An Armed Society is a Polite Society (?)
- Thread starter DiamondJim
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I just want to throw this out there to clear this up for some who may be unclear on American gun laws. I only mention this because it was hinted ar by ZippyDS.
If you are convicted of a felony in the U.S., not only do you lose your right to vote, but you are barred from purchasing a firearm. That's the law. That's the way it is, and it is enforced with the instant background check that takes place before a firearm purchase is completed. The BATF form 4473 also tracks who is purchasing the gun, what kind of gun it is, where it came from, and aids in the verification of the purchaser's identity.
I know I will probably get flamed for this, but there is nothing wrong with a country allowing its civilians to own guns. Just because that's how it works in the U.K. doesn't mean it's the best way to be, and I often wonder why so many Europeans seem to care so much about American guns laws anyway, and they seem to take a personal interest in seeing guns taken from American civilians for no other reason than, "That's the way it is in my country." I mean no insult to anyone, but that's just the feeling I get from these kinds of threads. Removing guns from society will in no way eliminate violent crime.
Why should the U.S. adopt a gun ban anyway? There is no evidence that banning guns will decrease crime; especially when you take into account the size of the U.S. and some of its major cities. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its crime rate is through the roof. The same is true with Washington D.C.! If nothing else, the U.S. has shown that crime is higher in cities where guns are more strictly controlled. This is not true in every case, but has shown to be accurate in far too many cases to be ignored.
If you are convicted of a felony in the U.S., not only do you lose your right to vote, but you are barred from purchasing a firearm. That's the law. That's the way it is, and it is enforced with the instant background check that takes place before a firearm purchase is completed. The BATF form 4473 also tracks who is purchasing the gun, what kind of gun it is, where it came from, and aids in the verification of the purchaser's identity.
I know I will probably get flamed for this, but there is nothing wrong with a country allowing its civilians to own guns. Just because that's how it works in the U.K. doesn't mean it's the best way to be, and I often wonder why so many Europeans seem to care so much about American guns laws anyway, and they seem to take a personal interest in seeing guns taken from American civilians for no other reason than, "That's the way it is in my country." I mean no insult to anyone, but that's just the feeling I get from these kinds of threads. Removing guns from society will in no way eliminate violent crime.
Why should the U.S. adopt a gun ban anyway? There is no evidence that banning guns will decrease crime; especially when you take into account the size of the U.S. and some of its major cities. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and its crime rate is through the roof. The same is true with Washington D.C.! If nothing else, the U.S. has shown that crime is higher in cities where guns are more strictly controlled. This is not true in every case, but has shown to be accurate in far too many cases to be ignored.
guns don't kill people, people kill people, sorry for the cliche but it's right, criminals will always get guns, if gun ownership is illegal they will get them illegally.
If people don't like guns then how about everyone carry a grenade, no one will start a fight when the guy you are fighting can blow you the fuck up.
If people don't like guns then how about everyone carry a grenade, no one will start a fight when the guy you are fighting can blow you the fuck up.
Which is already happening, to a point, in Australia. Being 15, soon to be 16 I'm probably going to be trying for a learner's permit in the not-too-distant future. One of the many regulations Australia has in place is that you are not legally allowed to drive a car with eight or more cylindars until you have a full liscence. The order of liscences goes Learner (12 months min), P1 (12 months min), P2 (24 months), and only after that you get your full liscence, and have the ability to drive a V-8. All because some idiots don't have it in them to drive safely.BishopOfBattle said:
Tune in for next week's episode of Absurd Australian laws, where we investigate potential censorship of the internet and the proposed law banning of bikie gangs!
Counter-puzzle: You're a robber.Rahnzan said:
You live on the border of two states in America. One has heavily restrictive gun control, the other doesn't. You have a gun.
Where'd you get it?
Just a few stats....
The US has approx 15 times the population of Australia.
The US has approx 300 times Australia's firearm homicide rate.
Ever heard of 'Savate', the French combative discipline using a walking stick as an epee.
Savate was brought to Australia by French merchant marines after WW2. A pure (not sport) form survives in Australia and has been exported back to France.
http://www.bridgemansavate.com/
The US has approx 15 times the population of Australia.
The US has approx 300 times Australia's firearm homicide rate.
The shot disperses at range, though picking ball bearings out of my bbq rabbit/kanga/emu is not my best farm memory.Amnestic said:
Walking stick or cane.Danny Ocean said:
Ever heard of 'Savate', the French combative discipline using a walking stick as an epee.
Savate was brought to Australia by French merchant marines after WW2. A pure (not sport) form survives in Australia and has been exported back to France.
http://www.bridgemansavate.com/
i just have to ask, why is it that the american posters seem convinced that them owning a gun is some how going to keep their government in check?
if your government wants you gone, you will be gone. from what i understand if the american government starts acting up then people will start an armed rebellion, correct?
now, im working on the assumption that your police forces, national guard and army will be better trained and for the most part better equipt that the rebellious citizen. how is gun ownership going to help you against people with better guns and better training?
im also working on the fairly reasonable assumption that not every single american will join in the armed revolt, because thats never happened, not in eastern europe during the hungarian revolution, or in the second world war during the warsaw uprising. yes people are united in their desire, but not in their actions.
anyway, back to the point. the government will do what it wants, if you rise up, they will kill you, guns or no guns. im not saying that government forces would not suffer any casualties but the ownership of guns wil not make any difference. the only way to stop that shit is to make sure that it never gets to that point, you have to keep a constant watch on your government and to shout at them whilst they are still abiding by what the population wants.
if i can get a good answer to the question i'll be thankful
if your government wants you gone, you will be gone. from what i understand if the american government starts acting up then people will start an armed rebellion, correct?
now, im working on the assumption that your police forces, national guard and army will be better trained and for the most part better equipt that the rebellious citizen. how is gun ownership going to help you against people with better guns and better training?
im also working on the fairly reasonable assumption that not every single american will join in the armed revolt, because thats never happened, not in eastern europe during the hungarian revolution, or in the second world war during the warsaw uprising. yes people are united in their desire, but not in their actions.
anyway, back to the point. the government will do what it wants, if you rise up, they will kill you, guns or no guns. im not saying that government forces would not suffer any casualties but the ownership of guns wil not make any difference. the only way to stop that shit is to make sure that it never gets to that point, you have to keep a constant watch on your government and to shout at them whilst they are still abiding by what the population wants.
if i can get a good answer to the question i'll be thankful
The main problem with guns in society i think is the accessability to them, personally i think they should be heavily regulated and controlled to limit the possibility of wrong doing (involving guns) occuring, of course you are still going to get things happen, its a fact of life.
No its not a polite society becuase everyones on an equal level,
Go to the one with no gun control and buy lots of guns, go on a nicking spree then go to the other state with heavy gun control and rob them too. Its not going to make any diffrence as while americans may think they'll heroically jump out with their gun and shoot the evildoer in reality their just going to be scared out of their wits and if anyone does try to pull something then they'll end up dead.Rahnzan said:
This!george144 said:
Even though the criminal might not enter the state with stict gun control since he could be arrested just for carrying his gun around without doing any buissnes.
Someone said a gun would even out the chances of a 80 year woman and a criminal...Bullshit, the old lady would never be able to act fast enough.
In a scenario without guns she would be forced to give away her monney and thats it since the robber wouldn't risk a higher penalty for no further gains.
In the gun scenario the criminal would first be forced to eliminate the thread of armamend by kicking the old woman in the back and robbing her while she lies on the groung with broken bones, well done.
The main question for most people before they turn to an illegal action is "do i get away with this?" and if they don't use a gun in an gun controled enviromend increases this factor by such an ammount that firearms become a lot less popular.
Note: If you want to fight the gouverment with a handgun than they fight you with a batteltank...what now?
I believe that if someone wants a gun, they must take a psychology test firs to see if they are the type to kill someone.
A person may only buy a firearm within his own State except that he may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any State, provided the sale complies with State laws applicable in the State of sale and the State where the purchaser resides.Horticulture said:
[18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922(b)(3), 27 CFR 178.29]
It is a lot easier to conceal a pistol than it is to conceal a rifle or shotgun. I am assuming that you mean the robber in question is a resident of heavy gun control state so even if he left he could only buy a difficult to carry and/or conceal long gun. This also relies on the neighboring state allowing nonresident long gun sales as indicated above.
Yes the hypothetical robber in question is from the heavy control state. No offense, I'm robbing you, ask me if I care about local gun control laws. I'm not, I'm breaking the law, breaking another one isn't going to faze me. The robber with the knife in the UK isn't going to obey knife-length laws in London now is he? People like to think 'Oh they wouldn't break another law because that would add more years to their sentence.' Fact: Thieves dont intend to get caught, this is a non-issue to them. They're going to get a gun, most likely one without a paper trail. If you removed all guns from the planet someone with a lathe is going to make one. Chances are more likely I'll break into a gunstore at night and steal what I need to, but then they'd know which guns I stole and still be able to trace me if I used those guns. Most criminals not intending to kill themselves once the deed is done get their guns from friends, family, service, or the illegal dealer who gets his guns from the guy who had the balls to break into a gun store and sack everything 3 states away.SmogCzar said:
If you're going to walk into a store with intent on robbing the place, how hard is it going to be to saw your shotgun in half eh? "Oh no, I broke the law, pardon me while I go...BREAK THE LAW!" I dont agree with strict gun control laws for personal safety reasons. I dont believe civilians need assault rifles or armor piercing bullets but I also don't believe you should need a seperate license for a rifle, shotgun, pistol, gun case, individual ammo sizes, whether your gun is fully automatic or semi-automatic, so on and so forth. Pass a psychological test with mental history, show a form of ID, take a manditory gun safety class and give me my gun already.
A law breaking individual is not going to give two craps about any law passed concerning weapon control, any edge he can get over the people he's robbing is desireable.
Fact: Heavy gun control states have an increased level of criminal activity.
Fact: Most people complaining about strict gun control are law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves or shoot for sport.
Fact: Russia has been near impossible to invade for much of its history (I dont know about presently) because every other citizen had a gun. You didn't just fight Russia's army, you fought it's citizens too.
Fact: Muggers dont f*** with gun owners.
Fact: Guns generate respect. I dont mean you respect a man who's packing heat, well of course you do but, you respect a firearm. If you dont, you'll injure yourself and others around you. Guns aren't toys, they're tools. A weapon is a tool designed to defend or kill, its how you USE the tool. Imagine if I went around mugging people with a battery operated powerdrill, would that be much worse than a pistol?
