| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Guns in the US
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Guns in the US

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>
Author
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Guns in the US
    Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 17:27

To take just one random sample of violence from the news of the day, consider Tunisia. Civil society is rebelling, and being met with violence. The army is in the streets. The world’s media is focused.  The official death toll is about 23; some say it is higher.

 

Now consider New York City, neither the most crime prone area of the US, nor the safest. A death toll of 23 in NY during the same time period of the Tunisian unrest would be considered chicken feed, considerably lower than usual, a bit of a respite for the homicide squad.

 

When Obama addressed the recent violence in Arizona, he notably skirted around the suggestion that a country awash in guns might pose a problem for a civilized society.

 

Why is it, do you at AE suppose, that guns and gun crimes are accepted in the cavalier fashion that they are in the US, in comparison to many other countries? Indeed in some jurisdictions in the US, gun ownership seems to be increasing, and minimal gun laws are being challenged. What sociological forces are at work in a society that is arming itself to the degree that is the case in the US today?

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 17:59
I have waited for so long for this topic and the desire to join the chorus in glee with the below is now irresistible:
 
GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!
 
If one is hell-bent on homicide they will not permit a piddling detail such as not owning a firearm deter them from their objective. Besides, committing a felony with a firearm represents grounds for an additional charge so it is technically incorrect in claiming there are no "gun laws" in the United States. After all it has been a felony to possess a fully automated firearm in the US since 1934! As for "targetting" New York City, and claiming that 23 homicides with firearms in NYC in a three day period would be considered chicken-feed, such is preposterous on its face. here is a "blast from the past":
 
 
But heck, I am not going to start generating static with statistics since if one is going to search for an area where gun control laws are pyrrhic in nature one need look no further than Washington DC, which has led the nation in firearm homicides for years and ranks #1 repeatedly--
 
 
Now for some pinguinesque fun:
 
Anti Gun Control Bumper StickerWhy a .45 Bumpersticker
How I Feel About Gun Control Decal Sticker
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 18:55
Doc,

It is a reprise of the same tune that has been played a million times (999,999 of them by non US citizens).

Great bumper stickers.  Keep up the good work.  Smile 

Jefferson's opinion of a citizen's right to arm himself is enough IMO.




Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 18:57
Fact: Americans love guns. People has the problems that chose. Simple.

I wonder when they are going to start saling portable nukes at the gun shops.


Edited by pinguin - 16 Jan 2011 at 18:57
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:02
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Fact: Americans love guns. People has the problems that chose. Simple.

I wonder when they are going to start saling portable nukes at the gun shops.


"Simple."  Typical "simple" response.  So "Simple."  I think you are an intelligent man pinguin, but often your comments are those of the simpleton.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:06
It is very hard to convince Americans they are wrong. They don't listen.



Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:30
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
But heck, I am not going to start generating static with statistics since if one is going to search for an area where gun control laws are pyrrhic in nature one need look no further than Washington DC, which has led the nation in firearm homicides for years and ranks #1 repeatedly--
 
 
 
 
 
 
Last time I checked most DC suberbs are in Virginia and in Virginia a baby could by a gun without any background checks.
 
Anyway most people advocating gun control advocate laws that are sensible, ban on semi automatics, ban on open or concealed carriage and restriction on cartridge size and how many guns one can own. I mean why the hell are pro-gun people so up and arms against such measures?
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 19:45
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is very hard to convince Americans they are wrong. They don't listen.





We think differently on this.  It is an historical issue, and this IS an historical forum.

"Those who try to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it is not an individual right are courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

- Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law School)...and hardly a right winger.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of some other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison (The Federalist Papers)

"Tyrants mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of arms."

- Aristotle

English law and the "assize of arms" predates the US Constitution by quite some time, and there is no reason to suppose the legal theory has any less validity now than it did then.

For those who are outraged, just deal with it.

Incidentally, I don't own any guns and never have.  I fired weapons in the navy but just on the range.  Noisy back then - no ear guards.






Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:09
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Last time I checked most DC suburbs are in Virginia and in Virginia a baby could buy a gun without any background checks.
 
Anyway most people advocating gun control advocate laws that are sensible, ban on semi automatics, ban on open or concealed carriage and restriction on cartridge size and how many guns one can own. I mean why the hell are pro-gun people so up and arms against such measures?
 
Al-Jassas
 
Er, Al, when one says Washington DC they are not talking Arlington nor Fairfax. They mean the bounds set by Maryland's perimeters and the Potomac. Are you suggesting that the DC crime rate is the fault of Virginia? And hey, are you questioning Virginia's honor by saying "babies" can buy guns...oh the calumny, oh the misrepresentation, oh the untruth: The law:
 
It is a crime for any person to sell, give or otherwise furnish a handgun to a minor if he has reason to believe that the buyer or recipient is under 18 years of age, unless such transfer is made between family members or for the purpose of engaging in a sporting event or activity. 

Now excuse me while I go make sure the nursery is armed.

 

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:16
Sorry, my bad, the case happened in Illinois:
 
 
But that doesn't mean Vrginia (and Maryland) doesn't have some of the most liberal gun laws in the US. 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:21
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Sorry, my bad, the case happened in Illinois:
 
 
But that doesn't mean Vrginia (and Maryland) doesn't have some of the most liberal gun laws in the US. 
 
Al-Jassas


By logic, the Second Amendment providing for militias (local posse comitatus) devolves upon the several states the power to regulate (or not) guns and the criteria for their ownership.

This confuses many non US citizens, but the Constitution was explicitly intended to empower the states with all civil authority not expressed in the US Constitution.




Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:39
Doesn't Canada, per capita have more guns than the US?  I guess it is more about culture than the weapons themselves in the case of the US.  Mass murders involving firearms are not unique to the US.  I don't have any issue with guns themselves but rather the mental condition of their owners.  IMO there needs to be comprehensive psychological assessments and consideration of the criminal record of a person wishing to own a gun.  The UK's gun firearms laws are effective to this end.  But you can never be sure whether someone will flip one day and so therein lies the question: Ban guns altogether or tolerate the inevitability of such tragedies (which can be reduced through better gun control)?

Is the right to bear arms in the US tantamount to a right to vigilantism?  What's the history, something about having the capacity to supplement a limited standing army?  If that's the case then the right is clearly outdated/redundant.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 20:43
That said though, I fully understand most positions of respectable Americans in their support of the 2nd Amendment as a right to self defence given the realities they face.


Edited by Zagros - 16 Jan 2011 at 20:43
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 21:44
For starters, I am generally pro-right to bear arms.
At the end of the day, an armed populace does protect you from invasion, but considerations must be made for general law & order.
 
For the majority of this post however, I want to debunk DrG's ridiculous implication that without guns, people would just kill people with knives. While it is true that a homocidal operator of a gun probably would try to kill people with a knife if he couldn't get a gun. It must be remembered that a gun makes killing far more efficient.
 
Try going on a killing spree with a knife. A knife in a school may be serious but it's no school shooting. If the Arizona assassin only had a knife, he would never have been able to kill 9 people.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 22:11
Yes, it is much easier to point and pull a trigger than to stab someone, both physically and mentally.
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 22:30
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

For starters, I am generally pro-right to bear arms.
At the end of the day, an armed populace does protect you from invasion, but considerations must be made for general law & order.
 
For the majority of this post however, I want to debunk DrG's ridiculous implication that without guns, people would just kill people with knives. While it is true that a homocidal operator of a gun probably would try to kill people with a knife if he couldn't get a gun. It must be remembered that a gun makes killing far more efficient.
 
Try going on a killing spree with a knife. A knife in a school may be serious but it's no school shooting. If the Arizona assassin only had a knife, he would never have been able to kill 9 people.
 
But they do, Omar, they do and when you look at total homicide numbers the rarity is the armed whacko unloading his .45...in a teeming crowd.  Of course, not all of these loons can be as creative as McVeigh nor have the patience of detailed planning, but then are you questioning the actual statistics from the NYPD as presented in the NYTimes? It is a fact of life that the probability of your sudden death through violence will be far more likely at the hands of an acquaintance or family member, gun or no gun, than a casual visit at some Mall venue holding a political event no matter the noise made by the Mass Media. You can not "control" for the medically deranged or vengeful suicide nut (as the one who flew his private plane into federal offices here in Texas) so in actuality all of the rhetoric is more or less misdirection (or is it really a vast conspiracy to disarm the general public so as to bring Socialism or worse to the massesEvil Smile).
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Jan 2011 at 23:42
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

...
We think differently on this.  It is an historical issue, and this IS an historical forum.

"Those who try to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it is not an individual right are courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

- Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law School)...and hardly a right winger.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of some other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison (The Federalist Papers)

"Tyrants mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of arms."

- Aristotle

English law and the "assize of arms" predates the US Constitution by quite some time, and there is no reason to suppose the legal theory has any less validity now than it did then.

For those who are outraged, just deal with it.

Incidentally, I don't own any guns and never have.  I fired weapons in the navy but just on the range.  Noisy back then - no ear guards.



But that's naive. Anybody nows that part of the rules of a civilized country is to give the right of the force to the police.

Most countries worldwide allow civilians to own guns, if they wish, but with restrictions. But those guns hardly are more powerful than a revolver or a small pistol.
How come it could be smart to allow people to own automatic weapons!

An give me a break, the day a dictator took power in the U.S., a bunch of disorganized citizens with a few machine guns will be wiped out in two days by the army.  Believing civilians can stop an organized army not only is naive. It is an stupid excuse.















Edited by pinguin - 16 Jan 2011 at 23:43
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:43
In 1996 in Tasmania, a deranged lone gunman by the name of Martin Bryant (IQ 66!) went on a rampage. This was just one man, alone and without any support, who decided he wanted to take human life. He picked a popular tourist resort. The total death toll: 35 dead and 21 wounded. That is what one man with a self loading automatic gun can do in 5 hours.

Needless to say, the nation was mortified. Nothing like that has ever occurred before. Newly elected Prime Minister John Howard, whose coalition represented the country's right wing sympathies, forged ahead with new gun control laws. Some Australians objected to this, and doubtless some may even have retained their firearms illegally, but the vast majority took advantage of the government's offer to cashier all pump action and self loading rifles and shotguns. Despite the attempts by lobbyists and some government ministers, the gun reform laws passed due to the juggernaut of public opinion.

Don't get me wrong, we need some guns. Having been roo shooting from the time I was a little boy I know too well their usefulness in pest control and protecting agriculture. But we came to the collective realisation that we don't need self reloading automatic weapons that are THAT powerful in our civic society. Our soldiers will wield the best, but our citizens should only have the bare basics.

The argument that guns don't kill people, people do, is a fair one. But I am unconcerned with absolutes. I don't care if people get murdered; or rather I accept that this will always be so and don't make it my object to come up with ways to eliminate murder entirely. Why? People people will always get murdered. No matter what. We have to live with that.

What I am concerned with is HOW MANY people get murdered. My concern is scale and proportion, not absolutes. I do not accept that if Martin Bryant were equipped with a knife or a sword or a crossbow or a musket that he could have liquidated 35 human beings and wounded another 21. It doesn't happen, it just doesn't.

And I know Americans know exactly the same thing that I do. In fact, I would wager they would be even more keenly aware of it than I am as they probably have more exposure to how effective these sorts of weapons can be from first hand experience in handling them. So the question I wish to pose (ha! you thought I was making a point, but no, I just want to ask a question) is: "why even with the abundant knowledge we have that shows that having these sorts of military grade weapons in our society will result in more death proportionally, do people insist that society retains access to these weapons?"

To go back into my economics groove and employ stock standard auditing techniques, what is the 'payoff' that US society gets by people retaining these weapons that justifies the inevitable increase in human carnage? (which of course is the cost)


Edited by Constantine XI - 17 Jan 2011 at 02:25
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:50
There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.


Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:51
pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 01:55
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.


That's nonsense.

A society has to prevent nuts to commit massive murder. And a very good defense is to constrain the availability of authomatic guns. Even more, gun commerce should be regulated and controlled more as much as the saling of legal drugs.

A civilian shouldn't have access to military weapons. At much civilians should have access to small guns.

Only the U.S. don't see that, because in that country nobody worries for the lives of innocent people.





Edited by pinguin - 17 Jan 2011 at 01:57
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 02:00
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Certainly. Because Americans are more easily fooled. You play the Yankee Doodle and all Americans dance to the tune. Just imagine a people chosing an idiot like George Bush Confused

So, there is no need of dictators there, giving the fact that people is already controlled quite well. Only rebelious people had dictators.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 02:10
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

There is no defense against deranged persons.  Suicide bombers blowing up 50 people every other day is IMO derangement just as much as a lunatic opening fire on a political gathering in Arizona or a student at a school in Europe.

Again, if those who are outraged can't deal with it, too bad.  A state where only the police have arms is a police state.




Thank you for the reply, pike. And yes, low IQ and mental illness are a fact of life that we must all simply do our best to cope with.

But there are two points in your answer not being addressed. Firstly, I am sure we can both agree that the scale of destruction committed by the mentally deranged depends on the scale of the destructiveness of the weapons they are able to access.

Secondly, and this was the question I really would like answered as I do not know for myself, why is it that in the US the inevitable increase in the death toll from firearm access is tolerated? What is the 'payoff' for the cost in additional loss of human life?
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 02:16
Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


A state where only the police have arms is a police state.


A state where everybody can own authomatic weapons, bazookas and flame throwers is the Far West. Come on, Americans, get civilized!

You live under the more militarized state in the world. A state that waste half its budget in weapons. And you still believe owning a few guns to kill cats will keep you free from such mighty power: your own state?

Give me a breake. That's been naive.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:

pinguin,

A dictator taking power is far more likely in Chile than it is here.  Wink


Certainly. Because Americans are more easily fooled. You play the Yankee Doodle and all Americans dance to the tune. Just imagine a people chosing an idiot like George Bush Confused

So, there is no need of dictators there, giving the fact that people is already controlled quite well. Only rebelious people had dictators.


LOL
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 5076
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:26
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 pikeshot1600 wrote:


A state where only the police have arms is a police state.


A state where everybody can own authomatic weapons, bazookas and flame throwers is the Far West. Come on, Americans, get civilized!

You live under the more militarized state in the world. A state that waste half its budget in weapons. And you still believe owning a few guns to kill cats will keep you free from such mighty power: your own state?

Give me a breake. That's been naive.


LOLLOL  You are so easy to twist around.








Edited by pikeshot1600 - 17 Jan 2011 at 03:27
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:30
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

I have waited for so long for this topic and the desire to join the chorus in glee with the below is now irresistible:
 
GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE DO!
 
If one is hell-bent on homicide they will not permit a piddling detail such as not owning a firearm deter them from their objective. Besides, committing a felony with a firearm represents grounds for an additional charge so it is technically incorrect in claiming there are no "gun laws" in the United States. After all it has been a felony to possess a fully automated firearm in the US since 1934! As for "targetting" New York City, and claiming that 23 homicides with firearms in NYC in a three day period would be considered chicken-feed, such is preposterous on its face. here is a "blast from the past":
 
 
But heck, I am not going to start generating static with statistics since if one is going to search for an area where gun control laws are pyrrhic in nature one need look no further than Washington DC, which has led the nation in firearm homicides for years and ranks #1 repeatedly--
 
 
Now for some pinguinesque fun:
 
Anti Gun Control Bumper StickerWhy a .45 Bumpersticker
How I Feel About Gun Control Decal Sticker
 
 
 

There is some reason in your logic for as far as it goes Mr D, but the problem is that it doesn’t go nearly far enough.

 

Despite the best efforts of Hollywood and the news media to project a different picture, those who coolly and calmly plan murder are quite rare. Much, much more common in real life are people getting themselves into the human situations that they do, and then have events escalate out of control and into violence.

 

There is the co-dependant, battling husband and wife, whose conflict periodically becomes physical. But one day it is remembered that there is a handgun in the kitchen drawer, and then the embarrassed trip to the clinic the next day becomes a trip to the morgue. There is the kid strung out on crystal meth, who after a few good snorts of whisky to get some liquid courage, breaks into a house to get some cash for the next fix. Surprised by the angry homeowner, his muddled brain makes a poor decision. Whether he is armed with a tire iron, or with a handgun, will have a profound effect on the future of both parties. The list goes on.

 

What is a common factor in the potential for death in these situations, and what separates the US from most other developed, stable democracies in gun death statistics, is that the US has a massive number of guns in circulation, whereas the latter do not. You have repeated the glib slogan of the NRA, but it is one that is only of utility to those who want to rationalize gun ownership. Human nature will likely remand as it is for some time yet, which means conflict will occur. The more deadly force that is widely available, the more destructive it will be for the people of the country. More guns means the option to escalate to a much more lethal behavior is readily at hand. More guns means, statistically, more will be stolen or otherwise diverted to crime. More guns in society stokes the atmosphere of fear, and reinforces the sense of alienation and every man for himself ethos that is already rather disturbing in America.

 

I don’t want to get in to a pissing contest over statistics, but allow me to explain my original figures. The Tunisia situation has been going on for four weeks. That country has a population of about ten million, versus the eight and a half million in the survey area of NY. And the homicide rate was .06 per thousand, meaning a death toll of about forty during that four week period in NY. These were the latest figures I could find during a quick google. My point here is that a gun death rate that would be considered an emergency, or at least a dire event that will call for study, debate, and political change in much of the world, is taken as normal life in the US. This is not a healthy situation.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 03:39
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

For starters, I am generally pro-right to bear arms.
At the end of the day, an armed populace does protect you from invasion, but considerations must be made for general law & order.
 
For the majority of this post however, I want to debunk DrG's ridiculous implication that without guns, people would just kill people with knives. While it is true that a homocidal operator of a gun probably would try to kill people with a knife if he couldn't get a gun. It must be remembered that a gun makes killing far more efficient.
 
Try going on a killing spree with a knife. A knife in a school may be serious but it's no school shooting. If the Arizona assassin only had a knife, he would never have been able to kill 9 people.
 

an armed populace does protect you from invasion

 

This is utter nonsense. If anyone here really believes that, then we need to get Colonel lirelou back in to give a few basic lessons on military tactics.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 05:56
Dear Captain, the USA is currently following the Soviet Union into a defeat at the hands of well armed civilians in Afghanistan. The civilians are using weapons made in owner-operated workshops, they have no airforce, no armour, limited artillery, and only the intelligence that they can get with nothing more than a computer with a net connection and sandals.
 
So don't tell me that an armed populace doesn't protect you from invasion. Sure, you need know how, determination, paitence, good tactics and a helping of terrain, but so does a well equiped army.
 
To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.
 
Why Americans needs to be able to access weapons of that calibre (ok, RPGs are not permitted in America while they are in Pak) is a completely different question, because they aren't under constant threat from invasion by everyone.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jan 2011 at 06:04
Quote To answer Constantine's question from a Af-Pak perspective is easy. You can defend yourself from invaders, whether Russian, American, Bukhti, the Police or anyone else. The cost is very high in terms of civil conflict, but it does work.



I remain baffled. Whom is the US in danger of being invaded from that civic firearm ownership will prevent>
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.