Personally, I like to live in an area that my children are 55 times less likely to be killed by a gun.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I believe its an internal issue and I think euros and aussies do a lot of stupid things too. Do I care enough to debate about it. no, not for the most part. USA #1
personally, I prefer living in an armed society than an unarmed oneShem wrote:
Personally, I like to live in an area that my children are 55 times less likely to be killed by a gun.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I believe its an internal issue and I think euros and aussies do a lot of stupid things too. Do I care enough to debate about it. no, not for the most part. USA #1
Guess that's my choice though.
Do you understand English? Having secular state laws is useless without border checks. Here in Australia we have a uniform gun regulatory system which makes state border checks irrelevant.AllmightyOz wrote:
border checks??? Are you fucking insane? We do have rights. I don't know what kinda rights you have in Austrailia, but this is America and we do what we want. We go where we want, when we want, and don't have to worry about being harassed by the cops or checked without probable cause. Look at our constitution. Right in there it says we have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. That is the document our country is founded on and its un-American to change that. We also have a right to not be fucked with, guns help us uphold that basic human right.DrunkFace wrote:
Only because they can't get there fucking act together and make a uniform national law, but rather rely on every state to make there own laws and have no border checks between them.HurricaИe wrote:
posessing it in DC would still be illegal. A law-abiding citizen in DC would not have a gun to defend his home, his life. A criminal is already intent on breaking the law, the fuck do they care if they have illegal possession of a weapon on their repertoire as well?
edit: Christ people it's been said over 9,000 times, gun bans in the US are a very different beast compared to gun bans in Europe, Australia etc
LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
I need a gun to protect my life, liberty, and happiness.
Last edited by mikkel (2008-03-08 07:14:14)
That equates to about 400 deaths in australia a year.8.5 more deaths than australia per 100,000 according to that chart. Thats not very much of a fucking improvement is it? What is eight lives on our soil when scores get killed overseas?
read what I postedShem wrote:
Personally, I like to live in an area that my children are 55 times less likely to be killed by a gun.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I believe its an internal issue and I think euros and aussies do a lot of stupid things too. Do I care enough to debate about it. no, not for the most part. USA #1
Guess that's my choice though.
Last edited by HurricaИe (2008-03-08 07:15:35)
3x the amount to 55x, I think I can handle those 3x.HurricaИe wrote:
read what I postedShem wrote:
Personally, I like to live in an area that my children are 55 times less likely to be killed by a gun.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
I believe its an internal issue and I think euros and aussies do a lot of stupid things too. Do I care enough to debate about it. no, not for the most part. USA #1
Guess that's my choice though.
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk//knives.pdf
England and Wales had a much higher percentage of knife crime victims. 1.5% of the population. USA was 0.4%. Your knives are our guns, in a sense.
Last edited by Shem (2008-03-08 07:22:12)
That's a strange way of looking at it. Are you basing that on anything other than personal opinion? Because it seems to fly in the face of all the figures. It is typical for areas with more liberal welfare laws to have lower gun crime. So why do you think it would have the opposite effect to the observed one?FEOS wrote:
IMO, other aspects of DC drive all the violent crime here...most of them being related to DC's liberal immigration and welfare positions.
The man is talking sense.mikkel wrote:
What's so mysterious about that?
When you have a small area with a strict gun control surrounded by areas with little control, the control will be ineffective. Anyone can drive half an hour out of town to get a firearm, and anyone with a car can get guns in there. It takes a very narrow mind to write off gun control because of this. It's sorta like putting up a gym surrounded by 20 fast food restaurants to fight obesity and writing it off as ineffective 'cause fat people grab a bucket of chicken on their way home.
Unmanaged proliferation makes managing -anything- an impossible task. This is true for -anything- in -any- industry, and I've yet to see anyone come even close to making a sound argument for why this shouldn't be the case with firearms. Assisting in this proliferation as a way to fight gun crime is like digging a tunnel by throwing dirt at the ground. It's not going to help.
If you want to stop the proliferation of firearms, you need consistency. You can't lock one door and let the other doors open, and expect your home to be safe. Strict gun control is not going to stop gun crime, just like strictly controlling drugs haven't stopped drug-related crimes. Control, however, makes enforcement easier, and the longer we go without control, the more impossible the laws are going to be to enforce.
Just to make it clear to anyone thinking of jumping at me, I'm for gun ownership, and for tight control.
Everyone talks about everywhere here.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its an internal issue. mind your own business. You think Im here writing about how stupid I think European or Australian laws are?
The First ten ammendments were added as one in to the Consitution and are collectavelly referred to as the "Bill of Rights." Yes, you are correct that we can change the ammendments through a Constitutional Convention. However, through tradition, those first ten ammendments are sacrosanct, because to change one of the first ten ammedments sends a signal that it may be permisable to change MORE of the first 10. So what would be the big deal?DrunkFace wrote:
Do you understand English? Having secular state laws is useless without border checks. Here in Australia we have a uniform gun regulatory system which makes state border checks irrelevant.AllmightyOz wrote:
border checks??? Are you fucking insane? We do have rights. I don't know what kinda rights you have in Austrailia, but this is America and we do what we want. We go where we want, when we want, and don't have to worry about being harassed by the cops or checked without probable cause. Look at our constitution. Right in there it says we have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. That is the document our country is founded on and its un-American to change that. We also have a right to not be fucked with, guns help us uphold that basic human right.DrunkFace wrote:
Only because they can't get there fucking act together and make a uniform national law, but rather rely on every state to make there own laws and have no border checks between them.
LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
I need a gun to protect my life, liberty, and happiness.
And the 'right to bear arms' is an AMENDMENT. That means was ADDED after the documentation to found your country was made, and with everything, things change and laws can also. Holding on to antiquated 'patriotic' bullshit to the detriment of the country is beyond stupid. get over your fucking stupid 'rights'.
"un-American to change that" - Been changed 27 times already.. can't be much "American" left then. Not to mention it was un-American to introduce to right to bear arms in the first place.
"we do what we want. We go where we want, when we want," Sure you do. The illusion of 'freedom' has blinded you of the truth.
@Drunkface ROFL!!!! Do you have any idea how much land you are talking about that is "state borders"? They would have to give us all guns and have us all patrol the borders to have that kind of manpower... And then we would all have guns anyway. Moron.AllmightyOz wrote:
border checks??? Are you fucking insane? We do have rights. I don't know what kinda rights you have in Austrailia, but this is America and we do what we want. We go where we want, when we want, and don't have to worry about being harassed by the cops or checked without probable cause. Look at our constitution. Right in there it says we have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. That is the document our country is founded on and its un-American to change that. We also have a right to not be fucked with, guns help us uphold that basic human right.DrunkFace wrote:
Only because they can't get there fucking act together and make a uniform national law, but rather rely on every state to make there own laws and have no border checks between them.HurricaИe wrote:
posessing it in DC would still be illegal. A law-abiding citizen in DC would not have a gun to defend his home, his life. A criminal is already intent on breaking the law, the fuck do they care if they have illegal possession of a weapon on their repertoire as well?
edit: Christ people it's been said over 9,000 times, gun bans in the US are a very different beast compared to gun bans in Europe, Australia etc
LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
I need a gun to protect my life, liberty, and happiness.
Define "short"???DrunkFace wrote:
Yes, there will be a period where 'criminals' have guns and the law abiding public don't, but with each arrest and gun confiscations as well as reduced supply, gun crime and guns can be almost eradicated. Isn't a 'short' period of unrest to gain an eternity of piece better then an eternity of escalating gun crime?
Not to mention the constitution was signed in 1787... The Bill of rights was signed in 1791... Not exactly an un-American re-writing of our rights... More of a correcting the immediate issues they saw needed to be corrected.imortal wrote:
The First ten ammendments were added as one in to the Consitution and are collectavelly referred to as the "Bill of Rights." Yes, you are correct that we can change the ammendments through a Constitutional Convention. However, through tradition, those first ten ammendments are sacrosanct, because to change one of the first ten ammedments sends a signal that it may be permisable to change MORE of the first 10. So what would be the big deal?DrunkFace wrote:
Do you understand English? Having secular state laws is useless without border checks. Here in Australia we have a uniform gun regulatory system which makes state border checks irrelevant.AllmightyOz wrote:
border checks??? Are you fucking insane? We do have rights. I don't know what kinda rights you have in Austrailia, but this is America and we do what we want. We go where we want, when we want, and don't have to worry about being harassed by the cops or checked without probable cause. Look at our constitution. Right in there it says we have a RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. That is the document our country is founded on and its un-American to change that. We also have a right to not be fucked with, guns help us uphold that basic human right.
LIFE LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
I need a gun to protect my life, liberty, and happiness.
And the 'right to bear arms' is an AMENDMENT. That means was ADDED after the documentation to found your country was made, and with everything, things change and laws can also. Holding on to antiquated 'patriotic' bullshit to the detriment of the country is beyond stupid. get over your fucking stupid 'rights'.
"un-American to change that" - Been changed 27 times already.. can't be much "American" left then. Not to mention it was un-American to introduce to right to bear arms in the first place.
"we do what we want. We go where we want, when we want," Sure you do. The illusion of 'freedom' has blinded you of the truth.
Like the 1st Ammendment, safeguarding our rights to free speech and to worship how we please.
The 3rd ammendment says we do not have to house soldiers in our homes. This is a pretty outdated concept, but we keep it in there ayway.
Like the 4th Ammendment, protecting us from unjust perectution by requiring "due process" from the state.
Like the 5th Ammendment, which keeps us from having to incrimiate ourselves.
The 6th ammendment? The right to a speedy trial? Surely we could do without that; some people in this country deserve to rot in prison without burdening the public with a showy trial.
The 7th ammendment. The trial jury. Surely we can do without that.
8th? Excessive bail? Cruel and unusual punishment?
The last two ammendment in the Bill of Rights are often overlooked, but are two of the most important.
"Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Enumeration means to list or catalog. This means, in a nutshell, that just because we did not list it here, that does not mean you do not also have other rights.
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This one. I love this ammendment, even though it is trampled every day. This means that our nations government only has the powers given to it BY THE PEOPLE, and laid out it the Consitution. If it is not here, then our government is not and should not be allowed to do it. All other powers not listed in the Cositution are reserved to be the proper role of the individual states and the citizens themselves.
The purpose of the second ammendment is to safeguard our freedoms, by giving the people the power to violently overthrow their own governmet if they felt it was needed. Most of the us here fear the government taking our guns, because we fear what the government may become if it takes our most important safeguard from us.
If you are not an American citizen, you do not understand. Even a lot of American do not understand. They let the truth of it slip through their fingers. They do not realize that the 2nd ammendment is more important now than ever. Because the lessons of the past have faded into the past. Because many people no longer see the govenment as a necesary evil to be tolerated, but never trusted. Many people look to the government for help, and are dependant on that help. We have families of professional politicians now who depend on the government, and use the power of their positions to safeguard themselves. And the best way of safeguarding themselves, and the power they gain through their positions, is to get rid of the People's absolute veto; their guns.
Yes, we are willing to put up with the violence for this reason. The problem of gun violence in the US is a matter of social problem; but not in the actual ownership of the guns. It is in the education system. It is in the culture of people fearing guns, and an unwillingness to teach proper gun safety and ediquette to their children; they simply teach them to fear and revile guns. It is in the culture that views guns as a way to get "respect," and a way to get what they want. The people who see a gun as an easy solution.
Getting rid of guns does not get rid of the problem. It simply allows it to fester until it presents itself in another way. Yes, we need change in the US. But getting rid of guns is the wrong way to change it.
Participate yes, just have no say...HurricaИe wrote:
^^Non-americans can participate but please guys don't try to compare the UK or Finland or whatever to the US. It's been beaten to death: there are fundamental differences in the cultures.
Nice cliché.euroweasel wrote:
Well the way i see it........
If you outlaw guns...........
Only outlaws will have guns.!
What part of 'localised gun bans don't work' don't you understand?HITNRUNXX wrote:
Define "short"???DrunkFace wrote:
Yes, there will be a period where 'criminals' have guns and the law abiding public don't, but with each arrest and gun confiscations as well as reduced supply, gun crime and guns can be almost eradicated. Isn't a 'short' period of unrest to gain an eternity of piece better then an eternity of escalating gun crime?
I already stated that it has been over 30 years since Washington DC put their ban into effect.... It peaked 15 years after the ban and is just now back down to the number of murders per year as before the ban
So in short, It made it worse for 30 years, and then just put it back to where it was in the long run.
So to you, short is at least more than 30 years.... And we still haven't seen it get LOWER than the starting number...
lolHITNRUNXX wrote:
And one thing all of you Europeans are forgetting:
We are allowed, by our rights, to own guns... NOT to strictly protect against criminals, but to also protect against our government. Our Constitutional rights allow... Nay, DEMAND we be a part of our governmental processes and do not allow our elected officials to become tyrants over us. Without guns, we would be sheep for our government to roll over even more than they already do.
you think thats funny, cause you could never imagine doing something like that.Gawwad wrote:
Nice cliché.euroweasel wrote:
Well the way i see it........
If you outlaw guns...........
Only outlaws will have guns.!What part of 'localised gun bans don't work' don't you understand?HITNRUNXX wrote:
Define "short"???DrunkFace wrote:
Yes, there will be a period where 'criminals' have guns and the law abiding public don't, but with each arrest and gun confiscations as well as reduced supply, gun crime and guns can be almost eradicated. Isn't a 'short' period of unrest to gain an eternity of piece better then an eternity of escalating gun crime?
I already stated that it has been over 30 years since Washington DC put their ban into effect.... It peaked 15 years after the ban and is just now back down to the number of murders per year as before the ban
So in short, It made it worse for 30 years, and then just put it back to where it was in the long run.
So to you, short is at least more than 30 years.... And we still haven't seen it get LOWER than the starting number...lolHITNRUNXX wrote:
And one thing all of you Europeans are forgetting:
We are allowed, by our rights, to own guns... NOT to strictly protect against criminals, but to also protect against our government. Our Constitutional rights allow... Nay, DEMAND we be a part of our governmental processes and do not allow our elected officials to become tyrants over us. Without guns, we would be sheep for our government to roll over even more than they already do.
You honestly think you can overthrow your goverment supported by the army with hand guns?Parker wrote:
you think thats funny, cause you could never imagine doing something like that.
follow the guy with the stick, he will take you to where the good grass grows.......
You seem the type that would be found on your knees....Gawwad wrote:
You honestly think you can overthrow your goverment supported by the army with hand guns?Parker wrote:
you think thats funny, cause you could never imagine doing something like that.
follow the guy with the stick, he will take you to where the good grass grows.......
And if the army is on the people's side, what do you need the hand guns for?
Gawwad wrote:
You honestly think you can overthrow your goverment supported by the army with hand guns?Parker wrote:
you think thats funny, cause you could never imagine doing something like that.
follow the guy with the stick, he will take you to where the good grass grows.......
And if the army is on the people's side, what do you need the hand guns for?
As used in military circles, a handgun is basically only good for getting a bigger gun.Gawwad wrote:
You honestly think you can overthrow your goverment supported by the army with hand guns?Parker wrote:
you think thats funny, cause you could never imagine doing something like that.
follow the guy with the stick, he will take you to where the good grass grows.......
And if the army is on the people's side, what do you need the hand guns for?
A more appropriate quote would be:Commie Killer wrote:
You seem the type that would be found on your knees....Gawwad wrote:
You honestly think you can overthrow your goverment supported by the army with hand guns?Parker wrote:
you think thats funny, cause you could never imagine doing something like that.
follow the guy with the stick, he will take you to where the good grass grows.......
And if the army is on the people's side, what do you need the hand guns for?