Strong Message to all teenage gangsta wanna-be's

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by Hammock

Actually even though I agree with battery, (provided the story is true), I hate guns, espcially hand guns. It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection. If it weren't for the fact the US makes billions manufacturing and selling guns, or that people in "important places" are too easily corruptable to ship illegal guns into the country, or if a person doesn't feel their own government can protect them when they are being "persuaded" by bad people, there wouldn't be as big as a gun problem.

How would criminals have any guns if the government just stops allowing them?

This whole "I need a gun to feel safe cause criminals have guns" theory just blows my mind. But there's too much money involved in outfitting these criminals with guns, and the goverment isn't truly going to stop it, because they're part of it.

*Oh and someone asked why it doesn't seem to be as big a deal up here in Canada as it is down in the US. I believe the #1 reason it isn't is because our Canadian government doesn't make billions a year in gun trade. It's much easier to make a stand against guns when your pocket isn't being filled by the profit from them.

Everyone knows the best guns come from Germany. No one forces us to buy it's our demand that drives the market NOT the other way around. The federal government cannot stop it. People who don't live here or people who live here and try to stop it don't understand the constitution. Or at least take a different interpretation of the amendment. It's not a big deal in other countries because they lack that freedom (or curse depending on your view). I personally see it as a freedom with limitations that can be posed by state regulations, except total public banning. Which would not be constitutional.

[Hammock]

Even with legal trade of guns from foreign countries yields a lot of money for the goverment.

If a government truly wanted to abolish gun crime, they would stop manufacturing guns and boycott all foreign trade of guns.

People always bring up the constitution when talking about their right to own a gun, well that constitution is soo out date it's absurd to keep falling back on that.

I say if you want to keep falling back on that, fine, but it should be regarded then from the time it was written. If you want to own a gun, then you have the right to own a musket.

You say no one forces you to buy guns, true enough, but then again nobody is truly making an attempt to stop the sale of guns either, because there's too much money in it.

It's pretty simple logic actually, no guns = no gun crimes. Obviously no government can stop it completely, especially given the mass amount of guns already out there. But the only people out there that should be allowed guns are hunters, farmers (hunting rifles/shotguns only), and on duty cops. Anyone off duty (miltary or police) shouldn't need to carry one around. And there sure as hell shouldn't be a need for AverageJoe99 living in a 20 story apartment block down town in a city to own/carry a hand gun. The valid reason he can give to owning one, is to "feel safe" why? Cause criminals have guns, why? Cause the government enjoys the profit from legal/illegal sales of guns too much to actually fight the ignorant population that cries "Unconstitutional, when it's even mentioned to out right ban guns".

People who want to own a gun just to own a gun, are just retarded and need to grow a brain and realize they're part of the reason gun crime is soo high, cause if it weren't for them it would be far more difficult for criminals to aquire guns.

It's a vicious circle that you created all on your own, and it would take some pretty powerfull radical people to break that circle, and that's something the world truly lacks in today's age.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

This is from memory so it might not be totally accurate - In Switzerland or Sweden, I can never remember, every adult is technically part of the militia and is required to keep a rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition in their home. They also have one of the highest rates of gun crime per capita in the world. It baffles me that people think having guns everywhere doesn't increase the rate of gun crime.

Actually, it's exactly opposite as you remember. They have the highest rate of gun ownership in the world (per capita, as you said) and they have virtually no gun crime. They require most men or head-of-households to keep a gun in their house, but at the same time, they also train owners properly in the use and storage of a firearm. They do the same thing in places in the US, like Kennesaw, Georgia. Back in the 90's, they passed a town ordinance requiring all head-of-households to keep a gun in their house, even if they didn't intend on using it. Crime rates plummeted.

It's easy for people to hate on guns, but if you really take a deep look at the statistics, they'll show you that guns in American are a net positive.

Some facts, courtesy of justfacts.com:

(Click the link for sources, these are just the facts)

Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13] [14] [15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.

So, basically, guns are used in less than 10% of 'violent crimes', and guns are used in 10,000 murders per year, compared to nearly a million instances per year where guns are used for self-defense. Murders involving guns are tragic, no doubt, but as pointed out, only 60% of murders committed involve the use of guns. In places like England, where guns are outlawed, gun crimes decrease, but violent crime remains steady or the same, and murders/crimes with other objects like knives and blunt weapons increases.

With these facts, I don't see how you could really be that opposed to firearms? After all, if you put a gun in the hands of a 90 pound 5 foot-tall woman, she'd be able to better defend herself from a 200 pound, 6 foot-tall man more effectively than not having a gun. Guns are an equalizer, and on the flipside of the same coin, they are also dangerous. However, it's clear to me that guns, while they hold potential for great damage, are also complicit in making people safer. You can't depend on police, as we learned pretty well this Saturday. The police and EMS took 25 minutes to show up to the rampage on Saturday.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Hammock

Even with legal trade of guns from foreign countries yields a lot of money for the goverment.

If a government truly wanted to abolish gun crime, they would stop manufacturing guns and boycott all foreign trade of guns.

People always bring up the constitution when talking about their right to own a gun, well that constitution is soo out date it's absurd to keep falling back on that.

I say if you want to keep falling back on that, fine, but it should be regarded then from the time it was written. If you want to own a gun, then you have the right to own a musket.

You say no one forces you to buy guns, true enough, but then again nobody is truly making an attempt to stop the sale of guns either, because there's too much money in it.

It's pretty simple logic actually, no guns = no gun crimes. Obviously no government can stop it completely, especially given the mass amount of guns already out there. But the only people out there that should be allowed guns are hunters, farmers (hunting rifles/shotguns only), and on duty cops. Anyone off duty (miltary or police) shouldn't need to carry one around. And there sure as hell shouldn't be a need for AverageJoe99 living in a 20 story apartment block down town in a city to own/carry a hand gun. The valid reason he can give to owning one, is to "feel safe" why? Cause criminals have guns, why? Cause the government enjoys the profit from legal/illegal sales of guns too much to actually fight the ignorant population that cries "Unconstitutional, when it's even mentioned to out right ban guns".

People who want to own a gun just to own a gun, are just retarded and need to grow a brain and realize they're part of the reason gun crime is soo high, cause if it weren't for them it would be far more difficult for criminals to aquire guns.

It's a vicious circle that you created all on your own, and it would take some pretty powerfull radical people to break that circle, and that's something the world truly lacks in today's age.

You're just spewing the most nonsensical propaganda over and over. Sure, if you had the resources to completely stop the production of guns worldwide, you'd see crimes involving GUNS go down. Is this a desirable effect? Well, you can point to places like England, where they are strictly anti-gun (It's a little easier for them, because they're on an island), but since they banned guns, knife crimes have climbed through the roof. I'll try and find an article I read recently, where the Government is urging parents and schools to educate kids about the dangers of knives now.

The simple fact is, the problem isn't GUNS, the problem is CRIME. If someone is going to commit a crime, a gun is merely a tool in the crime. If someone is going to commit pre-meditated assault, and they have no access to a gun, they'll just pick from the wide array of other weapons available to him, from a rock to a pole, to his bare fist. Guns are just convenient. Guns are easily concealable, and they don't require you to be in their face, but again, the only difference between a gun and a crowbar, is convenience. If someone intends to kill you, for whatever reason, being denied access to guns isn't going to stop them. It'll just motivate them to get more up-close and personal with a hard object.

Outlawing guns is like playing whac-a-mole, pure and simple. You *think* you're fixing a problem, when you're really not. Sure, you can draw up a fancy little chart showing that crimes involving the use of a gun are declining, meanwhile overall crime rates are staying the same, or potentially rising, like we've seen in virtually all countries that outlaw guns. It seems you anti-gun people are more afraid of crimes being committed with a gun, than a crime being committed at all. You guys are throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by Hammock

It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection.

Yeah, well that's fallacious; It's wishful thinking. The unfortunate facts are: Crime is inevitable, and criminals will inevitably get their hands on guns. Criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals, so stacking on gun regulations after gun regulations just means robbing the honest man his ability to defend himself legally from those two inevitable facts of life. In short: Be a fucking realist here, Hammock. Please. No more wishful thinking fallacious utopian thoughts. Consider the here and now.

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by Hammock

People always bring up the constitution when talking about their right to own a gun, well that constitution is soo out date it's absurd to keep falling back on that.

People always bring up Socrates and Plato when talking about knowledge and philosophy. Well, those people are soo damn old; it's absurd to keep bringing them up.

Originally Posted by Hammock

I say if you want to keep falling back on that, fine, but it should be regarded then from the time it was written. If you want to own a gun, then you have the right to own a musket.

You're dumb. If you're so content with using computing standards and protocols still in use today that were originally used in the very early days of computing, then you best ditch your desktop or laptop and build a multi-room computer that requires a hole-punched card to perform basic tasks. Seriously, you want to be consistent, right, Hammock?

Originally Posted by Hammock

It's pretty simple logic actually, no guns = no gun crimes. Obviously no government can stop it completely, especially given the mass amount of guns already out there. But the only people out there that should be allowed guns are hunters, farmers (hunting rifles/shotguns only), and on duty cops. Anyone off duty (miltary or police) shouldn't need to carry one around. And there sure as hell shouldn't be a need for AverageJoe99 living in a 20 story apartment block down town in a city to own/carry a hand gun. The valid reason he can give to owning one, is to "feel safe" why? Cause criminals have guns, why? Cause the government enjoys the profit from legal/illegal sales of guns too much to actually fight the ignorant population that cries "Unconstitutional, when it's even mentioned to out right ban guns".

Sure, but no guns is impossible. But, what are you fucking talking about? You say that no guns equal no crime, then you go on to say that a select few should have access to guns. That's great! A monopoly on gun possession! You're a genius, Hammock! An absolute genius!

Originally Posted by Hammock

People who want to own a gun just to own a gun, are just retarded and need to grow a brain and realize they're part of the reason gun crime is soo high, cause if it weren't for them it would be far more difficult for criminals to aquire guns.

CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS. THEREFORE, PASSING LAWS WILL DO NOTHING TO SEVERELY HINDER THEIR ACCESS TO GUNS. The only way to stop gun possession completely is a massive expansion of the State, and to be honest, I'd rather get shot.

Originally Posted by Hammock

It's a vicious circle that you created all on your own, and it would take some pretty powerfull radical people to break that circle, and that's something the world truly lacks in today's age.

It's an inevitable fact of nature.

[GenghisTron]

Originally Posted by Bridget

The unfortunate facts are: Crime is inevitable, and criminals will inevitably get their hands on guns. Criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals, so stacking on gun regulations after gun regulations just means robbing the honest man his ability to defend himself legally from those two inevitable facts of life.

Right. I'm reminded of most interventionists' arguments here on things like economic and political theory. Someone fucks up, and then, WE MUST CREATE LAW TO FIX PROBLEM, but they are focusing on what is seen, and not unseen. Creating laws hurts the small guys, and, unintuitively, protects the big guys. When you regulate the economic markets, you make it harder for smaller guys to compete, because the big guys are able to afford lawyers and accountants to find loopholes (Or they can simply fund their own loopholes by paying off Politicians). The same happens when you outlaw guns (or drugs), you're giving free business to criminals, because by definition, criminals don't follow laws. So making more laws to regulate the activities of criminals seems intuitive, on it's face, but ends up not working.

The simple fact, is that prohibitionism and interventionism never work whenever they're applied. From economic markets, to social problems like guns or drugs, it will never work, despite perceived 'successes' in anomalous examples in some European country, or whatever.

[stray kitten]

It bothers me that people think the constitution is outdated. Especially given the immense power and global reach of the US government. Of course it's easy too think that when you aren't within it's influence.

A side of affect of that freedom and ANY freedom is abuse. Abuse doesn't make documents such as the constitution and bill of rights outdated. And when we as a PEOPLE decide it's outdated we will change it. Not from the federal government prohibiting something but from state intervention.

Until then if you try and rob someone near a convenience store you just might get some crazy fucktard itching to shoot you. They used to call that darwinism.

[GenghisTron]

Yea, I don't understand that either. It's not like the Constitution is esoteric or anything, it's not a primer on internal medicine from 1776 or anything. I mean, saying you disagree with the Constitution is one thing, but saying it's outdated is another. The idea behind it is pretty simple. I'm no Constitutionalist or Conservative, and I think the Constitution is flawed, but I also realize the virtue and the reasoning behind the Founders and their thinking behind our form of Government.

Most people don't even understand the Constitution, or our form of Government. They think that the Constitution is like any other charter, where rights are apportioned to the Government, whereas our Constitution is telling the Government what it can't do. I think it's more ironic than anything when someone from a country that is ruled by a Monarchy says that our form of Government is outdated.

[stray kitten]

I think people put too much weight on the word "conservative".

The media has made "conservative" thinking some evil taboo associated solely with christian fundamentalism and whack job radio hosts. Mostly by whack job fuckstards on MSN etc. By defending the constitution you are conservative by definition. You wish to conserve the ideology of it's original purpose.

[BinaryLife]

Originally Posted by Hammock

Actually even though I agree with battery, (provided the story is true), I hate guns, espcially hand guns. It shouldn't be nescessary to own a gun for protection. If it weren't for the fact the US makes billions manufacturing and selling guns, or that people in "important places" are too easily corruptable to ship illegal guns into the country, or if a person doesn't feel their own government can protect them when they are being "persuaded" by bad people, there wouldn't be as big as a gun problem.

How would criminals have any guns if the government just stops allowing them?

This whole "I need a gun to feel safe cause criminals have guns" theory just blows my mind. But there's too much money involved in outfitting these criminals with guns, and the goverment isn't truly going to stop it, because they're part of it.

*Oh and someone asked why it doesn't seem to be as big a deal up here in Canada as it is down in the US. I believe the #1 reason it isn't is because our Canadian government doesn't make billions a year in gun trade. It's much easier to make a stand against guns when your pocket isn't being filled by the profit from them.

You didn't really respond to my post. I am questioning the fact that the article doesn't make sense, which it doesn't.

More to your point, I believe that "Criminals have guns" is a stupid reason to own a gun as well. In any realistic situation for myself owning a gun wouldn't help me avoid getting shot. However, it sin't this way everywhere. Some states and areas are far away from police. The problem with the argument however, is the logic in that the situation can be solved by two people shooting each other.

Ultimately, my real issue with removing guns from the population is simply that if we do so, there's no real evidence to show it would help. I think it would only distract people temporarily from the issue of gun violence and the violent sect of america would simply move to another weapon in order to cause harm. Since the core issue isn't with the weapon itself then taking that weapon away wouldn't make the problem go away. Instead of a shooting we have a bombing since it is incredibly easy to make a bomb these days. The information is also unfortunately available very easily.

As a nation our focus should be to solve the problem at the root and then expand rather than attack the symptom.

[GenghisTron]

Digging through my bookmarks, found that link I was talking about that I'd said I'd post.

http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_n...ves-42474.html

[Bridget]

The solution is to ban knives.

[moosh]

The solution is to bring back duels.

[Iggy]

I have a better solution, ban people.

[Innoc]

Originally Posted by FrenchToast

This is from memory so it might not be totally accurate - In Switzerland or Sweden, I can never remember, every adult is technically part of the militia and is required to keep a rifle and 72 rounds of ammunition in their home. They also have one of the highest rates of gun crime per capita in the world. It baffles me that people think having guns everywhere doesn't increase the rate of gun crime.

Perhaps you should search that out. Every "study" I've ever seen places Countries in Africa, Central and South America as having the highest per capita rates for murder and homicide. No one else even comes close.

When you say "gun crime" are you talking about crimes where death occurs? The reason I ask is that crimes involving loss of life end up being more consistently tabulated as not every mugging victim reports the crime. Assuming you're referring to murder and homicide I think you're going to have a hard time finding any solid statistic that supports your initial statement.

[Etzell]

Originally Posted by Innoc

Perhaps you should search that out. Every "study" I've ever seen places Countries in Africa, Central and South America as having the highest per capita rates for murder and homicide. No one else even comes close.

When you say "gun crime" are you talking about crimes where death occurs? The reason I ask is that crimes involving loss of life end up being more consistently tabulated as not every mugging victim reports the crime. Assuming you're referring to murder and homicide I think you're going to have a hard time finding any solid statistic that supports your initial statement.

Check GT's post. He's already been shown rong.

According to this, Columbia is the winner.
We're 12th out of 37 listed. So, not great. Not awful

[GenghisTron]

YouTube

YouTube

fuckin lol'ing at this video

[Bridget]

What a bozo.

[GenghisTron]

Game. Set. Match.

YouTube

YouTube