Gun control debate thread

[toadlife 3]

I think that list is supposed to be sarcastic...

Yes many are very sarcastic and a some are a bit over the top, but most of them make good points (or at least should provoke some thought).

My favorites:

Quote[/b] ]

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

[denoir 0]

Existing, a utopian world where no one is able to get an illegal gun is the false premise that makes the above argument invalid.  The fact is, no matter how illegal you make guns, people will find a way to get them - especially here in the United States.

Of course they will, but the number of guns floating around will be reduced and it will be harder to get a gun. Plus if the citizens are less armed, criminals are less likely to resort to deadly force. Also the vast majority of so called "illegal" guns are stolen former legal guns.

The current solution of everybody getting weapons to protect themselves has one big flaw: you can always get a bigger gun.

America has one major problem:  fear. It's not a gun problem per se, but under the conditions in US society flooding the country with weapons is a bad idea. Simply put, people that are scared shitless should not have guns. While there is certainly a crime problem, it's nothing like the disproportionate fear of crime. There are two possible conclusions:

1) The society is so fucked that you need a gun to survive

2) You're being paranoid.

I'm betting on number 2. And paranoid people should not have guns. If it's number one then no amount of guns in the world will help you in the long term.

My suggestion would be that gun usage is restricted to sports and hunting. Make timed weapons lockers a requirement by law. Give people a proper education in the usage of guns.

Now, the crowd with pickup trucks with confederate flags will be saying that this will only give the criminals "the edge". The blunt answer is: yes it will. But do you really think criminals today consider not robbing somebody because their intended target owns a gun? Hell no. They'll just shoot first and then rob you. If they on the other hand have nothing to fear from you, then you'll be robbed - but you'll be alive. Combine that with an investment in a good police force and your problems will be, if not solved then at least reduced.

Of course if you really want to reduce crime so that it doesn't happen in the first place, you have to do some serious unglamorous social reforms.

Another objection from the pick up truck crowd might be that "Why shoud we law-abiding citizens have to suffer for what criminals do?". The answer to that is very simple - because you're part of society and crime is a general problem that has to be solved by the society. The same reason why you have to pay taxes even if you don't use the social benefits guaranteed to you by your country. It's about taking responsibility for more than just yourself.

The problem is not with guns, it's with the people using them and the state of mind they are. Many societies are mature enough and stable enough to have a lot of guns in circulation (Switzerland, Norway..). Others are not and should have more restrictive measures about who they allow to have weapons.

[Major Fubar 0]

Yes, there has to be a middle ground between total bans and no control whatsoever.

People should be allowed to own guns for legitimate sporting and hunting purposes, as long as reasonable safety precautions are followed (gun safes, thorough registration and licensing process etc.)

As I've said before, home defence is a very tricky issue: you have to weigh the fact that people have a right to defend themselves and their property, and the fact that this may end up in a totally unneccesary death (of either the intruder or the gun owner). I know for a fact, that if I has access to a gun and someone broke into my home, I would definitely grab it. Just last week I thought someone had broken into my house (I misheard a noise, ended up being nothing), and I grabbed the combat knife that I keep under my bed. Is that a good response? Probably not, all things considered, but it was my "gut reaction" to what I percieved as a threat.

Honestly, if people are really concerned about home intrusions, there is a lot you can do to preotect your home short of keeping a gun under your bed: get a guard dog, install motion sensors and lights outside your house, a security system inside your house, deadlocks etc.

Personally, though, I think people should be allowed to own non-lethal weapons for personal and home defence, like tasers and mace (those are both hihgly illegal here). That way, even if they fall into the hands of the bad guys, the results aren't going to be as bad as if a gun were involved...

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]Now, the crowd with pickup trucks with confederate flags will be saying that this will only give the criminals "the edge". The blunt answer is: yes it will. But do you really think criminals today consider not robbing somebody because their intended target owns a gun? Hell no. They'll just shoot first and then rob you. If they on the other hand have nothing to fear from you, then you'll be robbed - but you'll be alive. Combine that with an investment in a good police force and your problems will be, if not solved then at least reduced.

Why 'at least reduce' the problem for everyone, when you can give people the power to all buit eliminate the problem for themselves? The idea that criminals don't care if their targets own guns is rediculous. Please have a look at these two links about a certain little town in the United States.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx

Quote[/b] ]Honestly, if people are really concerned about home intrusions, there is a lot you can do to preotect your home short of keeping a gun under your bed: get a guard dog, install motion sensors and lights outside your house, a security system inside your house, deadlocks etc.

All of those solutions are actually good, except if you're poor.

[EiZei 0]

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx

I wonder effective that would become if everyone started doing that..

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Honestly, if people are really concerned about home intrusions, there is a lot you can do to preotect your home short of keeping a gun under your bed: get a guard dog, install motion sensors and lights outside your house, a security system inside your house, deadlocks etc.

I completely agree. But what options do you have when an intruder has foiled all those preventative measures?

Quote[/b] ]Personally, though, I think people should be allowed to own non-lethal weapons for personal and home defence, like tasers and mace (those are both hihgly illegal here). That way, even if they fall into the hands of the bad guys, the results aren't going to be as bad as if a gun were involved...

Illegal it is, but, Fubar, recent laws in my state (SA), permit me to use whatever force I deem necessary to deal with a home invader. IE I can almost kill the bastard and the law will be on my side if I can prove that the invader had the potential to harm me or my family in any way. Now considering that one can kill a human with their bare hands, just when isn't a person considered as having the intent to use lethal force?

I'm not saying that I'd instantly kill a home invader, but when the law does allow the use of force (guns being a potential source of force, as well as a humble kitchen knife) and not the ownership of mace, taser's e.t.c. it's almost as if the government doesn't mind if I kill or permanently hinder the invaders life, when I could easily disarm him using such non-lethal forces as you state.

In hindsight, by preventing the ability to non-lethally disarm an invader, I'm forced to use a weopon that has a greater chance of killing him. If I could, I'd much rather disarm him through a taser, but instead, the lowest form of weoponry I'm willing to use to defend myself with is a good old gray-nicholls test opener cricket bat. And I have to admit, I, and anyone, could quite easily crack some invaders head clean open when I'm in possession of good old gray. See my dilemma

[Major Fubar 0]

All of those solutions are actually good, except if you're poor.

OK, short of the security system, what is actually expensive here?

- A mean mutt from the dogpound?

- Some deadlocks?

- Sensor lights?

How much would you pay for a decent gun? More than for any of the above, I'd say...

I'm all for people defending themselves in their own homes, but you must be expected to use reasonable force...bringing a firearm to the situation often only serves to make the situation worse, in many cases. It greatly adds to the chance that someone is going to die, either you or the perp.

[ralphwiggum 6]

here's some more thoughtful ideas

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

=>since there are already plenty of guns on the streets before, it would be stupid to not arm police with guns. if you thing police do not need guns, goto the widow of any police officer and say that. hopefully, if she/he doesn't have gun, you'll come back alive only since liberals had their way.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

=>and Japan, with no guns in private hands except for a few exceptions do not have higher rate of murder. second, the claim of D.C. area murder rate cannot be proven that it was just because there were no guns for the victims.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

=> and statistics showing stupid people with guns at home loaded at the reach of children are just statistics?

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

=>which conversely shows that decrease in firearm ownership is not going to be the major factor in crime increase either.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

=>there was a lunatic who went on killing some people with japanese sword in Irvine a few months ago. imagine he had access to a full auto.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

=>if you are more helpless, there are otherwas to defend yourself than getting a gun, namely not going to dangerous places at odd times. even if you have a gun, you will get screwed.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

=>the lawyer shot in front of the court house lived. i guess one bullet can stop anything. and those poor FBI agents at Miami must have been shot with tear gas by the two bank robbers.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

=>never seen a case.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

=> put up resistance, and if you fail, consequences can be harder. let's see next time when bankers resist, what an armed robber will do.

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

=>I never saw NRA members operating a heart surgery. NEJM talks about social health, while G&A talks about gellatins

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.

=>a man can never discuss women's rights since he has no vagina.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1917.

=>bless those founding fathers who guranteed that terrorists could come in to US and get AA missiles freely and shoot down pasenger jets.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.

=>ok, so let's get some state taxes increased shall we?

14. These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

=>i guess guns are only method of weapons?

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

=> M1A1 abrams vs. Glock. you do the math.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.

=>AAs and ATs, along with Bradelys aren't important to defense. that's why there are no US citizens with Bazookas.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

=> can someone please get a doctor for this person? he can't even inderstand what pro-control people are saying. this Rush say this while high on Oxycontine?

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

=>the 50's 60s and 70s provided us with enough guns that even with gun laws we still have idiots who get their hands on them.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

=>when NRA says 'ouch', it means 'ouch, let's shoot it again, i missed.', not 'ouch i shot that person.'

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

=>and there has been no negligent discharge by gun owners in history.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

=>and Bob Barr just had to use 4 controls to avoid the live ammo breaking a window during his support ralley.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

=>i guess the above statement about a morally wrong women who defended herself is true since women are crime attractors.

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

=>it is ok to leave a loaded gun on table next to a homicidal maniac.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

=>guns do not cause violence, which is why when kids bring guns to school, there are so many shootings and police getting called.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

=>in democracy, less votes a bill has, more likely it will pass. and since Hitler was a minor vote, he was right.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

=>that's why TBA went after Hussein!

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

=>could someone please trust people and post their credit card number, mother's lastname, and social securitiy numbers?

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

=>the overcrowding in american jail system is due to legitimate gun owners ending up in jail in each and every case.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

=>those who were directly killed by newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters = none

by guns, countless.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

=>NRA is good since it "protects" one part of constitution while ACLU is bad since it only protects rest of the constituion.

31. Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

=>and which one has a big disease? no one is wrong enough to goto Colorado right after the Columbine and say "from my cold dead hands!"

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

=>not every citizen gets to be a police officer, and when one is not able to do his duty, a lot more citizens are affected.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

=>instead of putting them and making them stay in ghettom how about a nice job training and not lynching when they move to suburbs?

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

=>and some private owner who can hit a paper better than a police officer is ready to fight talibans and AQ, not to mention Iraqi soldiers.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

=>to remedy this situation, the Patriot act was passed to allow federal gov't to poke its nose in everyone's lives. now all are safe. guess we need more tougher control laws.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

=>LA police chief Parks caught a thief. he was relieved of his duty for that, just like Darrel Gates who was fired after he went on in the front line to catch the person who assualted Reginal Dennis.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.

=>it is only correct that citizens have power to slaughter LEOs while LEOs have to pray that their pistols will save them.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

=>this wil change when MS takes over US gov't. in an unrelated news, LAPDs got S&W as the standard issue, and Glock's argument that they supply LEOs are lies only matched by Baghdad Bob.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

=>in a stunning development, the criminals decided to give police officers time to take their trigger lock off before shooting them.

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

=>when NRA says "guns don't kill people, it's the people that kills people", it is correct. so NRA supprts banning people.

[toadlife 3]

Ok a guard dog needs to be a Put Bull or Chow or some other large breed - an it needs to be trained properly. Aside from the initial expense of the dog and it's training, you've got to feed it for 10 or so years. That will end up being more expensive than a gun. If you go the poor man's route and buy a big mutt and train it yourself by beating it will chunks of raw meat while it's blindfolded (people really do this - it's sickening), you're looking huge liability. If your dog mauls or kills someone - there is a chance you will be doing some time in Jail.

And what if you don't like dogs in the first place, or what if you rent a house where dogs are not allowed?

As for deadbolt locks, I've never seen a house without deadbolts in my life. That's standard equipment as far as I know. Motion detectors might scare off 12 year old kids, but that's about it. most criminals would go around back where motion sensors turning on a light wouldn't alert anyone anyway. Most people ignore such common things like motion sensors anyway. Kind of like car alarms.

One thing that can help to an extent is to have any kind of dog - even one of those little ankle biters. Unless you get a retarted one they will allways detect strangers around the premises and at least alert you - but once you are alerted by your ankle biter dog, what do you do if you have no effective means of defense?

[USSoldier11B 0]

Guns are guns who cares what kind they are? I can kill just as many people with my HK USP 40 as I can with an M240B (FN MAG for the Europeans), it will just take me longer to do it.

People who want to get guns for bad things will get them regardless of legislation. Here in America much of the gun control legislation is knee-jerk and frivilous only causing an annoyance to those of us who enjoy collecting and shooting military type weaponry. I adhere to the 2nd Amendment in the most strict terms, I believe any legislation on what type of gun I can own is an infringement on that right, however, legislation regarding felons and gun ownership is different. They aren't limited to types of guns. They just can't own them period. This however is due to a loss of civil liberties because of a felony conviction regarding more than just gun ownership (i.e right to vote). Slick Willy, the high ogress attorney general, and our beloved and rabid Senator Feinstein D-CA sure had a hay day in the 90's concerning assault type weapons. Now I can't buy a fully authentic AR type rifle brand new but I bought a pre-ban FN-FAL with all the bells and whistles. If you ask me, this type of gun control legislation is the morphine of the sissy faction of our government. Something happens at a school or a restraunt etc etc..and wham 200 years of Constitutional Law is stiffled by a few months of Democrat (not all of them, just the extremists. Yes I admit I know many decent ones) whining. Guns are just tools (or art if you see them like I do).

The person behind the gun is fundamentally the problem. We have a violence problem here in America and by the results of such legislation it seems like guns have very little to do with it. Take them away and Americans will just kill each other with switch blades and baseball bats.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Hey, another gun control thread- *slams typing fingers in car door*

[ralphwiggum 6]

Please have a look at these two links about a certain little town in the United States.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics

ah yes, the trophy child of pro 2As.

total crime index

from toadlife's website:

Kennesaw: 2567

http://www.destinationirvine.com/bd....ion=DEM

Irvine: 2,330.3

[toadlife 3]

Quote[/b] ]

and Japan, with no guns in private hands except for a few exceptions do not have higher rate of murder. second, the claim of D.C. area murder rate cannot be proven that it was just because there were no guns for the victims.

Comparing Japan to the US is like comparing apples and oranges. In Japan you go to jail for 15 years for possesing drugs.

Quote[/b] ]

and statistics showing stupid people with guns at home loaded at the reach of children are just statistics?

Who said that?

Quote[/b] ]

there was a lunatic who went on killing some people with japanese sword in Irvine a few months ago. imagine he had access to a full auto.

Imagine of everyone else on the street was packing heat?

Quote[/b] ]

if you are more helpless, there are otherwas to defend yourself than getting a gun, namely not going to dangerous places at odd times. even if you have a gun, you will get screwed.

Ahh. It's blame the victim time.

Quote[/b] ]

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

=> put up resistance, and if you fail, consequences can be harder. let's see next time when bankers resist, what an armed robber will do.

How about being able to make a decision on weather or not to resist, rather than not have a choice?

Quote[/b] ]

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendmenta large number of people with small arms and resolve.

=> M1A1 abrams vs. Glock. you do the math.

All the technology in the world is useless against a large enough number of people with small arms and resolve. Ask the Communist Vietnamese, Palestinians, Afghanis, ect. to do that math.

Quote[/b] ]

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

=>it is ok to leave a loaded gun on table next to a homicidal maniac.

Who said that?

Quote[/b] ]

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

=>not every citizen gets to be a police officer, and when one is not able to do his duty, a lot more citizens are affected.

but every citizen is supposed to have the right to protect themselves

Quote[/b] ]

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

=>instead of putting them and making them stay in ghettom how about a nice job training and not lynching when they move to suburbs?

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Quote[/b] ]

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

=>to remedy this situation, the Patriot act was passed to allow federal gov't to poke its nose in everyone's lives. now all are safe. guess we need more tougher control laws.

LOL! ;P

Quote[/b] ]

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

=>in a stunning development, the criminals decided to give police officers time to take their trigger lock off before shooting them.

In another stunning development criminals decided to give civillians time to take their trigger lock off before shooting them.

Quote[/b] ]

40. When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

=>when NRA says "guns don't kill people, it's the people that kills people", it is correct. so NRA supprts banning people.

Exactly...it's called 'putting them in jail.

[toadlife 3]

Please have a look at these two links about a certain little town in the United States.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics

ah yes, the trophy child of pro 2As.

total crime index

from toadlife's website:

Kennesaw: 2567

http://www.destinationirvine.com/bd....ion=DEM

Irvine: 2,330.3

Yay for Irvine, but you're dancing around the issue that this little crap town in Georgia used to have an 'avarage' crime rats and after it's mandatory gun law, it now has among the nation's lowest crime rates.

The national average is around 4,300

[ralphwiggum 6]

even without mandatory gun laws, Irvine, with more population(10 times) of than Kennesaw has similar, if not less crime index. not to mention that Irvine is a big city in its size, and conveniently located right next to Santa Ana, larger city. add to the fact that Irvine is in CA, not GA, where in theory of NRA, should hafve more crimes, since the CA's suffocative gun control laws are "disarming" citizens.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]Comparing Japan to the US is like comparing apples and oranges. In Japan you go to jail for 15 years for possesing drugs.

so all cases in DC would not have happened if there were gun for every case?

yeah i gues if it doesn't fit one side, that side can discard it.

Quote[/b] ]Who said that?

sarcasm! the problem of statistics is that those who die by negligent handling is not properly argumed in pro-2A side.

Quote[/b] ]Imagine of everyone else on the street was packing heat?

sure, let me guess, those FBIs all had guns in Miami, but they died.

Quote[/b] ]Ahh. It's blame the victim time.

ah, lack of understanding the argument time.

Quote[/b] ]How about being able to make a decision on weather or not to resist, rather than not have a choice?

tell that to banks and see what happens to that branch. it will get closed.

Quote[/b] ]All the technology in the world is useless against a large enough number of people with small arms and resolve. Ask the Communist Vietnamese, Palestinians, Afghanis, ect. to do that math.

sure, i bet 10,000 AR15s v one apache comes in favor of AR15s. why bother making M1A1s?

Quote[/b] ]Who said that?

another sarcasm!

Quote[/b] ]but every citizen is supposed to have the right to protect themselves

yeah, but that doesn't mean you need guns with 40 rounds.

Quote[/b] ]What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

the whole SNS argument about poor people is a BS. people in suburbs only invoke the "poor" to gather sympathy for suburbian cause.

Quote[/b] ]In another stunning development criminals decided to give civillians time to take their trigger lock off before shooting them.

in another stunning development, a loaded handgun by owner stopped a 6 men bandits with guns who executed a 4am raid on his property.

Quote[/b] ]Exactly...it's called 'putting them in jail.

thus to prevent any future gun crimes we put people in jail randomly, instead of having no gun laws.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

even without mandatory gun laws, Irvine, with more population(10 times) of than Kennesaw has similar, if not less crime index.  not to mention that Irvine is a big city in its size, and conveniently located right next to Santa Ana, larger city. add to the fact that Irvine is in CA, not GA, where in theory of NRA, should hafve more crimes, since the CA's suffocative gun control laws are "disarming" citizens.

What's the average yearly income in Irvine? 130,000? 160,000? 275,000? Am I getting warmer?

[ralphwiggum 6]

income wise,

http://www.destinationirvine.com/bd....ion=DEM

[denoir 0]

Why 'at least reduce' the problem for everyone, when you can give people the power to all buit eliminate the problem for themselves?  

But you're not. You have one of the worst violent crime rates in the western world. Obviously your guns arn't protecting you.

Quote[/b] ]The idea that criminals don't care if their targets own guns is rediculous.

As I said, they do. If they suspect that you own a gun, they will kill you directly, just to be on the safe side.

Quote[/b] ]  Please have a look at these two links about a certain little town in the United States.

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/CodeOfOrdinances.aspx

http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/PoliceDepartment_CrimeStatistics.aspx

You have to be shitting me. Please tell me that this is a joke. Please tell me that you are not trying to make a point by showing a goddamn village with the population of 20,000!

[USSoldier11B 0]

You have to be shitting me. Please tell me that this is a joke. Please tell me that you are not trying to make a point by showing a goddamn village with the population of 20,000!

Isn't that about the size of the Swedish Army?

[ralphwiggum 6]

more like number of Swedish <s>covert ops</s> Ikea workers outside of Sweden...

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Quote[/b] ]Isn't that about the size of the Swedish Army?

Sadly, it's more like the Canadian one. Regular force army = 15,500.

I'd rather have a gun and not need one, than need a gun and not have it. I'm glad Denoir is over in Sweden and not here dictating policy.

Time to crawl back to 'ma pick-up truck with 'ma confederate flag on it.

[toadlife 3]

You have to be shitting me. Please tell me that this is a joke. Please tell me that you are not trying to make a point by showing a goddamn village with the population of 20,000!

What the hell difference would it make if the town was 20,000 or 20,000,000?

I am from the United States - not sweden, not Britain, not Japan, and in the United States, the task of protecting oneself lies upon the induvidual. I know the concept might be confusing for somone from a more socialistic country, but that's how it is here.

We have a violence problem here in the United States - true. But a violence problem does not equate to a gun problem.

@Ralphwiggum

I think you are mistaking my point of view a bit...

I don't beleive that all citizens should be able to own whatever gun they want. Having an M16 in your gun rack would be a bit over the top IMO, but the way things are going the average citizen will soon not be able to defend themselves because the only gun they will be able to posses is a [sarcasm]daisy CO2 powered bb pistol with a trigger lock, that is locked inside of a bomb proof safe 500 feet from the house underground [/sarcasm].

[USSoldier11B 0]

Quote[/b] ]Sadly, it's more like the Canadian one. Regular force army = 15,500.

There are more troops than that at Ft. Hood or Ft. Bragg alone.

Quote[/b] ]Having an M16 in your gun rack would be a bit over the top

You lost me at the over the top part. I've owned much crazier.

[Major Fubar 0]

Unless you get a retarted one they will allways detect strangers around the premises and at least alert you - but once you are alerted by your ankle biter dog, what do you do if you have no effective means of defense?

Hmm, call the police?