cotss2012 said:
LOL WTF?!?!
So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.
I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.
Question for people Pro-guns....
- Thread starter Moth_Monk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
LOL WTF?!?!
So if I came to america and massacred 100 people with a gun, I'm actually saving 200 lives and rpeventing 100 muggings and rapes.
I hope you were just trolling. Because I think your Math is flawed.
How about the sheer size of our nation?
Do you think mexico could or would regulate its border in its entirety? Do you think we could regulate the mexican border? every square inch of it and etc, lots of guns in south america, and they already ship enough drugs into the USA that guns would be no issue to add to the list, if it became lucrative enough.
Canada would be better about it but we have an much larger border with them, and crime gangs already have drug trafficking lanes from there to here, guns are much rarer but if the price is right it would be worked around.
And lets not forget our massive coastlines east and west and gulf, often used by traffickers to move product and people into our nation.
So how in the name of heaven could we secure our borders near well enough to make and kind of full out gun control work exactly? Lets add the money cost to build a fence along the southern border state i forget the price tag, but it was enough that it was never seriously considered, add on top it people seemed to have no problem digging under or going over any walls they put up anyway.
I dunno what the figures would be but i bet it would be near enough to double our national debt, to secure all those borders, to get all those guns off the streets, and the all the violence and arrests that would insure if anyone started coming into americans houses and demand they give up their guns.
Bottom line it is simply too damn expensive and our cultural history of living under a oppressive government that over taxed us, tried to take away our guns, put restrictions on what you could say and where you could speak. makes us far more distrustful of government, we did fight a full on war to gain our independence.
Add to that that our modern day federal government acts much like the kings of old, limiting our freedoms more and more each passing decade, spending us into the poorhouse, when you can tax every man woman and child 100% for 10 years and not pay off the national debt we have racked up, so yea alot of americans would take offense if the feds or anyone tried to pull anything.
Do you think mexico could or would regulate its border in its entirety? Do you think we could regulate the mexican border? every square inch of it and etc, lots of guns in south america, and they already ship enough drugs into the USA that guns would be no issue to add to the list, if it became lucrative enough.
Canada would be better about it but we have an much larger border with them, and crime gangs already have drug trafficking lanes from there to here, guns are much rarer but if the price is right it would be worked around.
And lets not forget our massive coastlines east and west and gulf, often used by traffickers to move product and people into our nation.
So how in the name of heaven could we secure our borders near well enough to make and kind of full out gun control work exactly? Lets add the money cost to build a fence along the southern border state i forget the price tag, but it was enough that it was never seriously considered, add on top it people seemed to have no problem digging under or going over any walls they put up anyway.
I dunno what the figures would be but i bet it would be near enough to double our national debt, to secure all those borders, to get all those guns off the streets, and the all the violence and arrests that would insure if anyone started coming into americans houses and demand they give up their guns.
Bottom line it is simply too damn expensive and our cultural history of living under a oppressive government that over taxed us, tried to take away our guns, put restrictions on what you could say and where you could speak. makes us far more distrustful of government, we did fight a full on war to gain our independence.
Add to that that our modern day federal government acts much like the kings of old, limiting our freedoms more and more each passing decade, spending us into the poorhouse, when you can tax every man woman and child 100% for 10 years and not pay off the national debt we have racked up, so yea alot of americans would take offense if the feds or anyone tried to pull anything.
Well on the one hand it's in our constitution...
On the other hand... guns are dangerous... and they're the cause of much more havoc and destruction than they can possibly make up for in self defense and generally positive stuff... honestly there is pretty much no situation that won't be made worse if everyone involved owned a gun... despite how much gun nuts like to talk up how they're taking away our ability to defend ourselves, it does little more than, in most cases, lower the casualty rate... the average citizen with a gun is no rambo and would only serve to stir up confusion and get himself killed in the grand scheme of things, whether by the police incapable of differentiating between the actual perpetrator and the guy with a gun or even possibly by someone completely unrelated...
My point is that the average American is a fickle and stupid beast, who left to his own devices with a weapon, of such magnitudes, would only serve to hurt himself or someone else, whether intentionally or not...<.<
As far as self defense arms are concerned... hunting arms... it's really a different conversation... and believe it or not I don't want to take away peoples guns... I would prefer to live in a country where everyone has enough confidence in their safety and enough trust in the general population for their not to be a need for guns... though this is 'Merica, so that won't happen...<.<
Oh shit new page, shits gettin real...<.<
On the other hand... guns are dangerous... and they're the cause of much more havoc and destruction than they can possibly make up for in self defense and generally positive stuff... honestly there is pretty much no situation that won't be made worse if everyone involved owned a gun... despite how much gun nuts like to talk up how they're taking away our ability to defend ourselves, it does little more than, in most cases, lower the casualty rate... the average citizen with a gun is no rambo and would only serve to stir up confusion and get himself killed in the grand scheme of things, whether by the police incapable of differentiating between the actual perpetrator and the guy with a gun or even possibly by someone completely unrelated...
My point is that the average American is a fickle and stupid beast, who left to his own devices with a weapon, of such magnitudes, would only serve to hurt himself or someone else, whether intentionally or not...<.<
As far as self defense arms are concerned... hunting arms... it's really a different conversation... and believe it or not I don't want to take away peoples guns... I would prefer to live in a country where everyone has enough confidence in their safety and enough trust in the general population for their not to be a need for guns... though this is 'Merica, so that won't happen...<.<
Oh shit new page, shits gettin real...<.<
I'm Canadian and our gun laws are very strict. I can't even import a fucking airsoft gun into Canada without customs seizing it. Yet I can buy full metal airsoft guns the resemble the actual thing in a store in Toronto.
As a Canadian, my stance on guns is this: There needs to be regulation, but not necessarily bans. The reason is that people who intend to do bad things or break the law, will do so regardless of Anti gun laws or gun bans. Law breakers break the law, simple. Now I agree with the US laws regarding concealed firearm permits in the sense that honest people will get them. The more honest people walking around with a concealed gun, it acts as a deterrent to criminals because you never know who has a gun.
I understand that nations such as Canada and the UK have strict laws regarding weapons, but part of it may have to do with culture as well. I don't mean to generalize, but the attitude regarding guns in Canada and the UK are totally different compared to the US which may contribute to the lower statistics in gun related deaths in the UK vs America.
I realize that these laws aren't entirely effective as shootings still occur in both the UK and Canada, but they shouldn't be so easily obtainable either. Just look at the recent shooting during the Batman midnight release that only happened a day ago. The dude bought thousands of rounds off the internet and three rather large weapons all in the span on a couple months.
As a Canadian, my stance on guns is this: There needs to be regulation, but not necessarily bans. The reason is that people who intend to do bad things or break the law, will do so regardless of Anti gun laws or gun bans. Law breakers break the law, simple. Now I agree with the US laws regarding concealed firearm permits in the sense that honest people will get them. The more honest people walking around with a concealed gun, it acts as a deterrent to criminals because you never know who has a gun.
I understand that nations such as Canada and the UK have strict laws regarding weapons, but part of it may have to do with culture as well. I don't mean to generalize, but the attitude regarding guns in Canada and the UK are totally different compared to the US which may contribute to the lower statistics in gun related deaths in the UK vs America.
I realize that these laws aren't entirely effective as shootings still occur in both the UK and Canada, but they shouldn't be so easily obtainable either. Just look at the recent shooting during the Batman midnight release that only happened a day ago. The dude bought thousands of rounds off the internet and three rather large weapons all in the span on a couple months.
The general response to this is two fold. First, while you have less gun-crime, your overall rate of violent crime is not significantly different. It doesn't really do a whole lot of good to remove guns from the equation when little Timmy will go into a blind rage, pick up a knife and stab someone 27 times.Moth_Monk said:
Anything and everything can be a deadly weapon. The only way to stop that from being true is to lobotomize everyone at the moment of their birth, then remove all of their limbs.
Second, it's less about "everyone needs guns" and more "the government needs to shut the fuck up". The second amendment is explicitly about ensuring that the people would be able to stage a successful revolt against the established government, for the eventuality that it becomes corrupt, ineffectual, or tyrannical (which is arguably the case right now).
As such, most supporters of the second amendment are people who believe that the government does not have the right to dictate their life.
We have a lot heavier gang activity in the us, especially in the south, The island of England is really small when compared to the US, It's all easier to control what comes in and out. If I want a gun for the ability to protect myself I should have that option. If guns are made illegal criminals and wack-jobs will still access them by illegal means, and regular citizens will have no way to protect themselves. If a responsible gun owner is at the location of a violent crime they have the capability to prevent it from happening.
No, he's saying that, without guns, this crazy madman would have used a different but just-as-capable device for his killing. No legal restriction is ever going to stop an intelligent criminal from accomplishing his goal, especially if that goal is murder.CpT_x_Killsteal said:
I need look no further than the Bath township elementary school bombing, which is still the worst mass murder at a school in US history. Ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Sacman said:
Gun is a tool, people are dangerous. Sorry but no gun has fired itself at anyone. People choose to fire a gun.
When states have carry laws most people that actually carry (legally) are decently trained, we just don't give someone a carry license and say good luck out there.
Add that element of suprise, if you do not know which house is armed or not, which guy armed or not, criminals are sure as hell less detered than if they knew everyone on the block has nothing to defend themselves with vs their guns.
Heavily armed paramilitary psychos, or attention seekers, terrorist, or w/e he turns out to be today, are the exception not the norm, most crime is done by not the best and brightest nor the best armed less you are watching a hollywood movie.
We have gun laws, how many more laws do we need? How much gun control is enough? So one person gets through the system lets trash the whole system, enact all sorts of new laws.
Kinda what we did after 9/11 just signed our freedoms away over in the name of protecting ourselves.
After all i think it was dick morris used to tell bill clintion "never let a good crisis goto waste" in political terms use all your saber rattling, fear mongering, and outright explotation, to grab all the power you can as government.
Our founding fathers would be ashamed of alot of the things we let slide now days, after all these were guys that said. if you give up a measure of liberty, for a measure of security you lose both, and that government needed to be overthorwn every 30 years to insure liberty stands, these guys were radicals they would be the "loonies" of today, the teaparties some of them, militia, all people with a healthy or more dislike of our government.
But then again most americans hate our government, probably more so than foreigners do, just not to a full on degree to actually do something about it other than complain and not vote, politicans love it when people do not vote.
How come the UK policemen don't carry guns? If they have to respond to a 911 call and it escalates, wouldn't they need to be able to defend themselves and nearby civilians?
chadachada123 said:
Yes, but you CAN stop a half-assed very stupid person from either making a huge mistake or from committing a crime.
With guns it's "Oh I can just go buy one and shoot this person".
Without a gun they need to think about much more and might change their mind in the process. Also with guns it's easier to be more detached. If you were to say, use a knife then things would be much more difficult.
Well, that's a pair of stupid arguments if ever I've read them. And I just have. From you.matrix3509 said:
Firstly, it isn't CRIMINALS who do most of the killing with guns in America. Angry, depressed teenagers massacring their classmates, lone psychos shooting up movie theatres, dumb kids accidentally blowing each others' -or their own- brains out "playing" with daddy's gun- that's the easy-to-prevent problem that you wring your hands over but apparently don't really CARE enough about to bother stopping. The pro-gun lobby make it EASY for people to be killed with guns -not necessarily by criminals, but by ANYONE- and then act surprised when people die.
Secondly, you just stated that the police are completely incompetant and can't be trusted while private citizens are completely trustworthy enough to be allowed to have their own gun based on... absolutely nothing except your own hyperbole. I'm not even going to bother arguing against that, I'm simply going to point out that you said it and hope you realise how moronic it was.
Where on earth did you get this from? Or did you just make it up as you went along. Firstly prison conditions in the UK are much, much milder. Inmates don't murder each other and the guards are not in fear for the lives. Typically inmates enjoy greater luxury's, in some prisons they can decorate their cells etc. Sentences in the UK are also much lighter, bordering on insufficient in fact.FFHAuthor said:
Anyone sentenced to custody will only serve a portion of the sentence, usually half unless they misbehave inside and get added time. Murderers get on automatics life sentence, the judge will also impose a minimum term. If someone serving a life sentence is given a minimum term of 16 years that means in theory they could be released after 16 years. In the US most murders get life without parole, in the UK thats called a whole life order and is incredibly rare. There are less than 50 people with that sentence.
Civil rights are protected by law, in fact they where protected by law several hundred years before North America was even discovered by Europeans.
We have Armed Response Vehicles containing the equivalent of SWAT teams on patrol in major cities. It's just the standard police constables and PCSOs that don't carry firearms. With the exception of Nottingham, where I believe the rank-and-file carry handguns due to gang violence.Platypus540 said:
Also OP: You are not making enough allowances for the cultural differences between us and the Traitorous Colonial Separatists.
Your population is also much, MUCH smaller, as well as much MUCH more homogeneous. We have more cultures and races and ethnicities and socioeconomic groups than you could hope to count, and that's on just one city block. Whenever you cram that many different people in one place, you'll have more violent crime.Moth_Monk said:
So, to assume that our crime rate could only be explained by the presence of guns would be silly. You'd do just as well to ask, in a country as unique as ours, how much worse crime would be if only the criminals were armed.
1. Guns are already here. This isn't the same as preventing something from "getting out there." That alone makes it a very different issue than how most people frame it. You're not talking about keeping something out of someone's hands. You're talking about taking something out of their hands.
2. It's a bad thing to take away the handgun that I own, because I have not done anything even bordering on a suburb of a neighboring township in the same area code as Wrong with it. Basically, until I've committed a crime, I deserve not to be treated as a criminal or even a suspect of criminal behavior.
3. Yes, I have it because someday it's possible I'll need to "kill somebody for some reason." That reason being that it's entirely possible someone will try to kill or grievously harm me. And while I have intense respect for every single police officer, I don't take much comfort knowing that when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.
4. Anytime, ANY time the government wants to impose a new limit on an old freedom, the burden of proof is on THEM. I don't have to prove it's a bad idea, THEY have to prove it isn't. I don't have to assume they have my best interests at heart, THEY have to prove they can enforce this new law without infringing on my existing rights. Because that is how a real government works.
The kind of government that, through its actions, demonstrates suspicion toward its law-abiding citizens has more than earned suspicion from its law-abiding citizens.
I agree with you. When fire arms are needed by the police (when criminals have illegally obtained the fire arms) they can use them. Until then there's no need for the police to carry fire arms either.
I live in Canada, after moving from the UK. It's certainly not as gun crazy as America but it's not unheard of for there to be gun crime.
The method clearly works for the UK (though it's more difficult to smuggle weaponry into the UK since it's an island). Unfortunately I think it's too late for the USA to change or other countries where fire arms are legal (when proper lisencing is aquired).
I live in Canada, after moving from the UK. It's certainly not as gun crazy as America but it's not unheard of for there to be gun crime.
The method clearly works for the UK (though it's more difficult to smuggle weaponry into the UK since it's an island). Unfortunately I think it's too late for the USA to change or other countries where fire arms are legal (when proper lisencing is aquired).
Frankly as Dylan Moran once quiped: "Oh no, how could this have happened? Well you've all got guns... and tehy do have a limited number of houshold uses."
But as an Aussie I don't think making them illegal will help the yanks, because then only criminials with the resources will be able to get them, as they do in Aus. Frankly Mankind was buggered when he designed the thing.
But as an Aussie I don't think making them illegal will help the yanks, because then only criminials with the resources will be able to get them, as they do in Aus. Frankly Mankind was buggered when he designed the thing.
because you are obviously much more trustworthy with a firearm than the police force. i'm going to propose to you a situation that you may or may not have heard already: a man pulls out a gun and shoots someone in an alley. you, the armed vigilante, come running, you see the gun man and so you shoot him. now another vigilante comes around the corner after hearing gunshots, sees you standing over two bodies, so shoots you. another vigilante comes around the corner....matrix3509 said:
also, just as a side note, how did the right to bear arms help all those people who were watching the dark knight rises when a gunman opened fire, killing at least 12 and injuring 59 others
Wait, what now?Arcane Azmadi said:
Just how many massacres and firearm suicides do you think there are in America each day? It is in fact, "criminals who do most of the killing with guns." And not just because doing so makes them criminals. Most gun-related deaths, if you do your homework, happen during the commission of a crime. Robbery, carjacking, assault, etc.
And you want to talk prevention? Nearly all of the gun safety measures out there, including gun safety education, are put forth by "pro gun" advocates. They believe that human beings should be treated as responsible, free-thinking organisms, and that if you teach them how to safely use something, they can do that.
Basically, your "pro-gun" and "anti-gun" people are just like the "pro-sex-ed" and "anti-sex-ed" people out there. They're aware that you can't make sex (or guns) disappear, so it's better to teach people to use them responsibly... and the other side foolishly believes you can just will it all away.
That said, I firmly disagree with what that other guy said about the police. They're generally quite competent and willing to go above and beyond to help... it's just, with budget cuts, they're stretched too thin to handle everything as quickly as we need. The failure of the police to stop these crimes isn't the fault of the police officers -- it's the fault of the folks who don't give them the support they need to do the job.