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
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
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.)
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 😉
Originally posted by Dagons BladeWhat kind of weird speculation is that? People don't want to legalise pot so they can legalise hard drugs.
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
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:
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.
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.
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?
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? 🙁 🙁 🙁 Back to topic.
And that is why people opt for safe cannabis purchasement. 🙂
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.
I think one problem people here have with guns is that there are a lot of stupid, stupid people who don't know how to handle guns in a reasonable manner. My mom is an elementary school counselor, and she once talked to this kid's mother who kept loaded guns under her bed—the kid knew where they were, too, at all of seven years old. Based on that, I don't think it would be unreasonable to conclude that some people who buy a gun for self defense think that means immediately shooting at whatever comes through the door.
My dad has a sizeable gun collection, though mostly weapons that have some historical significance, and mostly for recreational purposes. He keeps them locked up in a safe in the attic, with the exception of one handgun that he keeps in his office somewhere, with the safety on. He made sure I knew how to handle a gun safely (ie, always check to see if it's loaded, never point it at anybody even when it's empty, etc) for years before I even knew where he kept all his stuff.
As for the drug thing, the argument for making currently illegal drugs more accessible is something like this: people can get drugs whether legal or illegal, and legalizing them would both make the supply safer and help cut down on drug-related crime. You cannot compare drugs to guns because any physical harm that a drug itself does is only to the user, whereas guns are primarily used to hurt other people, if anyone at all.