this is a topic that i love to talk about. lots of people have so many different opinions about it (writing a paper) so throw me some ideas and arguments, so here goes:
are guns good for our country, or are they bad?
Printable View
this is a topic that i love to talk about. lots of people have so many different opinions about it (writing a paper) so throw me some ideas and arguments, so here goes:
are guns good for our country, or are they bad?
They're neither good nor bad. You have people that use them for sport, then you have people that use them for murder. You have good and bad uses, but all in all, there's no good or bad about them. It depends on how a person uses them to determine how good or bad they can be.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
I see no problem in them.
Guns in the hands of the populace is a good thing if the government also has guns.
Guns are our defense against oppressive governments. Therefore, I am all for gun ownership. Just make sure you know how to use it properly.
Certain guns are for hunting, certain guns are for self defense. Some guns have no purpose other than killing people. No one needs a machine gun except for the military or swat team. High rate of fires weapons should be banned, guns for hunting and self defense should require extensive background checks and be heavily moderated.
Less guns = less gun violence. NYC has outlawed guns and there is far less violence, very few countries have large problems with weapons, the US is one of them because guns are largely unregulated compared to other countries.
Outlawing guns is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. Tisk, tisk, NYC.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
In Canada it's very easy to get a gun above the 45th parallel, yet gun crime isn't a huge problem, so there goes your little theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
True, a majority of Canadians also leave their doors unlocked at night.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Very bad. Guns should be totally illegal for anything other than hunting purposes, and a license must be otained that requires a background check and a psychological assesment.
Think of the horiffic number of gun crimes in America. Think of how many kids have died, how many family members have accidentally being shot, how many innocent people have died. Even the guilty people shouldn't be given the power to kill eachother.
Now think of somewhere like the UK, where guns are illegal except for hunting purposes. Practically inconsequential death rate from gun crimes; maybe one per month. It's still not the perfect system (you can still get your hands on guns) but it's a hell of a lot better than in America.
So you want the freedom to have a gun. It's your right. But is any freedom worth such a massive loss of innocent life? For me, the answer is pretty obvious.
Kids and innocent people have been run over by cars. We should ban cars?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
For me too, it is yes. Frankly, people dieing unnatural deaths is a good indicator of a free society. "Innocent" people die of drugs. That doesn't mean that drugs should be illegal. Whenever something remotely dangerous is legal, lives will be lost. To be quite honest, lives will be lost either way, because criminals don't care about the law. Banning dangerous things is not a solution, it is totalitarian.Quote:
So you want the freedom to have a gun. It's your right. But is any freedom worth such a massive loss of innocent life? For me, the answer is pretty obvious.
The point of the government isn't to make sure that nobody dies. That goal is incompatible with a free society. If dangerous things are legal and that means more people die then OK. Since when is everybody so fixated on creating this wonderful place of honey and elves where nobody ever dies and there never is any form of conflict? Hate to break it to you, but that's not what life is like. Health shouldn't be the number 1 priority in politics, you're gonna end up in a totalitarian society.
Meh, I don't see the need for hunters to have guns, so I think that the only people who should get guns are police officers. I know bad people will inevitably (sp) get them, but there will be Far Less. I mean, there are non-leathal solutions for defence.
Guns don't help you get around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serkat
I would be a strong supporter of totalitarian society, so obviously our fundamental beliefs clash spectacularily here. It would be pointless to continue an argument.Quote:
For me too, it is yes. Frankly, people dieing unnatural deaths is a good indicator of a free society. "Innocent" people die of drugs. That doesn't mean that drugs should be illegal. Whenever something remotely dangerous is legal, lives will be lost. To be quite honest, lives will be lost either way, because criminals don't care about the law. Banning dangerous things is not a solution, it is totalitarian.
The point of the government isn't to make sure that nobody dies. That goal is incompatible with a free society. If dangerous things are legal and that means more people die then OK. Since when is everybody so fixated on creating this wonderful place of honey and elves where nobody ever dies and there never is any form of conflict? Hate to break it to you, but that's not what life is like. Health shouldn't be the number 1 priority in politics, you're gonna end up in a totalitarian society.
I'm glad theres people in texas burrying guns right now. Obviously we are gonna need them.
I already posted this in another thread but it's really funny so I'm gonna do it again. This is an excerpt from the Guns and Dope Parties website. http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/
GUNS and DOCTORS
a. The number of physicians in the United States is 700,000
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health &
Human Services)
THINK ABOUT THIS:
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000 (yes, eighty- million!).
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.
Statistically, doctors are about 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS A DOCTOR.
Alert your friends to this threat. We must ban doctors before this
gets out of hand.
As a public health measure I have withheld the statistics on lawyers
for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical attention.
That is ridiculous for so many reasons.
Having doctors would mean a much lower death rate than not having doctors. This argument is very, very unconvincing.
It's called satire son. But personally I don't use doctors or guns to often. Only in cases of emergency.
But we gotta have guns. Because the milatary and police sure aren't gonna give up their guns, so the people can't either. Do you really trust the government that much? I don't trust the government at all. Politicians are a bunch of lying cheating bastards. At least thats the current situation in america. If you tried to ban guns here all hell would break loose. Actually, I really hope that this happens, Because then texas would succeed from the union and become the most badass state in existance.
I'll die before I live in a totalitarian state. Fuck that shit. I want FREEDOM.
I live in the UK. The police and military have guns. The people don't. We're all OK with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
I never said I trust the government. I don't. And I wouldn't trust any government unless I had personally set it up.Quote:
Do you really trust the government that much? I don't trust the government at all. Politicians are a bunch of lying cheating bastards. At least thats the current situation in america. If you tried to ban guns here all hell would break loose. Actually, I really hope that this happens, Because then texas would succeed from the union and become the most badass state in existance.
I'll die before I live in a totalitarian state. Fuck that shit. I want FREEDOM.
You don't get it.
Freedom for everyone is existential.
Freedom to control, freedom to be selfish.
Freedom to restrict, and freedom to resist.
You are already free, and so is everyone else.
By your very existence, you are 'restricting' the freedom of another.
It is a dog eat tail world. EVERYTHING is constant consumption.
lol. You don't need guns to have freedom. Actually if you need guns for freedom, you live in a pretty fucked up world where apparently you have to physically fight for a bit of freedom. Seriously, you can't defend that a country that outlawed alcohol not to long ago is more free than almost all parts of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
If you even slightly think that all it takes for your government to turn totalitarian is for guns to be illegal, you seriously need to change your government. lol. Sounds like a pretty horrible country to live in with such an opportunistic government. I really hope America isn't That fucked up, but it might be. Europe isn't that fucked up, at any rate.
And of course you have the plain and simple safety-side to it. Almost no-one here has guns. Only the extremely professional criminals have guns, and they only shoot each other. Seriously, gun-armed robberies like practically never happen in the Netherlands.
The whole second amendment is build on the dogma that governments can always lead to one that enslaves people or takes away their freedom, by force. America showed that people willingly trade in their freedom if you scare them enough, guns have little to do with that. Maybe that in the 1800ths an armed populous was indeed a better way of safeguarding freedom against a corrupted government, but a government's power in the 21th century doesn't work in the physical ways it did in the past. The whole doctrine of armed-citizens is out-dated. Without the one benefit, armed citizens just mean armed small-time criminals and children finding daddies 'steel pacifier' in his closet and blowing their brains out.
We do need quite a bit of change in the way politics are done in this country. We elected george bush president, twice. Thats a scary thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
My point is that we need guns, as a precaution in case we end up in a totalitarian state. I know america isn't like that now, but theres something here called the patriot act. Thats some straight up fascism right there. We make an act in the name of patrioticism that violates the constituion. That scares me. That and the green party scares the shit out of me. Global warming my ass. Read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, it's an excellent book that explains how the current political tactics(global warming, war on terrorism) could lead us to a totalitarian state if we don't do something NOW to change politics in this country.
I don't own guns, I don't like guns, but I'm glad theres people in texas who do. Police and military in this country are trained to be assholes. I don't want them to be the only ones with guns.
Yeah the Green Party is kinda scary to me too, when I think about what they would do if in power. It's like, under the Republicans or Democrats it might take another few decades to get to full socialism, but with the Green Party it would take a single term.
Even if global warming were real and anthropogenic, so what? The economy is a chaotic ecosystem that is capable of evolution. If anything, a climate crisis would result in huge amounts of innovation in technology and society, not disaster. I mean, if the K/T event never happened, dinosaurs would still be walking the Earth to this day.
Fact is I will never be unprepared. It is a passion and even a hobby of mine, as I spend most of my time in the woods anyhow. Love guns, both as a release and as protection.
Anyone can argue statistics really, but the fact is when you are being beaten and robbed or possibly murdered you probably would have been better off if you were not. A gun saved me at one point from being robbed so yeah I cannot be impartial.
I have a right to exist and stay on par (reasonably) with current protective tools. Guns give me the ability to help myself and more importantly, others. People generally close their windows and shades while others get raped and murdered in the street. Not I. I would shoot, kill, and not feel bad about it.
FixedQuote:
Originally Posted by Never
Your point?
No point really, other than to agree with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
The day before the country bans guns is the day I buy one and lots of ammo to go with it.
Ah, took it the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
They help you protect yourself without having to be a kickass movie star Kung-Fu expert.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pensive Patrick
and i think what serkat was sayin is like take skydivin as an example, it's dangerous and it kills people at times(must suck) yet its cool? or like kids die in bathtubs, get rid of 'em right? that's wat serkat is sayin.
wouldn't guns kinda make everyone equal, kind of. like if we didn't have that the bigger musclier people would run the show...
TAKE MY FUCKING GUN! TRY IT!
;=-'
BANG!
I think guns should be outlawed, but in a slow manner... First you ban some guns, then more guns and so on, until you've banned them all.
In Norway, only the military have guns. The police doesn't have guns unless the situation requires it (which is VERY rare). No guns, allmost no armed robberies, virtually no accidental deaths by firearms... We have hunting rifles though, but still, the most used weapon is a knife here.
Good luck if your government becomes tyrannical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sound
That is hard to do with our government. No one in the government has enough power to overthrow the constitution, it takes 12+ years to change a paragraph in the constitution, our military is way too weak to overthrow anything and we have a king who have the right to veto. Its just bloody hard to gain that much control. Last time our country was tyrannical was in the middle ages.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Sounds like you are due.
lol america.
And if yours became (moreso) tyrannical, do you really think a nation of mostly poverty stricken illiterates with handguns and rifles is going to be a match for a military that has over 45% of the worlds defense spending being pumped into it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Your first claim: "Most Americans are poverty stricken and illiterate"
Simply wrong. Second, wealth and illiteracy have nothing at all to do with firearms and experience in self defense, war, etc.
Then you suggest that a population of millions has no chance. Even if that were so, which it is not, are you suggesting that submission is a better answer? Would you give up all your principles because someone told you to? Do you believe you will live forever?
The outcome of a battle is not even really the point. The fact is there will be no battle if the people do not allow their rights to be taken away, and if they do, there will be no battle because there will be no tools. The gun is a symbol of a balance of power more than anything in this regard.
That was more of a dig at the gaffes of McCain and Obama from the last 12 months than my own views and/or opinion of America ("people cling to their religion and their guns", and "the fundamentals of our economy are working").
Sorry, my humor doesn't translate well, clearly.
The more laws there are, the less law abiding the people will be
The more controls there are, the less people will control themselves
The fewer guns there are, the more people will need them
That just isn't true. Have you ever been to Europe? People don't need guns at all. If I lived in America, I might have to buy a gun, because every fucking criminal has one, and because your crime-rates are so high.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Anyhow, just reflect on how wrong that statement of you was. Look up the statistics. You can look up how many attempts there were made to legalize guns in European countries. How can you live with yourself if you make giant mistakes in even such simple claims that you could avoid if you look up some statistics?
---
Haha, awesome. That is pretty ironic in a way. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
Yeah, those Europeans didn't need guns at all from 1932-1945. It's not like a socialist dictator tried to take over or anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
The US will have their chance as well, even if they're historically 70 years out of phase with Europe.
lol. I hope you do know the difference between national-socialism as in the NSDAP, and 'real' socialism, especially in it's 21th century quite-liberal incarnations. Socialism can be silly, but certainly isn't comparable to Nazis. (Also, Stalin wasn't a socialist.) Actually, I might be wrong on this, but it is simply not the case that Hitler is referred to a socialist by historians today.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
Okay, now once we got the meaning of that 'complicated' and very 'dirty' and 'scary' word clear.
I highly doubt that the European citizens would have enough guns to really change the outcome of the war. Also, the second world was was one of the last war that was based on the, then already expired, conviction that a great nation needs and benefits of more land for resources and as lebensraum. As a lot of European countries found out, great recourse and slave sources such as Surinam and The Antilles for the Netherlands, in the 20th century became an economical burden.
Simply said, if someone wanted to become economically more powerful or even 'defeat' Europe, they would never march in with armies. Occupation and conquering countries simply has no benefit in the 21th century (a few oil-rich countries aside). Basically, Europe will get nuked into oblivion far before being invaded. Thus, citizens carrying guns do not help at all against fascist forces in the 21th century. At least not as far as Europe is concerned.
Socialism is socialism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
I guess you've never heard of the Maquis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
I'm not talking about outside invasion; I'm talking about the existing governments becoming even more tyrannical than they are now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Then you are an idiot. The NSDAP is about as far from 21th century socialistic parties as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by drewmandan
The French army probably was properly armed in all the wars against England too. They lost all or almost all of them. I don't think a few more armed peasants would help against the Wehrmacht.Quote:
I guess you've never heard of the Maquis?
Well, then you shouldn't have mentioned Hitler's invasion.Quote:
I'm not talking about outside invasion; I'm talking about the existing governments becoming even more tyrannical than they are now.
As far as tyrannical governments, it's probably America, not Europe, that is growing close to that. As I told before in this topic, armed populous doesn't prevent a government tyranny in the 21th century.
Some people need to watch V for Vendetta.
I say good to a point...
YEs, do look at the statistics....Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
The media blows firearm violence way out of proprtion in the US. The fact of the matter is that violence in TH US is not a matter of firearms being available, it is a matter of the failure of the system of justice to enact adequate punishments for the crimes committed.
Right nowm the law abiding gun owner has more to fear from law enforcement than the criminal that illegally owns and uses the gun in a crime.
Everything is a matter of perspective.
Its difficult to make an adequate judgement of the going ons in another persons back yard, unless you live in that back yard yourself.
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/image...urder-rate.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Map is probably murder rate per 100.000 citizens. Note how the Netherlands, pretty much as gun-free as possible, is a nice, light-blue. While America is a pretty hard gun-to-the-face blue.
Note how the only countries that have it worse or equal are shit-poor crap countries. Other crime-rates are shit-hilariously high in America too. Despite the fact that America has about a three times more people per citizen in prison than civilized countries.
Anyhow. Go get shot at a 7-11, silly hippy.
You should expand your awareness of the issue...
You are being quite naive
While the map is compelling, it is important to understand that guns are not the only possible explanation for these statistics.
Where I live (Vermont), we have the most lax gun laws in the country. One can go right into a store, buy a handgun, and conceal it. No permit required. You can walk right into any non-state building with it. Vermont has the second lowest crime rate in the nation. Again though, I must admit that there may be another reason besides gun laws for these statistics. Things are just not so simple to evaluate without controls.
It saddens me to see the way our latest generations are being raised. (In America) It is no fault of their own. I don't know if you can really call it anybody's fault. It is a product of the environment that people grow up in. They are not brought up to understand fire arms in the same light as was the case generations ago. Much less respect them. Guns are not part of families heritages any more. A pastime? Respect for, or an understanding of firearms is not taught down from generation to generation any more. They are seen as weapons of violence and destruction in video games, television and in the news. This in turn will eventually lead to the demise of our second amendment.
I don't see how anybody who was raised with firearms and the many traditions that accompany them could truly ever convey what it is like to have honor for our gun rights. Not to a person that has never been around guns.
I'll tell you whats interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
My dad relates stories of his childhood growing up in the 1940's and 50's. Then it was common place for kids to bring their guns to school on the bus and have them in their school lockers to go hunting with right after school.
People saw teenagers walking down the streets of the midwest and never gave it a second thought.
The guns were not the problem then, and nor are they now.
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Great response to my statistics and arguments, by the way. You really made yourself look like a good informed well-educated person.
This is an important point I think. I cannot understand why people hate guns so much. Some argue safety. Comparatively, they are not dangerous. First you must load the cartridges into the magazine, then insert the magazine, then you have to release the safety, then pull the charge handle, then aim, fire, and finally you actually have to hit something, and that something must be a person. Even after all that, the chances of a fatal wound are slim. This is apparently all by accident. I will not believe this is a common occurence. Such is ridiculous. Irresponsible people will always kill, especially in cars. You don't hear about other things much because of the anti-gun agenda.Quote:
Howie: Not to a person that has never been around guns.
Some argue crime, and that is a better argument by far, though I still see it as being obsessive considering our population and the fact that more people die from other things that we should not need than guns. In the end though, I know that guns give me the ability to choose my fate, and to protect those who need protection. Regardless of all else, this is my motivation.
I here You.
I know it is often said but the statement is very true - When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. That being said, banning guns is not the answer. Accountability maybe? Some stiff penalties may deter a lot of the gun related crimes we see in the inner cities. There are always those cases where nothing is going to stop a violent crime. Again outlawing doesn't play a role.
We should have guns...It's are ammendment..but DON'T GIVE STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS guns...Just because they are 18...fuck..can we be any dumber?
You all hate guns because of violence they cause on the streets. Its true, gang violence causes a lot of deaths. But I challenge some army to invade the United States. Could you imagine the insurgency? You think the Iraq insurgency is bad?
Do none of you Americans wonder why it is that in gun-free European countries there is so little crime? And why it is not the case in those countries that criminals have gotten an advantage because of the gun-laws?
I am not saying gun-laws would certainly be completely and utterly awesome and great for America. But it is a pretty interesting question why America isn't as civil in regards of crime-levels, and what kind of faults in the system are responsible for that. Maybe it's just shit-poor education and the ghetto's, that make guns a necessary and lesser-of-two-evils part of American society.
Not really. On such things we have to form opinions because there are too many variables, and while you may very well be right, I certainly think our material excess and "me me me" philosophy here in the US is a major part of the problem. Without the mentality, the will to commit crimes does not exist. Again, all just my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Perhaps. I admit that while it is a sad thing indeed that I feel naked without my weapons, it is a fact of life. I cannot be as I once was and walk around feeling safe in any situation. The stakes are just too high these days.Quote:
I am not saying gun-laws would certainly be completely and utterly awesome and great for America. But it is a pretty interesting question why America isn't as civil in regards of crime-levels, and what kind of faults in the system are responsible for that. Maybe it's just shit-poor education and the ghetto's, that make guns a necessary and lesser-of-two-evils part of American society.
our forefathers wanted us the right to bare arms so we can fight an oppressive government. but come one people! this is 2008! times have changed
do you really think a gun is going to save you from the government? what backwards cave man logic is that? let's think about this for a moment, and think about all the advanced weapons the government has. they would own us at war.
but to even think that one day people will need guns to fight off an oppressive government is even nuttier than being a fundamentalist. our guns have done nothing but created crimes, death and suffering. we don't need guns to change our government, and all the greatest changes to our government have been brought through peaceful walks, peaceful speeches, peaceful demonstrations. and I am not trying to lighten how difficult that was.
what do you think the result would be if King said "I have a dream, and in this dream we brothers rise up against our government in firey arms and unleash the bloody justice of Christ onto those white oppressive leaders!!"
our country would be sooooo fucked up if that happened. no positive change comes through guns. just look at our aggressive attemps in the middle east. as others have said, you can't gun point freedom.
GET OUT OF THE STONE AGE!!
this is the information age!! change comes through informing the ignorant.
Save me? Perhaps, and perhaps not, but it is the principles that are important here.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
That depends on many things. If there were enough of us armed, they would not stand a chance of winning short of annihilating us. The government would never get into a full scale war with it's citizens over this issue anyhow. As I have said before it is not about war, it is about the gun being a symbol of the balance of power.Quote:
let's think about this for a moment, and think about all the advanced weapons the government has. they would own us at war
So you are saying that weapons are useless in war essentially. Revolutions were fought with what then?Quote:
but to even think that one day people will need guns to fight off an oppressive government is even nuttier than being a fundamentalist.
Guns helped to forge this country; and guns defended it many times.Quote:
our guns have done nothing but created crimes, death and suffering. we don't need guns to change our government, and all the greatest changes to our government have been brought through peaceful walks, peaceful speeches, peaceful demonstrations. and I am not trying to lighten how difficult that was.
Peaceful means have their place, as Gandhi proved, but he would have been gassed without sympathy by the Nazi party. The point being that violence has it's place as well.
See above.Quote:
what do you think the result would be if King said "I have a dream, and in this dream we brothers rise up against our government in firey arms and unleash the bloody justice of Christ onto those white oppressive leaders!!"
Thank you. I will put down my club and learn to read starting now.Quote:
our country would be sooooo fucked up if that happened. no positive change comes through guns. just look at our aggressive attemps in the middle east. as others have said, you can't gun point freedom.
GET OUT OF THE STONE AGE!!
this is the information age!! change comes through informing the ignorant.
juroara, please watch this video:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/s..._violence.html
It is quite obvious that violence has decreased prodigiously since the advent of the gun. I'm not saying that this is because of the gun, but it is strong evidence for guns maybe not being so bad. As for you fantasy of a government not becoming tyrannical, I refer you to Never's post.
So you're saying that just because our government hasn't oppressed us yet, that it never will. Thats very dangerous thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
As for the rest of your post...Look. I am in the Army. I know what we can and can't do, to a limit. If Iraq and Afghanistan are giving us such a hard time, I GUARANTEE you an American insurgency would be 10 times worse or more. Our Army, Marines, Air Force, and Navy could NEVER take on the American civilian population. NEVER. And its because we can own weapons.
Hmmm, I do....Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Indeed. And also, the biggest trump card you have in fighting wars overseas is the nuke, but that can't be used within the US because they'd be shitting in their own backyard. Although, I won't rule out a nuke being used once as a sort of Reichstag incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
The fact that the US can toss nukes around like candy if it wanted to isn't what makes it a threat overseas, it has the most powerful, expensive military force. The artillery is what does it, not just that we have tanks but that we have more, better tanks than any particular enemy. As far as who could fight for longest, especially without going bankrupt, or who could respond to a problem fastest, the top force differs (China, Israel).
Within the US, though, the US military can still use its tanks, airplanes and all that expensive artillery to suppress a revolt or just downwright become a fascist dictatorship.
While those tanks would be a bitch, a counter insurgency would fail HARD in the US. The only thing they can do is slowly take away our rights so we don't even notice until it's too late, and rule by fear. If they try to rule by force instead of fear, it'd be warfare from harlem to washington heights. They'd be fuxed, USA would have the most impossible insurgency ever encountered. Think about it, in the ghetto people are already training against each other in guerrilla warfare. All those thugs that used to shoot each other are going to unite together and form an army of vicious motherfuckers.
You don't seem to understand how revolutions work. The longer and slower the buildup, the more violent the revolution is. At some the population being oppressed has a reality check. No failed fascist regime in history was ever not toppled by violent revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Lets not be so misleading, go look at some worldwide crime statistics involving all sorts of crimes, not just firearms.
The EU is far more laced with crime than The US overall. Suicide rates are way higher in the Eu than in the US , and poilce per capita in EU countries is also higher than in the US. Yet with all the cops and the absence of guns, one is still more likely to be a victim of crime in the EU than in the US.
And the lists like this go on and on.
Even then, there are way worse places in the world to live in relation to crime than either the US or the EU.
Step back and take in the big picture, the true picture. Not some slighted focus like you are purporting.
Uh, please look at the comparative population densities of Europe, and the USA (and its obvious implication on crime levels), before you continue on that conclusion. The bigger picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
The area's (km2) of Europe and the USA are roughly the same (with Europe having a 5-10% larger land area than the USA). Whereas Europe has a staggering 730, 000, 000 population, comapred to the USA's 300, 000, 000. Giving Europe a population density of 70 (people per km2) to the USA's 30. Does this account for anything?
Well, I think that guns or any kind of weapons are bad for the whole world. But since no one listens, guns are good for our country. We don't want to be the only country who doesn't have a weapon. We need to protect ourselves from war.Quote:
Originally Posted by aorozco
Do actually google something like 'us lower crime rate than europe'.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
First 3 hits I found were about 'if we don't count blacks, America wins!'
You fucking racist.
I just googled "World Crime Statistics" and found a load of information on all sorts of crime categories, general and per/capita as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Goebbels would be proud of you and your misinformation and propaganda.
You should take you jack boots off and let some of the blood circulate back into your head,,,,,,
Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck Fuck YOU
Sure it does. Maybe in denser populated areas it might make sense to curtail the availability of firearms, but by the same token if everyone was able to pak a gun and legally use it, crime would also plummet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Аарон
This is evidenced in the state by state statistics in the US. States with right to carry laws have significantly lower rates of crime that states that dont.
Pointless arguing with oneSelfQuote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
Love
Does anyone else think that crime rates have more to do with morality and intelligence of the average person than availibility of guns? Of course guns play a role in the amount of crime, but it doesn't create or eliminate crime. MOst people who legally own guns in the US don't use them for crimes. If you ban guns, don't plan on criminals deciding to just turn their guns in.
Maybe a better way to reduce crime would be to fix the school system and work to reduce poverty.
I agree. We need to EDUCATE!Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedape
*ahem*
Cause of Crime:
Reasons for committing a crime include greed, anger, jealously, revenge, or pride. Some people decide to commit a crime and carefully plan everything in advance to increase gain and decrease risk. These people are making choices about their behavior; some even consider a life of crime better than a regular job—believing crime brings in greater rewards, admiration, and excitement—at least until they are caught. Others get an adrenaline rush when successfully carrying out a dangerous crime. Others commit crimes on impulse, out of rage or fear.
The desire for material gain (money or expensive belongings) leads to property crimes such as robberies, burglaries, white-collar crimes, and auto thefts. The desire for control, revenge, or power leads to violent crimes such as murders, assaults, and rapes. These violent crimes usually occur on impulse or the spur of the moment when emotions run high. Property crimes are usually planned in advance.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12004/Causes-Crime.html
I have a Goebbels lunch box.Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Also, America has 3 times more people in prison, per citizen, than European countries. Also far more than Russian and China.
It's fun if you want to pay a lot of tax money, but it really makes you wonder about America's way of dealing with, (and creating of,) crime.
The amount of crime in this country has much more to do with our hotshot attitudes, money chasing, money obsessed, supremist attitude. If you haven't noticed, Americans like to stand out a lot. Well, for the most part. Our crime levels have nothing to do with our laws about guns. They have to do with our obsession with money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
...and hence selfishness and lack of social responsibility. I completely agree. Parents do nothing to teach their children otherwise, nor do their friends, teachers, or the unlimited capitalist system.
This policy divides us more than anything else ever could. "It's not personal, it's just business".
That's the problem. Nothing is personal.
Getting shot in the face does have somthing to do with guns, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
I'm trying to prove a point that abolishing our right to weapons won't have much of an effect on crime. Criminals will keep their illegal guns and the good people will have to turn in all their registered guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
But, I suppose you think that little bit of difference it would make is worth it? I mean, if abolishing gun rights could save one human life, it must be worth it right?
What happens if some V for Vendetta shit happens and our government goes wack and the American population wants to rebell? The government will laugh at our pitchforks and shovels as their soldiers come in our homes. And don't say it could never happen. I seriously doubt the pot you smoke lets you see into the future.
What if you need to defend yourself against the military or swat team?Quote:
Originally Posted by ninja9578
Any place that has outlawed guns may have less gun violence(duh), but often times they have higher levels of other kinds of violence. Just look at the UK. Their violent crime rate is 5 times what it in the U.S. The only difference is, people are stabbing and bludgeoning each other instead of shooting each other.
I believe I recently read that over 1/3 of all US convicts are actually in there for second/third strike drug possession. This is what the highly unsuccessful 'War on Drugs' has given the US - an overcrowded prison system full of people who shouldn't be in there in the first place. On the inside they mix with the harder criminals and can potentially come out a lot worse than they went in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
What average citizen has a hope in hell of defending themselves against a fully armed and trained SWAT team even WITH automatic weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
The Iraqis and Afghanis seem to be doing it just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Did nobody read my pertinent point abour the far higher population density of Europe (UK) and the USA on page 3????????????????????
Automatic weapons are limited in use, unlike the semi-auto. Trust me, automatic weapons are not necessary or even a big deal if you use the correct tactics. They are mainly for defensive positions.
But it does!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
They still didn't invent something to prevent people from farting however. The future isn't all that great.
Very true. I can pick somebody of from a far greater distance with semi automatic over a fully automatic. But for close quarters, an automatic comes in handy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Never
But it doesn't matter. I could buy an AR 15 (semi auto only version of the M16), push in a single pin, or shave off a part of the trigger mechanism, and make it fully automatic. And no, I won't tell anybody how to do it.
Neruo...stay on topic....do you disagree with my points in the post you responded to?
One way or the other, average citizens are not the ones who want to buy automatic weapons, and they aren't the ones that are going to be standing up during a time of government oppression/civil unrest. I personally think buying an automatic rifle through legal means is a hindrance to any act of rebellion rather than helpful because what it does first and foremost is put you on a list of people to go after first once the shit hits the fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
All I'm saying is, reserving the most effective killing machines for people in positions of authority, or working directly for that authority, is dangerous for the common man, unless you trust that authority explicitly and in all situations; which I have to say, I don't.