I will never understand people opposing the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons to defend themselves ... based on the actions of criminals.
K.Parker wrote:
thank you so much for taking the time to explain that to me.MadKatter wrote:
Let me put it this way.
ill be sure to mention that to the people that pay me for concealed carry/self defense lessons
oh i forgot to say - your wall of text has nothing to do with crime ratesJoshP wrote:
oh lawdsdeeznutz1245 wrote:
Lets take a step back here. Pussy liberals and their pussy legislature create leniancy on asswipe criminals. The gun doesn't become associated as a crime tool until it is used by a criminal. Typical Euro bullshit, take away from all because of those who fuck it up. Lets try steep punishments for unlawful gun use instead before we punish law abiding citizens who take their right to bear arms with responsibility.JoshP wrote:
Well, I'll expand my point. Look at the gun crime rates in america, and the rates in the rest of the world...
The correlation is obvious- easier availability of guns leads to a far higher rate of gun crime.
Which is silly.
more guns available = higher gun crime rate
Ban guns, reduce gun crime rate, simple. I'm statistically less likely to get shot in Britain because there are less guns available per head, I like this. The reasons behind the crime are completely irrelavent, as is your idea of punishing people- crime will always happen.
That's a graph of murders commited and the weapon they were commited with in america, found it on wikipedia- but clearly if guns were illegal, killing people would be a lot less pleasant if you're using a knife to kill someone - it requires involvement and more balls to stab someone than shoot them, so if you remove the guns, overall murders will obviously decrease- knife crime, baseball bat crime (lolwut) etc will still increase- but overall crime will be down.
Also watch Bowling For Columbine - if only for the nice murder statistics at the end- the fact that most people in america can just go and buy a gun means it's much easier for criminals to go and buy a gun, which means you're a hell of a lot more likely to get murdered with a gun. And since guns are a fairly nice and easy murder weapon (pull trigger, victim's dead, unlike murders with a knife etc) this means that people who would be inclined to commit crimes are more likely to do so due to the easy availability of a easy weapon to commit the murder with.
tl;dr gun ownership is retarded
Last edited by JoshP (2008-11-23 10:28:02)
They should let you make a judgement on every single person who buys a gun so you can say if they are law-abiding or not.Stingray24 wrote:
I will never understand people opposing the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons to defend themselves ... based on the actions of criminals.
@JoshP:
All that does is take guns away from citizens who obey the law. Criminals already obtain their weapons outside of the law. The only thing that changes is citizens are defenseless and criminals still have their guns.
All that does is take guns away from citizens who obey the law. Criminals already obtain their weapons outside of the law. The only thing that changes is citizens are defenseless and criminals still have their guns.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2008-11-23 10:26:28)
The law already does, if you're a felon, you cannot legally own a gun.Peter wrote:
They should let you make a judgement on every single person who buys a gun so you can say if they are law-abiding or not.Stingray24 wrote:
I will never understand people opposing the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons to defend themselves ... based on the actions of criminals.
Give everyone an Apache
You can't ban guns in the U.S, if they were going to ban guns it should've happened a long time ago because now the country is effectively saturated with firearms so banning it will do jackshit, but the reason it didn't happen a long time ago like it did in alot of other countries, is because it was an integral part of their founding constitution, and the reason it was such an integral part is because they feared that King George or whoever would come back and put the USA back under the Empire.
/History
/History
Lulz.JoshP wrote:
Ban guns, reduce gun crime rate, simple. I'm statistically less likely to get shot in Britain because there are less guns available per head, I like this. The reasons behind the crime are completely irrelavent, as is your idea of punishing people- crime will always happen.
You think you're going to pull a gun if a quarter of the people around have a concealed weapon permit? You think that it takes more balls to stab someone than to pull a gun when the average joe and joemama has a 9mm in their coat/purse?
Please.
So no one without a criminal record will commit a crime?Stingray24 wrote:
The law already does, if you're a felon, you cannot legally own a gun.Peter wrote:
They should let you make a judgement on every single person who buys a gun so you can say if they are law-abiding or not.Stingray24 wrote:
I will never understand people opposing the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons to defend themselves ... based on the actions of criminals.
Yes...MadKatter wrote:
You think that it takes more balls to stab someone than to pull a gun
The hardcore criminals- yes, ofc we have shootings in london - but like 20-30 a year, not exactly anywhere near as many as in large american cities where you can just buy guns in shopsStingray24 wrote:
@JoshP:
All that does is take guns away from citizens who obey the law. Criminals already obtain their weapons outside of the law. The only thing that changes is citizens are defenseless and criminals still have their guns.
@madkatter lolwat?
I'm saying that I'm out and about on a friday night, and theres this dude who I want to kill. I can either a) shoot him from 100m away, or b) chase him and stab him
a) is much easier and much more pleasant and all i have to do is pull a trigger
b) i have to run after him, by now he knows i'm going to stab him so he runs like fuck, i'll have to chase him down and hold him down and stab him quite a few times. This is much harder than pulling a trigger.
You are obviously cool.MadKatter wrote:
You think that it takes more balls to stab someone than to pull a gun
Play it off as a joke Madkatter, that way you can never be wrong!
Far less likely than a felon. But I guess you'd rather ban all guns to make sure. Then no one can target shoot or hunt or defend themselves. That'd be much better, right?Peter wrote:
So no one without a criminal record will commit a crime?Stingray24 wrote:
The law already does, if you're a felon, you cannot legally own a gun.Peter wrote:
They should let you make a judgement on every single person who buys a gun so you can say if they are law-abiding or not.
Yes.Stingray24 wrote:
Far less likely than a felon. But I guess you'd rather ban all guns to make sure. Then no one can target shoot or hunt or defend themselves. That'd be much better, right?Peter wrote:
So no one without a criminal record will commit a crime?Stingray24 wrote:
The law already does, if you're a felon, you cannot legally own a gun.
Don't need a real gun to target shoot.
Killing animals is fun (Y)
If it wasn't as easy to get a gun there wouldn't be as much stuff to defend yourself from.
Do you have a gun? How many times have you used it to defend yourself?
Yes, yes it would. Public/school shootings in USA v Public/school shootings in Britain, i cba to find the examples, go onto wikipedia but basically things like that do not happen here - after Dunblane and Hungerford, laws actually change and things are improved, and restrictions put in place so it doesn't happen again. Whereas in America- you've got Columbine, Vtech, and countless other school shootings which are really easy to do- take your parents gun, go to school, shoot shit. In Britain getting hold of a gun is pretty damn hard- so we have very few incidents involving firearms and schools, or shootings in public, etc.Stingray24 wrote:
Far less likely than a felon. But I guess you'd rather ban all guns to make sure. Then no one can target shoot or hunt or defend themselves. That'd be much better, right?Peter wrote:
So no one without a criminal record will commit a crime?Stingray24 wrote:
The law already does, if you're a felon, you cannot legally own a gun.
Self defense: here, hardly any of the criminals actually do carry guns- they'll carry knives, but if someone's holdin a knife to your throat, hf getting your gun out without being stabbed
Target shooting- we have firearms licensing so people who do go clay pigeon shooting can
Hunting - lol barbaric, hunting is stupid anyway, see Dick Cheney
You don't seem to understandjord wrote:
Yes...MadKatter wrote:
You think that it takes more balls to stab someone than to pull a gun
1. Guns outlawed --> a few people carry knives as protection --> you stab someone --> someone pulls a knife on you (?)
2. Guns not outlawed --> people carry guns as protection --> you shoot someone --> someone shoots you.
1. So law abiding citizens watch this happen, pull out their knives and stab you to death? Doesn't sound likely. More likely they pull them as protection and manage to keep you subdued, but don't go up and blade you in the heart. You go to jail.
2. You shoot someone, people fear for their lives, you get shot in shoulder/leg/arm/somewhere fatal if you're unlucky. You're hurt like fuck and go to jail.
Also here's some stats for ya:
Total murder rate per 100,000:
"The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in [2005] (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings)"
London : 1.7 per 100,000
"New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004"
New York: 6.9 per 100,000
So you're 4 times more likely to get killed in New York than you are in London.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi … ed_Kingdom
Total murder rate per 100,000:
"The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in [2005] (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings)"
London : 1.7 per 100,000
"New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 8 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004"
New York: 6.9 per 100,000
So you're 4 times more likely to get killed in New York than you are in London.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi … ed_Kingdom
fix'dMadKatter wrote:
You don't seem to understandjord wrote:
Yes...MadKatter wrote:
You think that it takes more balls to stab someone than to pull a gun
1. Guns outlawed --> a few people carry knives as protection --> you stab someone --> someone pulls a knife on you (?) people call the police, you go to jail
2. Guns not outlawed --> people carry guns as protection --> you shoot someone --> someone shoots you. -> you shoot them -> MOTHERFUCKING CARNAGE, bloodbath ensues
situation one: your victim dies, you go to jail
situation two: your victim dies, you go to jail if you're lucky, if you're unlucky you die, mass carnage ensues as a gun battle erupts.
GG
Last edited by JoshP (2008-11-23 10:54:12)
So law abiding citizens start shooting each other because....
...?
...?
School shootings: The parents of said students did not take basic measures to secure their weapons. Any responsible gun owner should do so.JoshP wrote:
Self defense: here, hardly any of the criminals actually do carry guns- they'll carry knives, but if someone's holdin a knife to your throat, hf getting your gun out without being stabbed
Target shooting- we have firearms licensing so people who do go clay pigeon shooting can
Hunting - lol barbaric, hunting is stupid anyway, see Dick Cheney
Self defense: Would be nice if criminals did not have weapons, but they do. Hence, I want the ability to own a weapon to even the odds if my home were broken into.
Hunting: Obviously you have never hunted if that is your opinion. Modern hunting is not barbaric in the least. Hunting deer is actually good for health of the species by thinning their numbers. Also, it is a very economical source of meat.
Josh, this is what it comes down too;
in america, we already have enough firearms that if a ban went into effect tomorrow, there would still be guns here 100 years from now.
i know that is hard for some people to understand, but it is the truth.
so have gun stabbing each other, and we will have fun shooting each other
in america, we already have enough firearms that if a ban went into effect tomorrow, there would still be guns here 100 years from now.
i know that is hard for some people to understand, but it is the truth.
so have gun stabbing each other, and we will have fun shooting each other
you the criminal, whilst shooting your victim, got shot at by said law abiding citizen, you return fire and shoot said law abiding citizen, whose friends join in shooting you while you join in shooting them. until you dieMadKatter wrote:
So law abiding citizens start shooting each other because....
...?
America: because mass gun battles in the street are awesome
amirite?
Also- gun ownership didn't prevent columbine or vtech, nobody used their guns (according to you 1/4 of the population have a 9mm in their handbag) to shoot them
fail argument is fail
if you took the time to educate yourself about our gun laws, which you clearly havent, you would know that schools are places where CCW holders are not allowed to carry.JoshP wrote:
Also- gun ownership didn't prevent columbine or vtech, nobody used their guns (according to you 1/4 of the population have a 9mm in their handbag) to shoot them
thank you though.