Check this anti gun bullshit out.

[PBR]

Lose the right to what? Have a gun? Seriously... that may sound like a sentence an adult would say in America because it's become so desensitised but anywhere else in the developed world, "it's my right to have a gun" sounds completely and utterly idiotic. People have the right to plenty of things. Justice, equal rights, freedom from persecution.... Owning a gun? It's insulting to things that people really should have their rights protected over, to put a gun in the same category.

 

If someone wants one that's fine. I'm all for someone explaining why they want one and justifying it sensibly but just saying "cos it's my right" is flat out nonsense.

 

I have a simple question. It either fundamentally makes sense to have private, urban gun ownership, or it doesn't. Pretty much every other civilised country in the world thinks it doesn't make any sense at all so why is America right and everyone else is wrong?

 

As for Alex Jones not being pro gun, well he is pro gun so you've confused me there. And he's appointed himself as some sort of spokesperson and plenty of people listen to him. Clearly, he's not a good example of anything other than an idiot though.

 

The comparing of alcohol as something to be banned is the one thing that I think is an interesting thing to talk about, though I don't think not banning alcohol should in any way be justification for not banning guns or a particular type of gun. The two things are interesting to compare in terms of logic but are fundamentally different. At least if we're comparing the two, then we're forced to actually look at things logically and not just say "cos it's my right".

 

A good place to start is what's the purpose of something? The purpose of a gun is to shoot a bit of metal at something else. They were invented to kill humans. The purpose of alcohol is what? I dunno. Ambiguous. It wasn't invented, it just exists and always will exist because it's produced naturally. Used in moderation it's good but it ruins a lot of lives. Another important question would be is it even possible to ban it? Probably not because it's really not hard to make alcohol. I even make alcohol when I don't want to. I have tropical fish and alcohol is made as a byproduct of the DIY CO2 system I have set up to feed the aquarium's plants. Alcohol is in medicine. It's used in cooking. It's produced naturally by fruit just as they lie on the floor under a tree. If you banned commercial alcohol, probably the people that have the most issues with alcohol now, would just make their own. It would be kind of pointless. If you banned guns, some of the people you'd least like to have guns wouldn't have them but it's a lot harder to make guns than it is to make alcohol. Ban guns and you don't have guns just lying around in grandpa's cabinet, ready for the latest massacre. There's lots that you can talk about and at least there's some logical discussion to be had.

 

in 2010 in the USA there were 11,948 deaths by drunk drivers with 1,210 (way to big of a list to put names and pictures of them up) of them being children 14 yrs or younger -- dont you also think they deserve respect and something done -- that number towers the ones by guns -- what makes their death so much special or different than the newtown deaths -- they are not any different or mean any more, both are tragic and sad but why is government and others so dead set on guns but yet nothing done about alcohol or drinking when it kills more people and kids period -- sad part is the killings with guns have been mentally unstable people with mental issues that could of been treated -- maybe some of the drunk drivers had mental issues also but the number on that is unknown -- and your correct not everyone should be able to or have access to a gun but for the few times that a mental illness person has gotten access and used one is that worth the millions of responsible and legit gun owners to suffer for that

 

on alex jones your right he appointed himself cause he is an idiot and lime light wannabe -- no one appointed him nor wants him -- peirs morgan got owned by wayne lapierre, ben shapiro and even jesse ventura (ted nugent too somewhat) that he brought in alex jones cause he knows alex is an idiot and would make himself look good -- look up the videos of wayne, ben and jesse with peirs they make sense -- hell jesse even had the entire audience there raising their hand showing they approve what he was saying and not peirs

 

the latest poll by gallup and cnn show 74% of america is against a gun ban -- now 60% are in favor of tighter laws or more enforcement of current laws -- like by guns person to person without background checks (whats called the gun show loophole) which really isnt a loop hole -- that is the only time background checks are not done -- if you buy a gun from the gun show or any store be it internet or whatever you have to go through a background check -- but i agree that person to person should have to be done at a ffl place so checks are done and i can even be for 10rd clips or less (will not make a difference though it didnt at columbine) but have no issues with it really -- i already have a stock pile of high cap mags -- heck to be honest gun ban wont hurt me already have all the guns i need (around 15 total with 3 being ar's) and yes i shoot them for sport and competition -- one is set up for long distance shooting with scope, one with red dot scope for quick shoot and one with factory iron sights -- i know some are probably appalled at the idea that shooting can be a sport -- to me a day shooting is like going fishing or working out for some -- its a relaxing day and releases stress

[Guest]

No you are not. In fact our country is founded on the fact that the government cant be trusted which is why he have the second ammendment and why Thomas Jefferson said this..."Periodic revolution, ‘at least once every 20 years, is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.’”

 

You cant have a revolution with powerless, defenseless, and threatless citizens.

 

If Gandhi weren't such a nice fellow he'd probably disagree with you.

 

PBR you struggle with logical relationships between statistics, cause and effect and you set up strawmen and shift the goalposts to keep your arguments slightly relevant.

 

Mexico is a failed state. Mexico does not have a government which can enforce it's oh-so-strict gun control. Mexico is a country which is ruled by armed gangs and the military with an unarmed populace caught in between.

[PBR]

Mexico is a failed country. Mexico does not have a government which can enforce it's oh-so-strict gun control. Mexico is a country which is ruled by armed gangs and the military with an unarmed populace caught in between.

 

fixed it for you -- lol -- yea it is failed but the point is still the same -- lets see we cant stop the drugs or illegal aliens from coming across the border so if / when guns get banned i bet we wont be able to stop them from coming across either and who is gonna end up with them? criminals -- no law abiding citizen thats for sure

[Guest]

So stop all your bullshit that guns for self defense dont help. Your just a bunch of hippicrites who want to endanger everyone else just because you might not be effected.

 

We are hypocrits who want to endanger everyone else just because we might not be affected... so every country in the developed world except the USA doesn't fear gun crime due to a lack of guns, yet WE are the ones wanting to endanger everyone because the vast, vast majority of the developed world's population is not affected by gun crime... due to a lack of guns.

 

As the prophet once said, "There is no correlation between owning a gun and shooting someone with it and not owning a gun and not shooting somebody And you would be a liar and a commie to state otherwise.”

 

I agree with Mike, I'd rather cop a beating and suck it up than increase the odds that people will end up being shot. In the end it is a difference in philosophy and perspective I guess and if folk really feel they need to have guns and ignore the correlation between guns and being shot then whatever, I'll just stay away which I am sure you're fine with too, win-win!

[Guest]

MMATycoon

 

That first sentence is complete nonsense. Why on earth would it make any difference whether some drunk morons decide to punch me in the face?

 

Considering i cant count how many times in my life i have head someone say "You cant fight it out man to man any more like the old days. People will pull a knife or a gun rather than take an ass kicking". So what you get is less people willing to fight and looking for trouble. The people who attacked you had no reason to fear their consequences. Guns im sure had been banned a long time. In the US lots of people are weary of starting shit like that because they know there is a good chance people have a gun. There is always people who just dont think of any consequences. But there is also that group who does. I was one of them who had many monents where the thought of someone having a gun made me rethink how i was going to act or react. Not saying it would have made a difference with you but it very well could have. No way to know but there is cases it does.

 

I'm not remotely suggesting that they would decide to kill me if they had guns. They wouldn't have in this instance, it was just what I mentioned before - some drunk morons who just wanted to beat someone up. I wasn't saying that anyone who commits violent crime would kill someone if they had a gun, I was just saying they are not even remotely the same thing. PBR effectively said "take away the guns and you just have more other violent crime". GOOD! Other violent crime isn't as bad!

 

I gotcha and i agree. But you also have to understand it isnt such a good trade off if those crimes sky rocket. IF every murder was changed to a assault charge that would be great. But if every would be murder turns into 50K assaults, thousands of rapes, 10,000 stabbings, 50,000 car jackings, 1,000 home invasions, etc. As sad as that murder is it is better than increased crime across the board that reaches every person in every community.

 

As for the guy on Piers Morgan. he personally is worrying but he also represent's perfectly a fundamental problem. I wouldn't want him to have a gun because he's clearly mentally unstable, not because I disagree with him. He appears to have paranoia and delusions of grandeur, with psychopathic tendencies. I got forwarded that vid by a mate who actually owns a gun (in this country), who said he wouldn't get a gun licence over here in a million years.

 

To be honest i would feel safer around that guy than Piers Morgan and many people on this site. That guy has to have a clear criminal record to own a gun. Also the crime level of people with a carryu permit is almost non existant. The guy does come off as pasionate about his cause that doesnt make him dangerous at all. Who i do find dangerous is Piers Morgans. He is a con man and a scumbag. Did you see the look on his face when he was getting his ass owned? People like him are capable of anything and will do anythign to get his way. History shows us its those "quite" ones who are the dangerous ones and flip and kill people.

 

I'm not saying he's gunna kill anyone. I'm saying he's not right in the head and firearms aren't something you should take a risk with or hand out willy nilly. I think you agree with that anyway but then you're defending this guy's right to bear arms, which doesn't make any sense to me. Having said that, I would not be remotely surprised if that guy went on a rampage and the fact he's some sort of spokesperson should be massively depressing to anyone who's pro-gun.

 

Like i said stats show he is likely safer than almost anyone. Just because you dont like how he expresses himself doesnt make him dangerous.

"The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.^[8]"

 

8 million active carry permits and those 8 million average 40 homicides per year. Compared to 14,000 for the test of the nation. A Permit owner is 10 times less likely to commit a homicide than the average person.

 

I also totally agree with toejam when he says "So you gunlovers need to start making some sense, because your arguments are not helping your case there just going to hurt your case. Selfdefense is the worst argument you can possibly think of." I don't agree with the rest of his post though. I don't think 15,000 people dieing isn't worth a shit. I think that's a massive amount of people when you consider it's a one off cost for an indefinite change in culture. Multiply it over a decade and you've saved a small city worth of people.

 

I disagree. This is yet another issue where there is two types of people. There is nothing that will allow passive people to see anyone other way of thinking. Just as there is nothing that is going to make an pro active person understand your passive viewers. Of course you dont like "our" defense just as we dont like your arguements. It doesnt mean there is a better way of reaching you. You might think the slef defense issue isnt a good one but yet again today a person saved their life and stoped a killer with his gun. His life might not mean anything to you but it does to others. The lifes lost to guns is tragic. But you also have to realize with the guns we have that is not that big of a number. especially when you consider how irresponsible the laws are which i support a common sense approach to tighten them. With more responsibility that 14,000 can be dropped drastically. Remember during Obamas run guns have sold more than ever before. Now with the gun control issue they are again flying off the shelves. Yet the merder rated under Obama has decline by a large percentage with way more guns.

 

 

For me it's got to an utterly baffling state of affairs when some people genuinely think that it's a good idea to have armed security in schools. Ask anyone over here what they think of that and they'll probably find it hard to formulate a sentence about just how moronic that situation is.

 

No one likes that but there is a lot of things that happen that we dont like. Im sure you would rather not have to have security cameras all over your city. But im sure you understand why they are there. UK has had its share of mass killings and they were after the gun ban. I support armed guards in schools. The lack of an armed guard is why these mass killings reach the numbers they do. Its bullshit we protect out famous people and our money with guns but dont guard our kids. Many of our schools already have metal detectors and they have banned backpacks. The least we can do is put a trained professional equipt to stop these killings before they become mass killings. I just dont understand your logic. You trust the adults at schools to send your kids but not enough to have a gun? That is stupid. My brother is a teacher and he has no problem with it. Most are talking about using retired police officers which is a great idea. That said on the news todays a board of education passed a rule to allow the Janitors to be armed rather than teachers or guards. I think that is ignorant. I would have went for a position that had a little more requirements and an education not that these are not typically good people. I personally would give an incentive to any teacher or school official who went through high level fire arm training. Teachers already have pay incentives for many different optional certifications. I would force them but give rather than pay doughnut eating cops to sit around doing nothing. Many schools already have police officers on duty. My high school had one. I had to deal with him when i got in fights. The school has to pay for it. I have no problem with funding being freed up to provide the same for low budget schools or elementary schools. Why should Highschool kids be protected and not 7 year olds? Seems common sense to me.

[Guest]

Not sure if you've just never heard the term before or were making a joke, but at a geopolitical level countries are often referred to as states in their own right, not as the individual members of a federation of states because it implies a global community of member states. Wiki defines it as "Common characteristics of a failing state include a central government so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations; and sharp economic decline.". I define it as "Mexico"

 

There is tons of research and recommendations for how to deal with the drug problem Putting poor people in jail isn't it, it just adds to the desperation which increases the violence, but this is a different topic. Also another topic, but anywhere else in the world these Mexican illegal immigrants would be called refugees and have rights under the UN charter.

 

I still don't think banning guns is the way for the USA, as I said earlier, I just think it is foolish, dangerous and naive to try to suggest that they are effective for self defense or necessary. The ban on handguns and assault rifles for example is a fine start but in the end it is the culture which needs to be changed. Guns need to be respected as tools and like any tool they have a purpose. It just so happens that their purpose is to kill things so WHAT is killed with them needs to be worked on!

 

You're right that criminal types will still have guns, in Australia, in England, wherever, sure they do. But so do the police and generally no one else except gun club members and the military so there is still a significantly lower statistical chance you'll come into contact with them. As also mentioned, the vast vast majority of these criminal types don't want extra trouble or attention so they tend to use the guns on each other, not Joe Bloggs walking down the street with new nikes.

[Guest]

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Look at any functioning, developed country in the world, look at their gun ownership, gun laws and gun control and compare it to their gun deaths. It shouldn't take any more than that to conclude if there is a problem or not. Again, not saying banning guns or whatever is the answer as each situation and culture is unique with its own special problems but I am definitely saying more guns is not the answer!

[Guest]

I have to side with Mike on this one. We had almost 32k gun deaths in 2011. 11.5k were homicide. Britain had 35. That is 328 times as many. Their population is 63 million while ours is 320 million. So, we have 5 times as many people and 328 times as many gun homicides. People with a gun in their home are 15 times more likely to be shot than those who don't, so it also goes against the claim having the gun makes you more safe. I do sport shooting and hunting. Due to my time in the Marines I am very familiar and comfortable with guns. But, I have common sense about their uses and risks. The fact is the constitution specifically cites well regulated militias as the reason for allowing guns. Where is your state militia card? When the 2nd was written the US did not have a standing military. They relied on well regulated militias to defend our country. That is no longer the case.

 

We don't even need to ban everything. Might not even have to ban anything besides any clip that can hold more than 10 rounds. Let's start somewhere simple the GOP has been working their tails off to block. Get rid of the internet/gun show loophole. What is the point of requiring a background check if anyone who buys online or in a gun show can legally ignore that law? Require mental evaluations. Require owners to be certified each year in gun safety. 3 very easy things that should not be controversial at all, but people flip out every time they come up. The crazy or criminal should not be allowed to carry. Period.

 

Come on you have to be more reasonable. No one is saying there isna danger involved with guns. BUt im sure you also see there is danger is not having them also. Its easy to post gun related homicides but there is many negatives too. You guys want to ig nore them. You dont have to agree it justifies guns but lets not pretend there isnt a side effect either. I agree with you about tighhtening up the rules. I wouldnt ban clip size because i dont believe it has any effect. No crazy gunman will go into a shooting unprepared. He isnt going to walk in with 10 bullets just because you made him use a small clip. As we have seen there is always miltple guns and clips in these shooting. Clip doesnt matter. As someone who likes to practice it sucks reloading clips all day. I would love to have a large clip so i can get more practice. To me its like trying to practice Free Throws on abasketball court but have to chase the ball down each shot. To get good to get a whole rack and shoot over and over without moving. I should lose that without a good reason with evidence to strongly support it. We do need to track these guns and have a 7 day waiting period, and forced training class. As well as mental background checks. IMO these alone will greatly lower the homicide rates. right now to be honest its kind of anything goes and there isnt any over sight. With that being the case the homicide rates really arent that bad.But that can be better without ever banning anything at all. IMO these alone will put that 11-14k down to around 5-6k. But like i said i see why pro gun people dont compromise. Check out the video in the first post here. The other side is lying and using every underhanded trick in the book to take peoples guns. It is clear they will never compromise and is wouldnt matter is noone ever was killed with a gun. They have an agenda. Thats why pro gun will not give them an inch. Because it will never be enough and we both know it. So finding that middle ground we both want will be tough to get.

[PBR]

Again, not saying banning guns or whatever is the answer as each situation and culture is unique with its own special problems but I am definitely saying more guns is not the answer!

 

and i agree with you -- i think most would agree with you but cause something evil happened with a few doesnt give the right to make others suffer -- and your right its a culture -- im certainly not for more guns and never said that and wont say it -- but if you are legally able to own and carry one you should have the right -- and your correct about police carrying but that is where another problem comes in having to rely on the police -- just for instance again columbine the police and swat sit outside the school for over 30 mins letting them kill more and more inside -- what the hell? -- when i showed what a principal did at his school and stopped a mass killing with his gun from his car -- a true hero armed citizen that if would of waited for police it would of been a mass killing -- but you dont see those stories or any story where an armed citizen saved the day cause saving the day isnt a story -- like i said before a mass killing is a story twarting one isnt so gets no attention -- most of us americans dont want to rely on police to save us cause you will die waiting for them -- i cant state for everywhere but here in texas we have some crappy response times and in no way rely on the police to help defend us or save us

[Guest]

As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Look at any functioning, developed country in the world, look at their gun ownership, gun laws and gun control and compare it to their gun deaths. It shouldn't take any more than that to conclude if there is a problem or not. Again, not saying banning guns or whatever is the answer as each situation and culture is unique with its own special problems but I am definitely saying more guns is not the answer!

 

 

You keep saying that stuff butthere is numbers out there you dont refuse to accept. You want a correlation between guns and deaths. Well look at the rapid increase of guns since 2008 when Obama went into office.

 

According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages.^[88] During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.^[87] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.^[87]

 

 

Here is a conntionbut i am sure you wll refuse it. Ou only accept it when it gives you what you want. Both sides can throw numbers out there. No one is going to prove the other side wrong. Only an idiot thinks the other side doesnt have a leg to stand on.

[Guest]

Got any relevant legislation or research into the effect on school shootings on the registering and licensing process or on popular psyche in terms of gun use?

 

You're either very naive or willfully misleading if you believe that those numbers mean anything on their own and that the issue is that simplistic.

[PBR]

Got any relevant legislation or research into the effect on school shootings on the registering and licensing process or on popular psyche in terms of gun use?

 

You're either very naive or willfully misleading if you believe that those numbers mean anything on their own and that the issue is that simplistic.

 

well no more naive then people overlooking or not accepting alcohol kills more people and kids than guns but not doing anything about it

[Guest]

That's a logical fallicy PBR, strawmen and shifting goal posts No one here is debating that topic or asserting that alcohol as a cause of death, both to the drinker and to others, is not a serious topic.

 

Seeing as how you went there though, this is treated seriously in Australia and as such we have ridiculously high tax rates on alcohol, we have lockout times from bars, we have a lower blood-alcohol legal limit for driving, etc, etc. It is STILL far and away one of our most serious problems and as I said earlier, and you agreed, it is a cultural issue as other places do not have a problem like we (and from what you're saying, the USA also) have. As such we need solutions specific to each locale and its people.

[PBR]

That's a logical fallicy PBR, strawmen and shifting goal posts No one here is debating that topic or asserting that alcohol as a cause of death, both to the drinker and to others, is not a serious topic.

 

Seeing as how you went there though, this is treated seriously in Australia and as such we have ridiculously high tax rates on alcohol, we have lockout times from bars, we have a lower blood-alcohol legal limit for driving, etc, etc. It is STILL far and away one of our most serious problems and as I said earlier, and you agreed, it is a cultural issue as other places do not have a problem like we (and from what you're saying, the USA also) have. As such we need solutions specific to each locale and its people.

 

well you hit the nail on the head there and probably didnt even know it -- the reason alcohol is still allowed and those deaths are acceptable by the government is cause they make so much money off the taxes of it -- so our government can live with those deaths since they make so much of the product that causes it -- they dont make it off guns so those deaths arent considered acceptable thus they feel they must stop those now -- they refuse to look at what kills more people and kids or the fact that it harms more people and kids than guns cause its a money maker for them

 

but yet this is a government that is suppose to have the interest of the people -- lol -- and other countries or people wonder why we dont trust our government -- they arent out for us they are out for themselves period

[PBR]

oh well we dont need guns anymore http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tactical-Assault-Rock-from-CroMagnum-Arms-International-CAI-/261153926569?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3ccdfcada9 -- its a proven self defense weapon has killed millions of people but not yet banned -- wait never mind stoning is outlawed now totally forgot that -------- sorry but i found it funny

[Guest]

LOL at calling a alcohol tax beign strict on Drunk Driving. It is just to sepperate a fool and his money not to prevent anything. Just like the tax on cigarettes. It is only to bleed those who use it so those who dont prosper off it with the tax money. Almost none of it is used to actually stop the problem. What good does that tax here in the US do when Drunk Driver is released over and over until they kill someone on their 15th DUI? Makes that 64 cent bottle of Bud lite really worth it! That money goes to absolutely nothing to prevent drunk driving. There is no reason for it and it is senseless death and people dont give 2 shits.

 

 

Here you go and keep in mind i actually have a license to sell beer through the Alcohol Control Board. Why isnt a massive city wide Designated driver service created to make hourly rounds to each bar with this socalled Alcohol tax? Because they dont want to put that money towards a solution. Instead we get one or two cars trying service entire cities so its either too expensive or takes for ever and the drunks wont use them. There is a big difference between appearing to fix a problem and actually fixing it. Unfurtunately the public cant tell the difference. So all these taxes are just used to fix holes in their mismanaged budgets. Soon they will use these killings as a way to trick the public into rasing taxes on guns and ammo and not a penny will go to the issue. The entire country is now ready to pay more taxes to the government for all these new laws. Guess whose money is used in Gun buy back programs? Anything to keep the people enslaved and never fix and damn thing!

[Eveas]

Come on you have to be more reasonable. No one is saying there isna danger involved with guns. BUt im sure you also see there is danger is not having them also. Its easy to post gun related homicides but there is many negatives too. You guys want to ig nore them. You dont have to agree it justifies guns but lets not pretend there isnt a side effect either. I agree with you about tighhtening up the rules. I wouldnt ban clip size because i dont believe it has any effect. No crazy gunman will go into a shooting unprepared. He isnt going to walk in with 10 bullets just because you made him use a small clip. As we have seen there is always miltple guns and clips in these shooting. Clip doesnt matter. As someone who likes to practice it sucks reloading clips all day. I would love to have a large clip so i can get more practice. To me its like trying to practice Free Throws on abasketball court but have to chase the ball down each shot. To get good to get a whole rack and shoot over and over without moving. I should lose that without a good reason with evidence to strongly support it. We do need to track these guns and have a 7 day waiting period, and forced training class. As well as mental background checks. IMO these alone will greatly lower the homicide rates. right now to be honest its kind of anything goes and there isnt any over sight. With that being the case the homicide rates really arent that bad.But that can be better without ever banning anything at all. IMO these alone will put that 11-14k down to around 5-6k. But like i said i see why pro gun people dont compromise. Check out the video in the first post here. The other side is lying and using every underhanded trick in the book to take peoples guns. It is clear they will never compromise and is wouldnt matter is noone ever was killed with a gun. They have an agenda. Thats why pro gun will not give them an inch. Because it will never be enough and we both know it. So finding that middle ground we both want will be tough to get.

What at all is unreasonable about my post? I posted facts then mentioned easy common sense steps in the right direction. When congress woman Giffords was shot there were 3 armed civilians in there with her. None of them did a thing. The only way the shooter was taken down was when he went to change his clip and another man used that moment to tackle him. Changing a clip when practicing is a small price to pay. In the theater shooting police said had the others been carrying the death toll would have easily been double due to the darkness, crowded groups, and confusion. So, I do argue about just how safe more guns would have made them. If you had ever been in a fire fight you would know what I mean. Even trained people start shooting in random directions when they can't see where the bullets are coming from.

 

You must have skipped the part of my post where I said my suggestions could help without having to ban any gun, because you still seem to think I suggested banning all the guns. The suggestions you appear to agree with (gun registration, mental health checks, safety certification, closing background check loopholes) also known as pretty much everything I said minus the clips is exactly what the GOP is arguing cannot ever be implemented. They do not want any of it. That makes it a very one sided debate when even over half of the NRA members agree with me when polled on those items but for some reason it still gets blocked.

[Guest]

BrainSmaher: Dude, do you only read what you want to read? Where have I said that the alcohol tax is in any way related to being strict on drink driving? I said, and I quote "in Australia ... we have ridiculously high tax rates on alcohol, we have lockout times from bars, we have a lower blood-alcohol legal limit for driving". Those are three separate strategies aimed at dealing with alcohol related problems. Whether they're effective or not is a different story, in the same way that whether banning guns or not would be effective is also the current debate. Obviously we can all agree that alcohol related death/illness is a serious issue as is gun (or any kind of weapon) injury and death.

 

You're both preaching to the choir as regards Government being tax hungry monsters, this is why cigarettes keep keep going up in price yet aren't made illegal like heroin. Government everywhere is out for themselves but in most cases (and as you acknowledge, the USA is not one of these cases) their best interest is usually related to the people's as they are the ones who elect them. To go off on a tangent, the bulk of the US population votes against its best interests consistently as it is lied to and marketed to by big business and the media outlets they control.

 

It seems we all agree on this, and I think you said it well BrainSmasher, "There is a big difference between appearing to fix a problem and actually fixing it. Unfurtunately the public cant tell the difference.". First we need to recognise there is a problem and define what the problem is, then we need to look at all the alternatives, choose some to try and have measurable indicators of success or failure. If it IS a big problem, like alcohol for instance, then we keep trying until we get it right! Debate about possible solutions is desirable and healthy, such as this debate about gun control, but like you said, words aren't going to fix anything.

 

PBR, any kind of philosophy major must be going mad with the way you debate You keep changing what is being debated so no one can ever have a suitable reply as the goal posts constantly shift! Stoning involves a hole, usually shoulder deep and you're put into it with your head sticking out and repeatedly stoned until you're dead. Often exposure will be what does it and the pressure of being buried almost completely. Now, if guns required many hours and repeated use to kill people (and of course there can be a freak one-rock head shot death, but no one calls a one-bullet head shot death a freak occurance!) they'd not be the issue of discussion!

[Eveas]

oh well we dont need guns anymore http://www.ebay.com/...=item3ccdfcada9 -- its a proven self defense weapon has killed millions of people but not yet banned -- wait never mind stoning is outlawed now totally forgot that -------- sorry but i found it funny

And foolish things like this are why reasonable debate can never be had. You take your rock, and I'll use my old M16 A2. Who do you think would win? Who do you think could kill more in 2 minutes?

[Grasman]

Statistics never capture the whole truth, as they never account for the variables...indert any quote about statistics you'd like.

 

Not sure why you despise the United States so much, as you've bashed the US on several occasions.You're always so irate, as if some American citizen once upon a time gave you a wedgie. Seriously, chill the fuck out. Until you've lived in this country you'll never understand, just as I don't pretend to understand Australia better than you. I guess it's easy to hate on the other side of the world. Have a pleasant evening friend.

I've lived in El Paso Tx. for a year when i was 16, while my mother has lived there since 1975.

I loved shooting guns, actualy still do.

Where i live now (Denmark) there are very strong restriction and where i come from (Iceland) there are much tougher

restrictions.

 

If i want to or feel the need to shoot something i can do the following.

 

I can register to a gun club, and get to shoot targets in a controlled environment without being registered to own a gun.

I can register to own a gun at that club, but not allowed to remove it from the gun club.

I can also register for a hunting rifle and a shotgun keeping them i a storage kabinet in my home.

I can NOT walk around with that weapon armed and ready to fire and I can NOT walk around with ANY device considered a weapon.

Some people living here are paranoid fucks who still take a knife partying, but if they get caught, they get a minimum of a 3 year sentence.

Caught with a consealed gun, you get minimum 5 years.

 

Yes, these are strict laws, but they do work.

 

You still have Hells Angels, Bandidos, Balkan and Muslim gangs shooting at each other every now and again, but it's EXTREMELY RARE when a normal citisen gets shot, and usually when that happens, it's some drunk nutter grabbing his hunting rifle shooting his wife, friend etc......

 

Where i come from, these laws are even tougher and having lived and breathed in the Icelandic underground (funny, i know), I can state it is very safe, especially in releations to keeping your own life. Yes I know a guy who was murdered, and know a couple of guys who have killed.

 

One of the Murderes I dealt with, I heard he went on a rampage trying to get access to any sort of gun, asking around the dealers if they knew where he could buy one. ( this guy was prior sentenced for shooting a man in the open street with a hunting rifle, with no other reason given to the cops than "He wanted to see how it felt to kill a man and see him die).

My responce was to get the word out there I had a sawed off shotgun waiting for him (which i didn't have), and if he came, I would cut him up and feed him to my Piranhas and then give the bones to my Scheafer.

 

He wasn't able to get a hold of a gun and i never saw that fucker again.

Have to admit i was a bit nervous there for a while.

 

But the point is, where its hard to get a gun, its hard to get a gun to kill someone in revenge or anger.

He had no physical chance against me, probably not even with a knife, unless unseen from the behind.

(The reason I went after him originally, was that he broke into a friends place, smashing it up, leaving threats he would return and huirt her and her two daughters,,, the guy was an amphetamine junkie)

 

Had he been able to get a gun, I would have considered myself in great danger, but thanks to the tough restrictions, he couldn't and i was safe.

 

P.s., a point towards that "chart" Erik put out there,, there is one thing on it that's 100% wrong.

On the chart, Iceland is listed as having c,a, 30+ guns per 100 citicens, that means over 90.000 guns in the whole country (300000 people), while the actual number according to the Icelandic official sources, there are around 40000 registered guns in the country, while illegal firearms, even though the odd one pops up, they are very very very rare and most of these incidents come up in rural areas, not Urban, and most, if not all killings by firearm are alcohol related..

 

I can only remember less than 10 malicious deaths by shooting in the whole country, since i was born in 1965.

 

There is plenty of violence in Iceland, men fighting in the streets during weedkends, but thats all good

 

Fighting is rife, thefts and burglaries are plenty of, but robberies very scarce, but on the increase, while foreign gangs getting footing is on the increase. Now, the Police are not allowed to bear arms, but have a heavilyt armed and trained Swat team (called The Viking Squad LOL) to deal with major incidents.

 

To even try to put forward the argument that more guns in the hands of drunk morons, would make me or anyone feel safer than we feel already, is at best very laughable.

[Grasman]

LOL at calling a alcohol tax beign strict on Drunk Driving. It is just to sepperate a fool and his money not to prevent anything. Just like the tax on cigarettes. It is only to bleed those who use it so those who dont prosper off it with the tax money. Almost none of it is used to actually stop the problem. What good does that tax here in the US do when Drunk Driver is released over and over until they kill someone on their 15th DUI? Makes that 64 cent bottle of Bud lite really worth it! That money goes to absolutely nothing to prevent drunk driving. There is no reason for it and it is senseless death and people dont give 2 shits.

 

 

Here you go and keep in mind i actually have a license to sell beer through the Alcohol Control Board. Why isnt a massive city wide Designated driver service created to make hourly rounds to each bar with this socalled Alcohol tax? Because they dont want to put that money towards a solution. Instead we get one or two cars trying service entire cities so its either too expensive or takes for ever and the drunks wont use them. There is a big difference between appearing to fix a problem and actually fixing it. Unfurtunately the public cant tell the difference. So all these taxes are just used to fix holes in their mismanaged budgets. Soon they will use these killings as a way to trick the public into rasing taxes on guns and ammo and not a penny will go to the issue. The entire country is now ready to pay more taxes to the government for all these new laws. Guess whose money is used in Gun buy back programs? Anything to keep the people enslaved and never fix and damn thing!

If you have a consealed gun license.

 

Are you allowed to carry that gun while drunk?

 

If you have a drivers license.

 

Are you allowed to drive drunk?

[Guest]

Well its a damn good bet when they have never had the option to have a gun and their life has been spent in a society that banned them and has no experience with them. They only hear one side. How could they have any other opinion? You think UK has so many people in support of a gun ban when it happen compared to now? You weeded out an entire generation while the current doesnt know any better and only know the system forced apon them.

 

The opposite could be said for pro gun people in the US. That they've been conditioned to believe the gun is their savior. However, I didn't suggest this just because we have different views. It would have been nice if you could have extended that to those who disagree with you instead of making yourself come across as a gun nut who thinks people are not intelligent enough to formulate their own thoughts just because they're different to yours.

[Guest]

Double post.

[Guest]

Not sure what's happening

[Guest]

 

It's safe to assume that people have been killing each other before we could verbally communicate. Fist, teeth, rock, stick, stone, club, bone, sharp inanimate object, rope, clothe, sword, cannon, bomb, grenade, or guns... people will continue to kill each other. We're the most self-destructive 'parasite' to this planet; the more our population grows, the.more we fuck shit up. Like it or not it appears that it's in most of our DNA to destroy. Be it the planet or each other. Taking away guns doesn't change that, it might make it a bit more difficult. Eradicate the majority of the population and start from scratch and we'll still kill each other. Humans have and always will be genocidal. Think about how bloody and gruesome the world was throughout history. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, or children with swords, blades, axes, spikes, spears, whatever have you, bum rushing each other hacking and slashing away. People died on a mass level - much more massive than people die in today's wars which include an evolution of weapons. War will always exist until our exstinction, in some way, shape, or form.

 

We've gone back and forth about this in private, so you know I agree with most of it.

 

Large-scale genocide wasn't nearly as simple as it is today without mechanical firearms and bombs. The wars were also on a much smaller scale, as 1) there were fewer people in the world and 2) designated battlefields meant civilians weren't hit as hard by the actual battle. Sure, pillaging obviously took place, but compared to carpet bombing them from planes that's pretty soft.

 

We can never remove violence and murder, but we can neuter it. Having a gun is like fighting with all cheat codes activated and makes murder a formality. Everything is just a point and squeeze away.

 

All it takes is one place at the wrong time. It could happen just about any where in the world, any neighborhood, any area. I have no objections to owning a firearm for protection. I think the majority of women (that are legally entitled to them) should own one because there's a rapist in every state, every country, and there's some really fucking creepy people out there. They might not be waiting around every corner to pounce, they might be spread out far and thin, but all it takes is one and one experience to change the course of her life forever. This really goes for just about anybody, given different circumstances.

 

Of course it only takes one place at the wrong time. You could say the same about an airplane engine falling off and hitting me in the head as I'm headed off to brunch or whatever the fuck retards like BrainSmasher think gun control advocates do. That doesn't legitimize something as destructive and game changing as guns.

 

Neither have i jackass. So stop claiming other people fear for their lives when you have no clue what you are talkign about. There are millions of people who will never have a problem with or without guns. But people like you are the first to cry when shit hits the fan and want someone to save you while you are to stupid to save your self. I will bet every penny i have that if you and i were in a room and we heard someone breaking in and gun shots. I have an extra gun you would not turn it down. So stop all your bullshit that guns for self defense dont help. Your just a bunch of hippicrites who want to endanger everyone else just because you might not be effected.

 

You're absolutely precious.

 

You call me clueless about your situation yet shoot yourself in the foot by making a bunch of assumptions about me. Please, what exactly are "people like me"?

 

Of course I would take the extra gun if I heard someone breaking in and gun shots due to the context I'd be in. I'm not stupid enough to defend my own life with my bare hands or a vacuum cleaner against an armed perp who has already fired his gun. The big problem is that guns are so easily available that your scenario could actually happen, but your head is too far up your own ass to see that. This isn't about taking guns away from individuals, it's about "demilitarizing" the entire fucking population of a country to make it less likely to happen in the first place.

 

We want to endanger people? What kills more people, guns or pacifism?