Pages: 1 2
How would they do that exactly?PureFodder wrote:
D.C is the perfect example of how not to do a firearms ban. They prevented the populace form arming themselves while doing nothing to prevent criminals from bringing guns into D.C.Reciprocity wrote:
yeah, look at how well it's worked in DC.Kmarion wrote:
In fact there has been an all out ban in some areas.
...assuming restricting guns from people who generally do not commit violent crime is a benefit.Braddock wrote:
It's not just the number of guns in circulation that would make it impossible it's the attitude that millions of Americans have towards guns... they just love shooting their guns! It's deeply ingrained in their social psyche. it would take hundreds of years to change this attitude. Add to this the fact that every time a liberal Government got in and introduced legislation to increase gun control a conservative Government would inevitably come along a few years later to undo all the hard work, it would be one step forward, two steps back.DrunkFace wrote:
Freaking copout. There is no reason why it wouldn't or couldn't work. Sure it wont work overnight and will take years even decades to change but the more people make bullshit excuse like its just not possible and the longer nothing gets done the worse things will get and the harder it will be to change in the future. There is no better time to start then now.Braddock wrote:
America is probably too late for gun control to be in any way feasible. Gun control works quite well in Europe though because we have less guns in circulation and the act of gun ownership doesn't form a crucial part of our sense of nationality; we also have the statistics to that prove gun control works quite well.
It's one of a number of factors. You could compare gun homicide rates between Switzerland and the USA and people's attitude towards guns would be the dividing factor, not gun control laws; in Switzerland it is mandatory to have a weapon and a certain amount of ammo in the event of having to defend the country if it is attacked and therefore gun ownership is closely associated with nationalism and defence of the country, not defence of the individual. In the case of the UK knives seem to be more of a problem than guns, particularly among younger people.RAIMIUS wrote:
...assuming restricting guns from people who generally do not commit violent crime is a benefit.Braddock wrote:
It's not just the number of guns in circulation that would make it impossible it's the attitude that millions of Americans have towards guns... they just love shooting their guns! It's deeply ingrained in their social psyche. it would take hundreds of years to change this attitude. Add to this the fact that every time a liberal Government got in and introduced legislation to increase gun control a conservative Government would inevitably come along a few years later to undo all the hard work, it would be one step forward, two steps back.DrunkFace wrote:
Freaking copout. There is no reason why it wouldn't or couldn't work. Sure it wont work overnight and will take years even decades to change but the more people make bullshit excuse like its just not possible and the longer nothing gets done the worse things will get and the harder it will be to change in the future. There is no better time to start then now.
The UK's rising crime rate does not appear to have been helped by gun control, while places like Switzerland seem to do OK without it. If you want to throw in a middle number, try Canada. Gun control is not the key to reducing violent crime. Hasn't that been stated enough times?
I'm a little fuzzy on the use of "gun related homocides" statistic because homocide simple means the killing of one person by another.Braddock wrote:
It's one of a number of factors. You could compare gun homicide rates between Switzerland and the USA and people's attitude towards guns would be the dividing factor, not gun control laws; in Switzerland it is mandatory to have a weapon and a certain amount of ammo in the event of having to defend the country if it is attacked and therefore gun ownership is closely associated with nationalism and defence of the country, not defence of the individual. In the case of the UK knives seem to be more of a problem than guns, particularly among younger people.RAIMIUS wrote:
...assuming restricting guns from people who generally do not commit violent crime is a benefit.Braddock wrote:
It's not just the number of guns in circulation that would make it impossible it's the attitude that millions of Americans have towards guns... they just love shooting their guns! It's deeply ingrained in their social psyche. it would take hundreds of years to change this attitude. Add to this the fact that every time a liberal Government got in and introduced legislation to increase gun control a conservative Government would inevitably come along a few years later to undo all the hard work, it would be one step forward, two steps back.
The UK's rising crime rate does not appear to have been helped by gun control, while places like Switzerland seem to do OK without it. If you want to throw in a middle number, try Canada. Gun control is not the key to reducing violent crime. Hasn't that been stated enough times?
The fact of the matter is less gun control can only lead to MORE gun related homicides... it couldn't possibly lead to less; and as long your country has such very high gun-related homicide statistics it is a bit of a tough sell trying to tell us Europeans to embrace the idea of mass gun ownership.
I still wouldn't want mass gun ownership. I've been mugged and attacked on numerous occasions and I've been able to defend myself quite adequately because neither I nor my attackers had had guns on us... if it easy to get a gun in this country I'd quite possibly be either dead or sitting here with the deaths of other human beings on my conscience. I'd like to get through this life without killing anyone if possible, thank you very much.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I'm a little fuzzy on the use of "gun related homocides" statistic because homocide simple means the killing of one person by another.Braddock wrote:
It's one of a number of factors. You could compare gun homicide rates between Switzerland and the USA and people's attitude towards guns would be the dividing factor, not gun control laws; in Switzerland it is mandatory to have a weapon and a certain amount of ammo in the event of having to defend the country if it is attacked and therefore gun ownership is closely associated with nationalism and defence of the country, not defence of the individual. In the case of the UK knives seem to be more of a problem than guns, particularly among younger people.RAIMIUS wrote:
...assuming restricting guns from people who generally do not commit violent crime is a benefit.
The UK's rising crime rate does not appear to have been helped by gun control, while places like Switzerland seem to do OK without it. If you want to throw in a middle number, try Canada. Gun control is not the key to reducing violent crime. Hasn't that been stated enough times?
The fact of the matter is less gun control can only lead to MORE gun related homicides... it couldn't possibly lead to less; and as long your country has such very high gun-related homicide statistics it is a bit of a tough sell trying to tell us Europeans to embrace the idea of mass gun ownership.
That statisitc would include more than just murders like self defense, accidents. Also there are laws in the US, like Texas, where deadly force is permitted when defending your home, especially at night. So an increase in justified homocides might be more closely related to what is a legally permissable use of a gun in the US versus Switzerland rather than the simple fact that there are more guns.
Good god no! Especially that one with all that Army training from being in Iraqistan!! Lock him up! He might snap!! I heard on CNN that he might have the PTSD!Man With No Name wrote:
you need gun control. Do you want more hispanics owning 45 caliber sub machine gun mac 10s ?
I can't disagree with you on that.Braddock wrote:
I'd like to get through this life without killing anyone if possible, thank you very much.
Personally I have never been mug, assaulted or anything, just kids taking change out of ash trays in the car and stuff like that... knock on wood. But I have had people noticably cross the street when they saw me coming... so may be I'm just not the "mugable" type.Braddock wrote:
I still wouldn't want mass gun ownership. I've been mugged and attacked on numerous occasions and I've been able to defend myself quite adequately because neither I nor my attackers had had guns on us... if it easy to get a gun in this country I'd quite possibly be either dead or sitting here with the deaths of other human beings on my conscience.
I used to keep a hurling stick beside the bed actually too! Which I suppose could be fatal too if applied in an over zealous manner!Diesel_dyk wrote:
I can't disagree with you on that.Braddock wrote:
I'd like to get through this life without killing anyone if possible, thank you very much.Personally I have never been mug, assaulted or anything, just kids taking change out of ash trays in the car and stuff like that... knock on wood. But I have had people noticably cross the street when they saw me coming... so may be I'm just not the "mugable" type.Braddock wrote:
I still wouldn't want mass gun ownership. I've been mugged and attacked on numerous occasions and I've been able to defend myself quite adequately because neither I nor my attackers had had guns on us... if it easy to get a gun in this country I'd quite possibly be either dead or sitting here with the deaths of other human beings on my conscience.
Anyway, I confess to having a 12 gauge pump and shells beside the bed just in case... better to be prepared and not need it. The worst thing would be having an attacker who thinks life is cheap. At least I live somewhere where I don't have to make the choice between protecting my family and being charged with involuntary manslaughter for doing so.
You mean "Chekhov's gun?"Braddock wrote:
I think it was Jean Luc Goddard who said if you see a gun in the first act of a movie you can rest assured that the gun will be used by the end of it.
Chekhov's gun is the literary technique whereby an element is introduced early in the story, but its significance does not become clear until later on. For example, a character may find a mysterious object that eventually becomes crucial to the plot, but at the time the object is found it does not seem to be important.
An example in which Chekhov himself makes use of this principle is in Uncle Vanya, in which a pistol is introduced early on as a seemingly irrelevant prop and, towards the end of the play, becomes much more important as Uncle Vanya, in a rage, grabs it and tries to commit homicide.
fixedBraddock wrote:
... every time a liberal Government got in and introduced legislation to increase gun control a conservative Government would inevitably come along a few years later to undo all the hard unconstitutional work ...
Agreed.Braddock wrote:
It's one of a number of factors. You could compare gun homicide rates between Switzerland and the USA and people's attitude towards guns would be the dividing factor, not gun control laws...
This makes sense, considering past history, gun laws (both age laws and the handgun ban), the substitution factor, and cultural trends in the UK (from an outsider's prospective).Braddock wrote:
In the case of the UK knives seem to be more of a problem than guns, particularly among younger people.
I've yet to see the first statement proven. In the abstract, it makes sense, but that ignores a lot of recently mentioned factors.Braddock wrote:
The fact of the matter is less gun control can only lead to MORE gun related homicides... it couldn't possibly lead to less; and as long your country has such very high gun-related homicide statistics it is a bit of a tough sell trying to tell us Europeans to embrace the idea of mass gun ownership.
lolz lucky he didn't smell of quif or it would have been bang bangBraddock wrote:
My mate at work was telling me the other day about a guy he knew who kept a gun stashed in various parts around the house in case of an emergency. One night this guy was coming home drunk from the pub a little later than he had planned and he was trying to sneak into the house without waking up the missus. Halfway up the stairs he felt something cold and metallic against his head, when the light came on he saw his wife standing there with the assembled firearm aimed at his noggin... they got rid of the gun the next day!
The truley stupid tend to weed themselves out, and you will find few tears shed. Lots of people do stupid stuff with chainsaws, too, and can be just as permenant. Guns are a tool, not a solution. A responsible gun owner takes training courses. In those, one of those key lessons is to indentify your target. Seriously. If you blew your foot of because it scared you, you pretty muc got what you deserved. Know what is sitting beside my handgun by my bed? A flashlight. There is another flashlight mounted ON my home defense shotgun. If I have an intruder, and I am very lucky, perhaps just the light, or the sound of my shotgun chambering a round will be enough to send the robber merrily on his way. I do not have some deep seated need to shoot someone just because I can. Will I? You betcha. But gun owners are not all just some bloodthirsty group just waiting to kill.Diesel_dyk wrote:
lolz lucky he didn't smell of quif or it would have been bang bangBraddock wrote:
My mate at work was telling me the other day about a guy he knew who kept a gun stashed in various parts around the house in case of an emergency. One night this guy was coming home drunk from the pub a little later than he had planned and he was trying to sneak into the house without waking up the missus. Halfway up the stairs he felt something cold and metallic against his head, when the light came on he saw his wife standing there with the assembled firearm aimed at his noggin... they got rid of the gun the next day!
I heard a story about a guy in Atlanta, who was asleep and woke up to a noise. He laid still and looked around only to see something moving near the foot of the bed. He reached over for his shotgun and shot and the movement.... he shot his own foot. Yah dumb things can happen and when dumb things happen with a gun there might not be another chance to make another mistake.
I don't think there is a sensible way to have a sucessful gun ban in one small part of a country unless you're willing to actively screen everyone who goes into the city like you would at an airport, but that'd be stupidly expensive.Kmarion wrote:
How would they do that exactly?PureFodder wrote:
D.C is the perfect example of how not to do a firearms ban. They prevented the populace form arming themselves while doing nothing to prevent criminals from bringing guns into D.C.Reciprocity wrote:
yeah, look at how well it's worked in DC.
That, and you'd have to wait about 400 years before the black market supply ran out...assuming no more illegal smuggling...PureFodder wrote:
I don't think there is a sensible way to have a sucessful gun ban in one small part of a country unless you're willing to actively screen everyone who goes into the city like you would at an airport, but that'd be stupidly expensive.Kmarion wrote:
How would they do that exactly?PureFodder wrote:
D.C is the perfect example of how not to do a firearms ban. They prevented the populace form arming themselves while doing nothing to prevent criminals from bringing guns into D.C.
You know I honestly don't know if you're arguing for me or against me.Diesel_dyk wrote:
lolz lucky he didn't smell of quif or it would have been bang bangBraddock wrote:
My mate at work was telling me the other day about a guy he knew who kept a gun stashed in various parts around the house in case of an emergency. One night this guy was coming home drunk from the pub a little later than he had planned and he was trying to sneak into the house without waking up the missus. Halfway up the stairs he felt something cold and metallic against his head, when the light came on he saw his wife standing there with the assembled firearm aimed at his noggin... they got rid of the gun the next day!
I heard a story about a guy in Atlanta, who was asleep and woke up to a noise. He laid still and looked around only to see something moving near the foot of the bed. He reached over for his shotgun and shot and the movement.... he shot his own foot. Yah dumb things can happen and when dumb things happen with a gun there might not be another chance to make another mistake.
What about Marine Training in Iraqistan.. or Douchebagistan.rdx-fx wrote:
Good god no! Especially that one with all that Army training from being in Iraqistan!! Lock him up! He might snap!! I heard on CNN that he might have the PTSD!Man With No Name wrote:
you need gun control. Do you want more hispanics owning 45 caliber sub machine gun mac 10s ?
[/sarcasm]
http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/index.htmS3v3N wrote:
What about Marine Training in Iraqistan.. or Douchebagistan.rdx-fx wrote:
Good god no! Especially that one with all that Army training from being in Iraqistan!! Lock him up! He might snap!! I heard on CNN that he might have the PTSD!Man With No Name wrote:
you need gun control. Do you want more hispanics owning 45 caliber sub machine gun mac 10s ?
[/sarcasm]
oh I'm white.
I'm good.
oh wait..
crazy ex marines with PTSD.. shoot presidents and climb clock towers.
i'm fucked.
Pages: 1 2