10-03-2006, 02:23 PM | #81 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: The Peoples Republic of Harmfull Free Radicals
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
(Edit: At lithium Why? We're having fun.
I say a police force without guns is just silly (in this country. Maybe it works in countries with less crime) and letting police have guns but not the general public is dangerous. That said I do think the presence of guns makes people take opportunities for violence more often (If you're really pissed and you can kill someone just by pulling the trigger...) and guns in the US should be WAY WAY more restricted. I mean ideally people should just stop commiting crimes so we wouldn't need the police. But realistically I think we should try to put the egg back in the chicken. |
|
10-03-2006, 03:06 PM | #82 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
As far as your "study" goes I would bet that you're not quoting from the study but from a website that is "quoting" from that study instead of reading the study yourself. At it's simplest post a news story of an incident supporting what you're saying. You should be able to find 1000's of stories since the liberal media is as rabidly anti-gun as you are. |
|
|
10-03-2006, 03:10 PM | #83 |
Join Date: May 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
But that doesn't matter, it only takes one instance to disprove a theory.
|
|
10-03-2006, 03:14 PM | #84 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
10-03-2006, 03:26 PM | #85 |
Join Date: May 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Well then, I could also prove that men shouldn't drive either, because there are no shortage of male drivers that do that.
Okay okay, maybe that was a bad point.. That crap works for physics only then. Right now, I still say, if you can't fix people, take away their guns. But that ain't ever gonna happen. You'll never be able to take away every single gun from every single person. The honest people end up getting screwed over. What I'm saying- or what anyone is saying, is just idealistic. They're there. Well, guns still need ammo. So maybe if certain types of ammunition were banned and illegal for purchase by civilians, it would change things. |
|
10-03-2006, 03:31 PM | #86 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Look at the criminalization of alcohol and how "successful" that was. How do you address it? Make the penalties for misuse so steep that people actively avoid actions that would place them in jeopardy of being subject to those penalties. Then you have the problem with lenient Judges...but that's fodder for another pointless thread... |
|
|
10-03-2006, 03:36 PM | #87 | |
A Very Sound Guy!
Fortress Forever Staff
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts Rated Helpful 15 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
10-03-2006, 03:41 PM | #88 |
Join Date: May 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
:P
Making something illegal won't change anything. Like I mean, people are still going to drink. The stuff is still there. But I'm saying, to take it all away, then solve the "problem". Bring it back later- if people are willing to play nice. When that happens, civilians who want guns will have to buy from the police department. Every single gun sold, documented and stamped with serials. Strictly enforce gun registry. Oh, and probably only to people that are farmers. You really don't need a gun in city. There are always bbguns, mace, and baseball bats. I have to admit.. still idealistic at best. I don't think there really is a good way to stop people from killing each other. You wouldn't be able to get rid of every single gun. I guess we could get Magneto to fly over america. But oh, I forgot he was a megalomaniacal power whore. He'd probably give them all to his army, or sell them in the black market. Last edited by o_theres *nothing* here; 10-03-2006 at 03:50 PM. |
|
10-03-2006, 03:44 PM | #89 |
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Washington DC
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
this was in the meat of what i posted before but i do not know how you can get around such a statistic:
a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shooting than to be used in a self-defense shooting. how can you justify that away? http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewreco...&setcookie=yes |
|
10-03-2006, 04:02 PM | #90 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Honestly, I am not asking for that much. If lawfully owned firearms are so dangerous for their owners surely you can find a few news articles about such an incident? |
|
|
10-03-2006, 04:30 PM | #91 | |
Join Date: May 2005
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Well, I've said what I wanted to say. Now I'll let you guys do the talking.
Here's one account, where a man killed his family with a registered gun Quote:
Need to dig. But there's school to go to, so later. |
|
|
10-03-2006, 04:50 PM | #92 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
10-03-2006, 05:31 PM | #93 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Nobody is forced to live in any one country. "zSilver_Fox", AFAIK the first NRA article you posted is pure propaganda due to the fact that the requirement of firearm registration began around 2000, maybe a tiny bit earlier. A little convenient for reports of weapons huh? Being a lawful texan, I think it would be mighty nice to buy a firearm and go bury it out back in case of emergency post apocalyptic events, other than that usage/availability = never/10 minutes of digging. Americans say no to no guns, but I think on the contrary. I believe that getting rid of guns would make fat kids feel like there is no hope for revenge and then they would result in suicide or excercise. You purely just couldn't protect yourself if you were fat and out of shape! Imagine the possibilities of this new approach to making Americans not fat. If you wanna pwn that robber, your gonna hafta do 50 pushups in the morning and 50 pushups at night. Beat that. I personally think barbaric slugfests are much more appealing than the detached ease of dismissal which guns can provide. Did somebody say milk?
Last edited by o_milk; 10-03-2006 at 06:00 PM. |
|
10-03-2006, 05:41 PM | #94 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
I can certainly see the logic in that crimes would decrease in communities that has a lot of households carrying a weapon. This is a result of fear. Fear from the perpetrators that they might be killed during a burglary attempt, fear from the residents that without a gun they are more susceptible to burglaries.
It's the same principle which has kept us safe from nuclear holocaust for many a year. But eventually the balance will get shifted again for the worse. Criminals will get more sophisticated weaponry, use more advanced tactics when performing a burglary etc. It's like an arm's race all over again. |
|
10-03-2006, 05:44 PM | #95 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Why do you guys keep attributing the link SilverFox posted to me? Has reading comprehension been de-emphasized? |
|
|
10-03-2006, 05:47 PM | #96 | ||
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
what that "liberal" media is trying to do is to make it so you can easily digest the research with numbers and figures every layman can understand... heres the research you were asking for:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/12/1988 by the Ameircan Public Health Association which authors the Ameircan Journal of Public Health, and the study in question to which I directly linked to was conducted by Harvard... in which case you can either believe in genuine statistics or your anti-liberal bias in regards to its methods in inquiry, which are outlined with every scientific means possible in their study. and here's an excerpt Quote:
Quote:
yet it should be noted that even after this, I do not expect you to believe the math... you will not believe what you dont want to believe as you have grown to believe in it religiously... and for all the articles and studies linked to in this forum, and your comments on how you can produce 1000 studies to contradict the articles posted, you have yet to produce 1. |
||
|
10-03-2006, 05:51 PM | #97 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
While a very poor parallel look at Counterstrike. Give an experienced player a single pistol and a noob the choice of any weapon he can get his hands on. Place the pistol owner in a defensive posture and have the noob attack with his arsenal. My money is on the pistol owner every time....for many reasons. Granted not all lawful firearms owners practice but some do. So how does a criminal have anyway of knowing that their intended victim is well familiar with their weapon? Not sure what arms race escalation could counter that. |
|
|
10-03-2006, 05:58 PM | #98 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
10-03-2006, 06:04 PM | #99 | ||
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
Quote:
Should I go further? Should I go further into that article and show you the other issues that are flawed? No, 3 pages into this thread and you guys STILL cannot get straight who quoted what here?!?!?! I laid down the gauntlet before. Surely you can show me a list of newspaper articles supporting the danger that a lawfully owned firearm in the home poses to the occupants of that house. Keep it simple. Where are the articles? You guys whine about studies where you don't even read what you're posting nor do you understand it. |
||
|
10-03-2006, 06:05 PM | #100 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Midtown Express
Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times
|
Quote:
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|