No guns= no shootings?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Victor Von Doom
To save further derailing the other thread.

Obviously the thread title is simplistic.

Alpha Centauri
If no guns existed, there would be no shootings.

If guns weren't legal, there would be less. Comparing England and America proves this.

-AC

KharmaDog
This should be a relatively short thread, but I hazard to guess that it won't be.

Deano
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If no guns existed, there would be no shootings.

-AC

true, there would be stabbings instead. or any other means of killing someone which someone would surely find

BackFire
There's more to gun violence then just the availability of guns. Making them illegal wouldn't necessarily halt shootings, cut them down, yes, but people will always be able to get them illegally, and probably pretty easily, in which case you'd have a society where the only people who have guns, besides cops, are criminals, which is not an uplifting thought.

Alpha Centauri
Yeah, we've got gun crime here. Frighteningly less than the US though.

-AC

Smallville
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Comparing England and America proves this.

-AC

Or Canada and America. Consider their proximity to one another; the lifestyle and the media that one gets, the other gets at the same time. The video games, movies, television shows, music... all are targeted towards the same age group, and yet Canada hasn't had nearly as many shootings as America.

And yet parents in America claim that heavy rock music and the video game Doom are to blame.

Mando
If all Gun sales, and mass production was halted, there would still be gun crime. And what about all those people who are in possession of Guns at this moment. Would the government just go knocking on their door asking for any firearms that they may posses? I don't think so. But just for the concept, If No guns existed, there would still be crimes done with knives, and the bare fist. Just not with Firearms.

BackFire
Fact is, no one really knows why gun violence is so bad in America. But it's obvious that it's rooted deeper then just having guns available. Canada has just as large a gun/people ratio and has a fraction of the shootings America has. There's no simple reason for the problem, as such, there is no simple answer.

Smallville
Originally posted by Mando
If all Gun sales, and mass production was halted, there would still be gun crime. And what about all those people who are in possession of Guns at this moment. Would the government just go knocking on their door asking for any firearms that they may posses? I don't think so. But just for the concept, If No guns existed, there would still be crimes done with knives, and the bare fist.

America brought the right to bare arms to the extream. They live in fear of everybody around them. Which is, needless to say, sad.

Besides, the black market sale of guns is always there. Its just like cigarettes. Ban it, people will still smoke.

soleran30
Originally posted by Smallville
America brought the right to bare arms to the extream. They live in fear of everybody around them. Which is, needless to say, sad.

Besides, the black market sale of guns is always there. Its just like cigarettes. Ban it, people will still smoke.


I am not so sure about the fear of everyone around them. However Switerland also has a high gun count in the civilian population.

Guns=goodsmile It's people that use ANY tool that becomes the problem.

Inspectah Deck
No guns doesn't necessarily no more shootings. Actually it might increase it through illegal shippings

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by BackFire
There's more to gun violence then just the availability of guns. Making them illegal wouldn't necessarily halt shootings, cut them down, yes, but people will always be able to get them illegally, and probably pretty easily, in which case you'd have a society where the only people who have guns, besides cops, are criminals, which is not an uplifting thought.

The day guns are outlawed, is ther day outlaws will have guns.
I rest my case.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
The day guns are outlawed, is ther day outlaws will have guns.
I rest my case.

I don't think anyone really disputes this.

Out of interest, do you feel then that giving everyone a gun, rather than just criminals, will reduce rates?

Snoopbert
Originally posted by BackFire
Fact is, no one really knows why gun violence is so bad in America. But it's obvious that it's rooted deeper then just having guns available. Canada has just as large a gun/people ratio and has a fraction of the shootings America has. There's no simple reason for the problem, as such, there is no simple answer. Indeed. I'd prefer to be able to defend myself from criminals armed with guns than not becasue some moron's managed to get them banned for law-abiding citizens.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by BackFire
Fact is, no one really knows why gun violence is so bad in America. But it's obvious that it's rooted deeper then just having guns available. Canada has just as large a gun/people ratio and has a fraction of the shootings America has. There's no simple reason for the problem, as such, there is no simple answer.

I agree. I have no idea what it is here.

But when you have people like Michael Moore who use the Columbine tragedy for their political ends, the WORST is going to come out. And I for one, am tired of this ****ing movie being held over every gun owner's heads. It's like trying to hold modern day Germans resp. for the Holocaust. The actions of a few do NOT speak for the actions of an entire group.

have any of you here ever herad of the NICS system? Startred in 1998.

The Brady Campaign worked with the NRA to implement the NICS (National Instant Check System). It's simple: Before you buy a
gun, you fill out a form. They ask you about many facets of your criminal\mental\physical background.

The dealer then calls the State police of your specific state, and gives them your SSN. ANY and ALL info on your criminal\mental\physical background is there for their review. ANY smallest deviation in info between the database and the form is grounds for withholding or
denial of the sale. And if you have ever been convicted of something
as simple as pushing or shoving someone in ar argument, you are automatically IN-eligible for a gun because it denotes the tendecy for domestic violence.

Years ago, no background check, nothing. They filled out the form for sale and that was it. NOW, we have a more definite model of who should and shouldn't have a gun.

NICS stopped almost 1,000,000 sales last year. That's 1,000,000 LESS, so see it that way and it's a definite victory.

Did Michael Moore ever tell anyone about the NICS system or it's somewhat sounding success? NO. because HIS aim (no pun intended) is to derail the NRA because his real probelm is that they are Republican-based. SO as you can see his info was biased from the start.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
To save further derailing the other thread.

Obviously the thread title is simplistic.

So is the fact that not everyone with a gun is a criminal. But Michael Moore says.....

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Smallville
America brought the right to bare arms to the extream. They live in fear of everybody around them. Which is, needless to say, sad.

Pretty strong words from a Texan considering in your state, no state license is needed for ANY sort of gun, but yet you need permits to carry concealed.

Every Citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in thelawful defense of himself, or the State, but the legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
Article 1, Section 23.

Originally posted by Smallville
Besides, the black market sale of guns is always there. Its just like cigarettes. Ban it, people will still smoke.

Yeah not to mention the illeagls who jump your fence every day and their own little black market ops along unguarded areas of the border.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I don't think anyone really disputes this.

Out of interest, do you feel then that giving everyone a gun, rather
than just criminals, will reduce rates?

You're missing the point: Legally obtained guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, are not the problem. If you are criminally, mentally, and physically clear of any defect prohibiting you, then you should not be barred from owning.

But just handing them to everyone as you hypothesized, is a bad deal because you can't trust EVERYONE, but that said, this does not mean that decent people should be barred because of idiots.

You might find this interesting:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/95/more-guns-less-crime.htm

More guns can reduce crime: Look at Kennesaw Georgia. It's required that everyone own a gun. This article speaks about Israel and their dropped rate of crime as a result of everyone packin' a piece. And to date,Kennesaw's crime rate is STILL low.

http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
You're missing the point: Legally obtained guns, in the hands of law abiding citizens, are not the problem. If you are criminally, mentally, and physically clear of any defect prohibiting you, then you should not be barred from owning.


I'm not missing the point. I agree with that to some extent.

I'm just pointing out that in a country where guns are prohibited, there are less shootings. It's just logical.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'm not missing the point. I agree with that to some extent.

I'm just pointing out that in a country where guns are prohibited, there are less shootings. It's just logical.

To a point, but also, as Kennesaw Georgia crime rates show, a
level playing field deters crime. And the right to carry laws in Israel have stopped many crimes.

It's this simple...noone needs persmission from the Kerry's or the Clintons, or the Pelosi's or Barbara Boxer. THEY are allowed personal rights to self defense, and I'm sure if they shot and wounded and\or killed an intruder, that the law would stand behind THEM. We are no different. No politician is above their constituents, and they have no right to determine who can and can't have things that they themself have free credit on.

Victor Von Doom
Alright. I think we are discussing at cross-purposes so it's best left there.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Alright. I think we are discussing at cross-purposes so it's best left there.

Cross purposes? OH ok, so the prevention of crime is a taboo cross purpose? Oh I forgot, the name of the thread is "No Guns=No Shootings" instead of "Let's Look At The Positive Aspects."

Well instead of referring to the crime aspect, how about accepting the fact that guns have prevented crime? Are you going to argue with the stats shown? If your cross purpose reference was my mentioning of the politicians, I think it's integral because if the best they can do is use Michael Moore's "policies" to come up with arguments as to why WE have to give up OUR guns, while they stall for time to find ways to keep THEIRS, then fine. Tell me what makes THEM more deserving of the right than us ordinary 9 to 5'ers? What, because they're rich? BULLSHIT.

Alpha Centauri
I swear you genuinely have a condition in which you are compelled to decide what others are saying and run with it.

He is saying he agrees with you to some extent, but you, as you have done with multiple people in similar threads, are arguing something without reading the point first.

-AC

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Cross purposes? OH ok, so the prevention of crime is a taboo cross purpose? Oh I forgot, the name of the thread is "No Guns=No Shootings" instead of "Let's Look At The Postive Aspects."

Well instead of referring to the crime aspect, how about accepting the fact that guns have prevented crime? Are you going to argue with the stats shown? If your cross purpose reference was my mentioning of the politicians, I think it's integral because if the best they can do is use Michael Moore's "policies" to come up with arguments as to why WE have to give up OUR guns, while they stall for time to find ways to keep THEIRS, then fine. Tell me what makes THEM more deserving of the right than us ordinary 9 to 5'ers? What, because they're rich? BULLSHIT.

Why do you keep returning to that point though, as if it's countering what I'm saying? I'm not even remotely suggesting that some people give up their guns, while leaving criminals with guns.

I'm simply saying that a country which has never had guns= less shootings than a country that has liberal gun laws.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I swear you genuinely have a condition in which you are compelled to decide what others are saying and run with it.

As if politically motivated individuals like Michael Moore DON'T?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He is saying he agrees with you to some extent, but you, as you have done with multiple people in similar threads, are arguing something without reading the point first.

I got the ****ing point. But it seems to me when I mentioned a POSITIVE aspect of gun possession, and why everyone is deserving and not just the politicians, it gets labelled as "cross purposes."

If you can't explore ALL purposes, and proof that points to positive elements of the thing you're discusssing, then don't do it at all. That was all I'm saying.

Von Doom, I got what you were saying, trust me I DO. Less of something equals less chances for the misuses of that particular object.
I gotcha' for Chrissakes..

soleran30
"All males between the ages of 20 and 42 are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for purposes of national defense. Military historians do not doubt that this was a big reason Hitler chose to avoid Switzerland in favor of conquering countries which had strict gun control laws -- as well as registration lists which facilitated confiscation of firearms. "

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd061099b.html


hmm lots of guns here.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Dagons Blade


Von Doom, I got what you were saying, trust me I DO. Less of something equals less chances for the misuses of that particular object.
I gotcha' for Chrissakes.. to me is at cross-purposes - I'm not disputing any of the other points.

jaden101
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yeah, we've got gun crime here. Frighteningly less than the US though.

-AC

but strangely gun crime has doubled since the Dunblane massacre catalysed the banning of handguns in the UK...mostly because of the rise in the drug trade apparently

Echuu
Originally posted by soleran30
"All males between the ages of 20 and 42 are required to keep rifles and pistols at home for purposes of national defense. Military historians do not doubt that this was a big reason Hitler chose to avoid Switzerland in favor of conquering countries which had strict gun control laws -- as well as registration lists which facilitated confiscation of firearms. "

http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pd061099b.html


hmm lots of guns here.

Switzerland is awesome.


People think about it...the problem isn't really guns, it's that there needs to be more responsibility and training. I think there needs to be more concealed carry laws that require very good training programs also.

A criminal is going to be less likely to rob a bank or someone's house if they know that there is a good chance there is a person skillfully trained in marksmanship with a weapon under their coat ready to defend themselves.

And also if you want to defend your home buy a rifle not a handgun; you have a better chance of hitting your target. A big issue in owning a gun is using your own common sense.

Victor Von Doom
This truly amazes me.

That Second Amendment is like textual heroin.

KharmaDog
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I swear you genuinely have a condition in which you are compelled to decide what others are saying and run with it.

I find it totally amazing that instead of replying to AC's post with an explanation or rebuttal as to his propensity to do what AC said he does, Dagons Blade decided to counter with this gem:

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
As if politically motivated individuals like Michael Moore DON'T?

What has that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with how you conduct yourself on a discussion board? What does that have to do with your response? What does that have to do with the multiple times that you have done exactly what AC said you did? Is your sole modus operandi (sp?) to engage in a certain behaviour because Michael Moore (and others like him) behave in a certain manner?

Really weird.

Lana
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This truly amazes me.

That Second Amendment is like textual heroin.

And as I have pointed out countless times, the majority of Americans (and especially the ones who harp on about it), do not know what it really means.

Which is rather sad.

overlord
People would much easier act out their revenge in a blind rage with such an accessible and easy to use weapon + morons would probably even think they would get away with such a quick crime.

So to reply to the topic: Decreasing accessibility will certainly decrease murder to some degree too.

soleran30
And also if you want to defend your home buy a rifle not a handgun; you have a better chance of hitting your target. A big issue in owning a gun is using your own common sense.


Maybe in the case of a shotgun however in a range of 10 to 15 feet give me a pistol semiauto over a rifle...........really less lethal and if you miss won't shoot a neighbor 3 houses over. (unless its a .22 rifle)

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Lana
And as I have pointed out countless times, the majority of Americans (and especially the ones who harp on about it), do not know what it really means.

Which is rather sad.

Well, not sure what you mean here, in terms of the ones who "harp on it", the pro or anti-gunners, but it's even sadder that people like Michael Moore use Columbine as a base of operations for a guilt trip against law abiding citizens in a bid for his real aim, which was to destabilize the NRA,destroy their reputation and eliminate them as a political opponent because they are Republican based.(and have SOME Democratic membership too.)

I won't fault him for raising an eye to the problem, but there's no doubt that there was political gain in his eyes too. Can anyone tell me there WASN'T?

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by KharmaDog

What has that have to do with anything? What does that have to do with how you conduct yourself on a discussion board? What does that have to do with your response? What does that have to do with the multiple times that you have done exactly what AC said you did? Is your sole modus operandi (sp?) to engage in a certain behaviour because Michael Moore (and others like him) behave in a certain manner?

Really weird.

Oh here we go, Lt. KD from the Online Conduct Police. Here's my papers, officer, you'll find them in order..you and the rest of the world may continue to belittle, pressurize, and guilt trip us to death about our guns, and then when you get attacked by Al Qaeda or some other group, like the Quebec nationalists who scream for indepndence, we'll get the blame for that too. Why not, we get the blame for everything else...

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This truly amazes me.

That Second Amendment is like textual heroin.

Drugs! here we go:
Brings up another good point: Everyone who screams about how bad guns are, well some of them are the same ones looking to legalize pot as an entry level legislation to the harder drugs. Guns are bad but drugs are OK, right? Guns kill but it's a personal right to pump your body up with all that other shit? Yeah, gotcha.

Snoopbert
I would rather be able to carry a weapon on myself than not be able too. If there was a law banning them, sure, there would lessened gun crime, but there would be on the off-hand almost no defense for those assaulted by gun-wielding law-breakers. I'd rather have my gun.

soleran30
Originally posted by Snoopbert
I would rather be able to carry a weapon on myself than not be able too. If there was a law banning them, sure, there would lessened gun crime, but there would be on the off-hand almost no defense for those assaulted by gun-wielding law-breakers. I'd rather have my gun.


If they outlawed guns they would have a tough time enforcing that...........no impossible

There are hundreds of thousands of people even millions that have guns that aren't registered..........thank god!

Snoopbert
Originally posted by soleran30
If they outlawed guns they would have a tough time enforcing that...........no impossible

There are hundreds of thousands of people even millions that have guns that aren't registered..........thank god! Indeed.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Snoopbert
I would rather be able to carry a weapon on myself than not be able too. If there was a law banning them, sure, there would lessened gun crime, but there would be on the off-hand almost no defense for those assaulted by gun-wielding law-breakers. I'd rather have my gun.

Try telling that to the naysayers....Thanks for recognzing basic common sense here. What you said is one of my points, that bans on guns will only empower criminals, who bans don't apply to because they operate outside the law. And it will empower them, and embolden them even more, knwoing no possible way exists to stop them once they enter your house.

And for all the laws restricting the use of deadly force, I'm sure if a politician or someone high on the American ladder would not be charged. And as I said, what makes rich and elite people more derveing of the rights of common self defense.

You know I think that's why other countries hate us so much, because they know that we just aren't going to lie down and submit to their whims.

Originally posted by jaden101


You WOULD have had guns to defend with if Rebecca Peters, the little ass ***** of George Soros and the U.N. didn't have endless funding from those entities to promote one sided agendas that excluded them from the laws they imposed. England and Australia were once two of the most pro-gun countries in Europe, even ladies carried them.

But no, to cover their impotence in the face of their own inability to stop violence all over the globe, the UN turned media attention to guns and labelled them as the source of all evil (funny considering most massacres in Africa take place with machetes.)

Snoopbert
Australia - Did you mean Austria?

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Snoopbert
Australia - Did you mean Austria?

I have a friend in Australia, who for years mentioned how guns were slowly taken away. We speak on IM allthe time. However if you know something about Austria that I don't, fill me in. Thanks smile

Snoopbert
"England and Australia were once two of the most pro-gun countries in Europe"

Australia is on it's own continent, Austria is part of Europe.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Snoopbert
"England and Australia were once two of the most pro-gun countries in Europe"

Australia is on it's own continent, Austria is part of Europe.

Gotcha. That wasn't the point. I was aware of their separate continental locations. With regard to Australia I spoke of the colonial ties they have to Britian. Should have been a bit more specific there. Sorry. There again, in "Dumb And Dumber" Jim Carrey made us aware that shrimp on the barbie was Austrian wink

overlord
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Drugs! here we go:
Brings up another good point: Everyone who screams about how bad guns are, well some of them are the same ones looking to legalize pot as an entry level legislation to the harder drugs What kind of weird speculation is that? People don't want to legalise pot so they can legalise hard drugs.
Although horribly off topic: Pot is just a substance that affects your body like medication(drugs) but cannabis is the least of the least of the "drugs."
And that is mainly because it isn't physically addictive nor has it ever been proven that it effects your body in the long run and that's probably the same reason to why it isn't physically addictive.
The only downside is that it contains three times as more tar as an average cigarette, but as people consume cigarettes like crazy, it doesn't mean that people should be protected from cannabis.

Second downside is psychosis but as that is genetically decided and only the result of fear and guilt induced by the actual use of drugs we can discard that topic.

as for the topic in question:

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by overlord
What kind of weird speculation is that? People don't want to legalise pot so they can legalise hard drugs.
Although horribly off topic: Pot is just a substance that affects your body like medication(drugs) but cannabis is the least of the least of the "drugs."
And that is mainly because it isn't physically addictive nor has it ever been proven that it effects your body in the long run and that's probably the same reason to why it isn't physically addictive.
The only downside is that it contains three times as more tar as an average cigarette, but as people consume cigarettes like crazy, it doesn't mean that people should be protected from cannabis.

Second downside is psychosis but as that is genetically decided and only the result of fear and guilt induced by the actual use of drugs we can discard that topic.

as for the topic in question:

My point is is that drugs kill too. and I hear noone bitching about drugs.

It's bad to have a gun but then people turn around and pursue stuff that could prospectively kill them the fist time out, based on their presence or lack of hypersensitivity to the substance.

No prior exposure to a substance is required to have a reaction to it.

My point: A gun can kill, and so can a drug as simple as marijuana if the person's chemistry is predisposed to hypersensitivity.

Either way someone dies but it's OK to ttake the risk it if feels good.

Anyway back to the topic.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Drugs! here we go:
Brings up another good point: Everyone who screams about how bad guns are, well some of them are the same ones looking to legalize pot as an entry level legislation to the harder drugs. Guns are bad but drugs are OK, right? Guns kill but it's a personal right to pump your body up with all that other shit? Yeah, gotcha.

*Looks around*

Are you...talking to me?

Capt_Fantastic
I smoke pot, and I've never shot anyone with a gun.

EDIT: I DID shoot a kid in teh eye with a rubber band once. But that was in teh fourth grade, and I wasn't hi at the time.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
*Looks around*

Are you...talking to me?

*stares in the mirror and takes out the .357 and draws it while looking at himself once more*

"Are you...talking to ME"?

Victor Von Doom in the Quentin Tarantino remake of "Taxi Driver." Coming soon to a theatre...somewhere wink

BackFire
Just so you know, Marijuana has never killed anyone.

Dagons Blade
Originally posted by BackFire
Just so you know, Marijuana has never killed anyone.

Just so you know, with all due respect, we had 2 kids in our area die from PCP laced marijuana back in the early 1980's a few years before I graduated. There again cross lacing it with something that bad was stupid..but then again it wouldn't have happened if they didn't smoke it first, would it? sad sad sad Back to topic.

BackFire
That's the PCP that killed them, not the marijuana.

Again, regular pot has never killed anyone.

Dagons Blade
Well I never did the stuff personally but if that's someone else's bag I guess that's how it is...

overlord
And that is why people opt for safe cannabis purchasement. smile
I personally think it is a somewhat good idea. It decreases users in general too for example when comparing England to Holland.
People also need to be better informed because most kids think you get happy from it or something dumb.

(Oh yeah.. And there is no possibility to over-dosing on that soft drug too wich you worried about in a previous post.)

But I'm sure this topic has already been discussed, I just thought I might clear stuff up by that first reply.

Darth Revan

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.