @ Apr 17 2007, 06:57 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I don't know of anyone, EVER, who has used a gun to protect their own lives.</div>And you are the all powerful knower? I could dig up countless articles of self-defense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if you could get a gun anyway with a clean record then why are you against gun control?
 
If you take away guns, people are still going to use them. Drugs are illegal, people use them.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Apr 17 2007, 07:47 PM) </div><div class='quotemain'>Well if you could get a gun anyway with a clean record then why are you against gun control?</div>Slam the hammer down. What ARE you hiding, captain?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Camby23Land @ Apr 17 2007, 10:19 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>If you take away guns, people are still going to use them. Drugs are illegal, people use them.</div>That's why it's called CONTROL. So LESS people use them. I'm sure thousands more americans would do pot everyday if there wasn't a chance they'd get nailed by the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ASUFan22 @ Apr 17 2007, 09:47 PM) </div><div class='quotemain'>Well if you could get a gun anyway with a clean record then why are you against gun control?</div>I'm not totally.I like harsher penalties.A waiting period wouldn't be so bad.I want better background checks.I just don't like the extreme parts of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Apr 18 2007, 01:30 AM) </div><div class='quotemain'>That's why it's called CONTROL. So LESS people use them. I'm sure thousands more americans would do pot everyday if there wasn't a chance they'd get nailed by the law.</div>If someone is going to use the guns for harm they're willing to get their guns off the black market. Accidents are usually cause by hunters or people using them for protection with good enough backgrounds.Even with gun control it will not do anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why can't we live in a world without guns and war?

Think thousands of years ago, when there was no technology and there was no war. I'm not talking about the dark ages when there were swords and shields, I mean WAY back. Why can't we go back to living like that? It was a much simpler time without all this mass genocide and war that kill so many. There was no school but they obviously didn't all die out, where else did we come from? They learned everything from life, not a learning institution that takes up so much of precious childhood. Just think, we don't need all this technology. Sure, we couldn't sit around all day wasting away our lives working for some company, wishing that we could be doing what we wanted. Or, we could actually live without a government and live a life of our own, hunting for our own food and REALLY providing for our families. Sometimes, I hope the bombs finally do drop, and we could emerge from the smoke without a government, a need to band together to survive, and a new start. No guns, no war, just think how wonderful it would be. I'm not saying that an object is inherently good or bad, it is just how it is used. A gun could be used to kill a dictator like Hitler, however, it could be used to kill an innocent family in their own home. Honestly tell me you wouldn't want to live in a place like that. We don't need technology that can take us to space. This is our home, not somewhere way out there. If, say, the planet gets struck by a huge ball of rock speeding through space, so be it. Although, I'm surprised it hasn't happened anywhere close to our lifetimes. Another thing that would be extremely well to get rid of is religion. At first glance it seems harmless, but when look at closer, we can see horrific events like the Crusades, 9/11, the list goes on. I'm not saying religion is bad, but the extremists take it much too far. It can also cause polarization such as in India when Gandhi was trying to gain independence from the British. In the end he got his independence but the Muslims and Hindus couldn't stop fighting, so it was split up and they have nuclear weapons of mass destruction aimed at each other. So what I'm really trying to say is, why can't we live in a world without governments, religion, weapons, or anything else except the basic necessities?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Why can't we live in a world without guns and war?

So what I'm really trying to say is, why can't we live in a world without governments, religion, weapons, or anything else except the basic necessities?
This comment reminds me of that terrible movie The Village. If you list what your basic necessities are you will eventually come to the realization that the issues you have with modern times pale in comparison to the problems you'd have in The Village.
 
Is this a real debate?

I had a hard time reading this thread as it seems the quote function didn't seem to be working properly.

However, I will go bury an AK47 in my back yard. You guys let the retards round up all the rest of the guns in this country and see what happens. I will be KING OF THE WORLD!!!!!

Just put cameras everywhere, including in your own house. We have the technology, I mean if the entire goal of civilization is to preserve every human life just put big brother in charge full time.

This is almost as retarded as Obama wanting to rid the world of nuclear weapons. Ain't gonna happen chief. The last country with nukes will be the last country in charge. If Iran had one and nobody else did, they would have to redefine the holocaust and the word genocide just to be able to show how much worse Iran could do it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top