Gun laws.

[Ultrajoe]

You speak as if being unarmed means that you will have been robbed, raped and shot within a week.

 

[Vaudille]

Unfortunately, this conversation is not about whether you're going to get beaten and raped if you do not own a gun. It's about gun restriction being unable to prevent criminals from acquiring weapons to use against law abiding citizens.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Unfortunately, this conversation is not about whether you're going to get beaten and raped if you do not own a gun. It's about gun restriction being unable to prevent criminals from acquiring weapons to use against law abiding citizens.

that doesn't make that mindset (if indeed it is true) any less alarming.

And i would say that a public who sees guns as the ultimate method of security would be quite relevant in a discussion on that countries problem with illegal firearms.

Although you are right, getting illegal guns out of production is a more direct aim, but id still say that any society in which safety through superior firepower is a household motto is a little disturbing.

 

[Vaudille]

Safety through superior firepower is not how we operate as a society. We are safe through our ability to defend ourselves with firearms.

Taking away all the good citizen's firearms leaves only the criminals with weapons, as they won't abstain from acquiring theirs illegally.

Anyone who wants to debate with me, consider New Orleans. The police recently swept through there and commandeered all the guns and firearms that people owned up the having.

Criminals, it seems, didn't own up. As New Orlean's murder rate shot up 10 TIMES the national average.

Last year, university researchers conducted an experiment in which police fired 700 blank rounds in a New Orleans neighborhood in a single afternoon. No one called to report the gunfire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8999837

Case closed.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Safety through superior firepower is not how we operate as a society. We are safe through our ability to defend ourselves with firearms.

Taking away all the good citizen's firearms leaves only the criminals with weapons, as they won't abstain from acquiring theirs illegally.

Anyone who wants to debate with me, consider New Orleans. The police recently swept through there and commandeered all the guns and firearms that people owned up the having.

Criminals, it seems, didn't own up. As New Orlean's murder rate shot up 10 TIMES the national average.

Last year, university researchers conducted an experiment in which police fired 700 blank rounds in a New Orleans neighborhood in a single afternoon. No one called to report the gunfire.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8999837

Case closed.

That to me proves less that people needing guns is the issue, but that perhaps that your biggest problem is removing guns from the basic human needs of that society.

When people don't report 700 rounds i think basic human need is appropriate.

 

[ChickenOfDoom]

Hunting is not a valid reason to allow people to have guns. There is no need to hunt; people get food other ways very easily, and the entertainment value of it doesn't justify the potential harm to people.

The real reason everyone should have guns is to deter potential government oppression. If it gets to the point where those in control, whether on the local or national level, want to exceed their given power, it would be significantly easier for them to do so if they can do anything they want with absolutely no risk.

No one knows what the future is going to be like. We can't bet our well being and freedom on the good intentions of others.

 

[Vaudille]

More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.

 

[Ultrajoe]

More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.

Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.

 

[Vaudille]

More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.

Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.

I'm too tired to decipher your post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's hard to debate when even the judges are totally lost in your maze of random words.

 

[Clone552]

Guns are a part of American society, and will more than likely remain that way for a long time to come. Guns are not the problem and were never the problem. The problem lies with people and their ignorant, uninformed, or biased views on firearms (I'm not saying all who oppose firearms are that way, some just don't care for them). If people were taught about firearms from a young age, to respect them and to understand what they can do is what will help more than banning them outright. However, even that will not stop crimes being committed with firearms. If someone wants to shoot someone else no amount of laws will stop it. Increasing the average intelligence level and standard of living among all people is what will help more than blaming guns.

However, when it gets down to it there will be people who oppose guns and those who are for them. Most will not be easily swayed, if at all. What makes America different from some other countries is that Americans have the choice. They have the choice to own a gun, or to not own one. Whether or not you dislike guns or love them is irrelevant. Even if banning them would help, it's not an option. That would go against what America is. America gives people freedom, for better or worse.

Also, even if gun control works in other countries, there is no guarantee that it would work in America. Americans have a much different mindset than those elsewhere. It's the way Americans are, they have always had the freedom to choose what they want to do. Taking that away would only cause more problems.

I know very well that any argument put forth by either side is ultimately futile in changing most opinions on the matter, but all should respect firearms at the very least.

 

[Ultrajoe]

More people die from car crashes and being run over by cars then being shot by guns, does that mean we should outlaw cars?

There's a potential risk in everything you do. That doesn't mean you can get rid of something entirely . Using your logic, we should outlaw everything that has any potential risk to humans.

Now thats just pointless mockery, Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock. Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point.

I'm too tired to decipher your post. I don't understand what you're trying to say. It's hard to debate when even the judges are totally lost in your maze of random words.

random words?

ill break it down for you.

Now thats just pointless mockery - Here i am making a jovial reprimand at your post, jovial though, i am trying to build rapport

Exaggeration wont convince me that everyone would be safer clutching a glock - Here i make the statement that a society in which everyone is armed, to me, is not exactly safe.

Hypocrisy may be evident in that last sentence, but it serves the point. - Here i reprimand myself for exaggerating even when i previously had go at you for doing it yourself... hence the 'Hypocrisy' comment.

Although i don't know how you didn't get that.

 

[Ultrajoe]

In this day an age we simply haven't outlawed guns because war is different.
Who remembers Pearl Harbor? (wierd question to ask.) Let's get our facts straight though. When they bombed Hawaii, they weren't just aiming for boats. Don't be so naive. They didn't give to shits about who they hit. They wanted as many Americans dead. (And we responded, showing that if they show little regard for civillians, we will take them down.)
Fast forward. 9/11. They didn't give two shits who they killed. Look at what happened and tell me they thought about kids whose parents would not come home. There were no soldiers there.
The War against terrorism. We go over there, with the sole intention of rooing out terrorists. They respond, by killing every man woman and child who is from America that they get their hands on. (And not in quick pretty ways either.)
We are one of the few coutnries playing by the set rules of war. (Perverse, see: UT3)
You have to understand that (slightly off topic, but bare with me) if we pulled out so soon, they'd bring the war to us. (Don't fool yourself into thinking life is that simple. War is born from signs of weakness.) It's not as simple as most people think. They hate us, as much as we hate them. See: 9/11. (don't give me that inside job BS.)
If we pull out without a clear victory, you can bet they will move the war to our borders. And unlike us, they won't care who they hit. To them, every man woman and child is an American soldier, and to them, we are a plague. They will come in like, (to quote Lamb of God) "a hailstorm of broken glass" killing anything that isn't them. No mercy, no compassion, no rules, no holding back.
If we were to abolish guns and pull out, we'd lose. They would come and kill our civillians, and we'd be unable to do anything about it.
And that is why we don't abolish guns. Because the second Amendment was made so that civillians would be able to protect themselves when the wars come to their homes, as it is a very real possiblity. It's not about want, it's not about need, it's about "what if". It's a "what if" that is certainly abused, but's it's not just a right, it's a measure taken. And I can guarentee you, when we pull out, gun sales will sky rocket, and I will be inline.

I don't think America should pull out, that country needs you there now and if you pull out now it would ruin the nation for decades to come.

I might be a pacifist but i do know a bit about politics and logistics.

On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.

 

[Ultrajoe]

On another note, i've always thought the second amendment was there so that the populace could rebel should the government become convoluted, oppressive and bureaucratic.

It is. But in 1776, those weren't their only concerns. When the Britts came over, there was no millitia. The country needed someone to fight for it. And that's heald true today. If we are invaded, we'll still need security in our own homes. When the war comes to our turf, it's no longer just the military who will fight and die.
The idea that was implimented for overthrowing an out of control government was used for many reasons. French Revolution was fought mostly with pitch forks by peasants. If we tried to break from Brittain with no wepaons, we'd be screwed.

The idea of the second ammendment was to help protect the American citizens from foreign oppression as well as at home problems. Ben Franklin was quoted as saying, "For a government to truly work, it should be overthrown and rebuilt atleast every two-hundred years" or something like that. I think the number was smaller.
But the point is, yes, Washington knew that men could be corrupt, he understood above all men the tragedies of oppression. (Whether or not he was alive when the second ammendment was written would be pointless. Just covering that base, my history isn't perfect.)
The constitution was built as a mandate and procedure for our government, as well as our freedoms within reason, and the ability to protect said freedoms. If our government went nuts, yes we'd need a way to fight it. However, it's a little, well, naive (maybe not naive, just, I don't know, absent minded?), to think it was the only reason it was made. Given the timing and all.

i'm not saying it has no other uses, but the primary one i've always thought was to prevent the country evolving into something other than what it began as.

But back on topic, if a country's citizens require guns to feel safe, surely you can see that something is wrong with the way weapons are working in that country. Even if you think everyone should have access to weapons, can you concede that perhaps the integration of weapons into that culture is a little over-progressed?

 

[Facemelter]

Two points:
2. With the might of the US military, it is absolutely imperative that Americans have the right to own guns. If our "fearless leader" decided to take the country hostage and install himself as dictator, do you really think the UN or NATO or anyone else could do anything about it if we didn't have the ability to defend ourselves?

Yes, a bunch of gun toting red necks with .22's will hold back the US military. Though I suppose teens with old soviet equipment are doing just fine (See: Afghanistan)

In Australia, since the 1996 Port Arthur Massacre, in which 35 people where shot and 37 other injured by Martin Bryant, the Federal Government has tightened gun ownership laws considerably and as a result, during the period of 1991 and 2001 the number of firearm related deaths in Australia declined 47%. (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html)

If I remember correctly from a documentary I watched a while back, Australia has something like 20 gun related deaths per year, most of which are police shooting someone. Japan have even less. Why does America have gun deaths in the thousands?

 

[Clone552]

The gun toting rednecks line is offensive and ignorant. I've known plenty of "rednecks" that are better people than the so called educated and tolerant I've met. Judging someone like that doesn't help your argument.

Besides, you can't compare Australia with America. They are different, so banning or reducing guns in America might not do the same thing it did there.

 

[Xhumed]

In the UK we never had lots of guns, but after we had Dunblaine (guy goes nuts, shoots up a primary school) tighter restrictions were imposed, and demanded by the public. Now its mostly criminals and Farmers who have guns here (and farmer's mums). And our murder rate is still lower than the USA, even though people don't have guns "for protection." Im honestly suprised after all the high school and college shootings in the US people aren't clammering for gun control, but no, they'd rather blame it on Marilyn Manson and Doom, and not address the proper causes.