No guns= no shootings?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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..

"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.

[QUOTE=5573017]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.. [/QUOTE

That's why bringing up other points to me is at cross-purposes - I'm not disputing any of the other points.

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

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.

This truly amazes me.

That Second Amendment is like textual heroin.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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...

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.

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.

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!