If your guns had been locked up would they have been stolen?Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
or drank beer, beat each other up... but didnt have a gun on hand to shoot each other.. both workusmarine2005 wrote:
If we all just got along and drank tea and talked about rainbows.....DrunkFace wrote:
8 legal handguns now 8 illegal handguns...
If there was 0 legal handguns there would now be 0 illegal handguns.
im sure america would just invade another country then they wont lose their jobs!!!Canin wrote:
If there were 0 legal handguns, there would be thousands upon thousands of illegal handguns, not to mention thousands upon thousands of more people out of work caused by all the gun manufacturers having to lay people off since they could no longer make a profit by selling guns legally.DrunkFace wrote:
8 legal handguns now 8 illegal handguns...{M5}Sniper3 wrote:
Well, I haven't been on in a week, mainly because my house was robbed.... A brief list of the items were ....8 handguns and ammo for all (2 .45s, 2 .44s, .380, 3 .22s)
If there was 0 legal handguns there would now be 0 illegal handguns.
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2007-12-17 19:19:04)
yep you are an idiot. It is official.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
im sure america would just invade another country then they wont lsoe their jobs!!!
@ LBJ - Nice transition off topic.
Last edited by Canin (2007-12-17 19:20:17)
watever... u just keep ur guns in ur closet and if u get robbed kill that son of a bitch!! then it will all be good! nice man nice...
I don't own a gun you fuck head.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
watever... u just keep ur guns in ur closet and if u get robbed kill that son of a bitch!! then it will all be good! nice man nice...
No enforcing current laws would certainly cut down the violence. But the funny thing about criminals is that they don't really care about new laws. I'm for some changes, but not the complete removal of our second amendment.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
so ur saying taking guns of the market and cracking down on illegal firearms by the police would not help at all?Kmarion wrote:
Think logically. If you create new laws that strip away the right to carry a gun from legal law abiding citizens who does it benefit? The idea of just making a new law to solve a problem that involves illegal activity only works in crackhead land.SharkyMcshark wrote:
Well... yeah. Or does it make sense to you to keep trying to enforce laws that aren't working instead of trying to change them?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Thats what you have a gun in the closet for. Its called personal protection.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
watever... u just keep ur guns in ur closet and if u get robbed kill that son of a bitch!! then it will all be good! nice man nice...
By the way, is your keyboard missing some keys?
You are looking very short term and very narrow minded.Kmarion wrote:
Think logically. If you create new laws that strip away the right to carry a gun from legal law abiding citizens who does it benefit? The idea of just making a new law to solve a problem that involves illegal activity only works in crackhead land.SharkyMcshark wrote:
Well... yeah. Or does it make sense to you to keep trying to enforce laws that aren't working instead of trying to change them?Kmarion wrote:
So your solution to fixing the problem is to make new laws when the current laws aren't being enforced?
Check mate .
The general chain of events goes.
Make gun -> legally sell gun to responsible gun owner -> gun stolen/lost -> gun sold illegally -> gun used for a crime -> criminal capture and gun confiscated.
Break the chain at "Make gun" or "legally sell gun to responsible gun owner" and eventually the illegal gun trade will dry up too. It wont be over night and may take a decade but the longer the problem is left the perpetuate the harder and longer it will take to fix. Don't you think a decade of marginally higher gun crime is worth an eternity of much lower gun crime after?
Ohhh noess.. I would much prefer to be dead then not have a job....Canin wrote:
not to mention thousands upon thousands of more people out of work caused by all the gun manufacturers having to lay people off since they could no longer make a profit by selling guns legally.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2007-12-17 19:24:55)
Just a quick question. Are guns illegal in Australia?
After their last massacre there was a push to disarm all Australians.. yes.Canin wrote:
Just a quick question. Are guns illegal in Australia?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And yet, they still have gun crime, yes?Kmarion wrote:
After their last massacre there was a push to disarm all Australians.. yes.Canin wrote:
Just a quick question. Are guns illegal in Australia?
I am going somewhere with this, considering the ones arguing right now are all from Australia.
Actually no, they are not illegal just regulated with much tougher laws.Kmarion wrote:
After their last massacre there was a push to disarm all Australians.. yes.Canin wrote:
Just a quick question. Are guns illegal in Australia?
Yes, but a tiny fraction of what is in the US (and that's per capita, not raw numbers).Canin wrote:
And yet, they still have gun crime, yes?
I am going somewhere with this, considering the ones arguing right now are all from Australia.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2007-12-17 19:27:27)
Ok, so you have gun crime, yet your guns are highly regulated. The USA has gun crime, yet our current laws are barely enforced.DrunkFace wrote:
Actually no, they are not illegal just regulated with much tougher laws.Kmarion wrote:
After their last massacre there was a push to disarm all Australians.. yes.Canin wrote:
Just a quick question. Are guns illegal in Australia?Yes, but a tiny fraction of what is in the US (and that's per capita, not raw numbers).Canin wrote:
And yet, they still have gun crime, yes?
I am going somewhere with this, considering the ones arguing right now are all from Australia.
I have an idea, before you yell "Stop the killings, Strip the Americans of their guns!" perhaps you should look in your own back yard.
And what of all your other crime. You know the victims that were left defenseless?DrunkFace wrote:
Actually no, they are not illegal just regulated with much tougher laws.Kmarion wrote:
After their last massacre there was a push to disarm all Australians.. yes.Canin wrote:
Just a quick question. Are guns illegal in Australia?Yes, but a tiny fraction of what is in the US (and that's per capita, not raw numbers).Canin wrote:
And yet, they still have gun crime, yes?
I am going somewhere with this, considering the ones arguing right now are all from Australia.
these guys.. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=64244
Or this guy http://news.theage.com.au/trio-get-45-y … -1hjy.html
etc..
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009268780
etc
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ … 62,00.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
bf2 is a bad influence... clearly.
Notice how most of those crimes don't involve a 'victim' but is just theft of property? In which case having a gun to protect your self would not achieve anything.Kmarion wrote:
And what of all your other crime. You know the victims that were left defenseless?DrunkFace wrote:
Actually no, they are not illegal just regulated with much tougher laws.Kmarion wrote:
After their last massacre there was a push to disarm all Australians.. yes.Yes, but a tiny fraction of what is in the US (and that's per capita, not raw numbers).Canin wrote:
And yet, they still have gun crime, yes?
I am going somewhere with this, considering the ones arguing right now are all from Australia.
these guys.. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=64244
Total Crimes per capita
Assualts per Capita
Murders per Capita
Robberies per Capita
All higher in the US. How come your guns didn't stop any of this?
Because the bleeding heart liberal pussies would sue the victim, not the person committing the crime.DrunkFace wrote:
All higher in the US. How come your guns didn't stop any of this?
Also......From your stats
"Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a "crime". Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime."
"UN-crime survey sates: "The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-12-17 19:57:18)
It doesn't get much more ironic than thisDrunkFace wrote:
Notice how most of those crimes don't involve a 'victim' but is just theft of property? In which case having a gun to protect your self would not achieve anything.Kmarion wrote:
And what of all your other crime. You know the victims that were left defenseless?DrunkFace wrote:
Actually no, they are not illegal just regulated with much tougher laws.
Yes, but a tiny fraction of what is in the US (and that's per capita, not raw numbers).
these guys.. http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=64244
Total Crimes per capita
Assualts per Capita
Murders per Capita
Robberies per Capita
All higher in the US. How come your guns didn't stop any of this?
Australia isn't even on the first chart.
FFS, at least arm your women . What the hell?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_r … per-capita
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Agree totally, but why don't you use that argument when Kmarion uses the same statistics for his argument?usmarine2005 wrote:
Also......From your stats
"Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a "crime". Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime."
Last edited by DrunkFace (2007-12-17 19:58:06)
Haven't gotten there yet. I never payed attention to this site until now. As a matter of fact, he is wrong for using them also. I think this site and wiki should be banned from any debate IMO.DrunkFace wrote:
Agree totally, but why don't you use that argument when Kamarion uses the same statistics for his argument?
I've explained this (to no avail). Because .00/of a percent in a thousand does not warrant me giving up my liberties, Capiche?DrunkFace wrote:
Agree totally, but why don't you use that argument when Kmarion uses the same statistics for his argument?usmarine2005 wrote:
Also......From your stats
"Comparing international crime statistics must be done with great caution. Statistics compiled by the United Nations are based on surveys that specify that crimes be counted based on each country's legislated definition of what constitute a "crime". Some countries may include misdemeanor offences, where a fine is issued while others may only count imprisionable offences. Also, counting the crime takes place at different places in the law-enforcement process. Consequently, some countries may count every reported breach of the law, while others may only count cases that make it to court, and even then only the most serious of several charges laid. Because there is so much inconsistency in these statistics, they might also be a quality measure of the standard and efficiency of law enforcement and the criminal justice system of a country, rather than having anything to do with actual prevalence of crime."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Where does it say "Right to shoot people getting off of bus"? Fuck off.sergeriver wrote:
Right to Bear Arms.
For getting basic trends it is fine. In developed nations it won't be so inaccurate to dismiss the point I am making.usmarine2005 wrote:
Haven't gotten there yet. I never payed attention to this site until now. As a matter of fact, he is wrong for using them also. I think this site and wiki should be banned from any debate IMO.DrunkFace wrote:
Agree totally, but why don't you use that argument when Kamarion uses the same statistics for his argument?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ya but people use them like they are gospel and it annoys me that's all.Kmarion wrote:
For getting basic trends it is fine. In developed nations it won't be so inaccurate to dismiss the point I am making.usmarine2005 wrote:
Haven't gotten there yet. I never payed attention to this site until now. As a matter of fact, he is wrong for using them also. I think this site and wiki should be banned from any debate IMO.DrunkFace wrote:
Agree totally, but why don't you use that argument when Kamarion uses the same statistics for his argument?