Jump to content
Click here to remove ads
Pete2304

So.....gun control

Recommended Posts

Then once we've established that children in your country have more bullits put into them than in any other first world country, we can move on to some facts about how much more likely someone who owns a gun is to commit suicide. Then after that, we can move on to some facts about how many more domestic incidents in America result in homicide than a country that doesn't allow firearms. Then after that, we can move on to some facts about how much more any given member of the public is likely to be involved in a robbery that turns into a homicide than they would be in a country that has no right to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post

GOLD members can watch NEW & Exclusive Spywareonya Pee Videos in Full HD... Click HERE to upgrade now!

the only chance the mob could have in overthrowing the us federal government by force of arms would be the police and army wouldnt open fire on their fellow countrymen, in any case they would be villified in the media dehumanised and called insurgents and percieved to be a threat. remember up until a few years ago at least there were still dependents of the us civil war who were drawing a pension off of tt so i wouldnt hold too much faith in your fellow americans and lets face it they are a bit shootfirst and ask questions later, failing that they bringin the meceneraies, probably russians whowill have no qualms about putting down any resistance

Share this post


Link to post

It's irrelevant to debate the ins and outs of whether the mob would have any chance of overthrowing the government or not. It's just not an issue, it's about as relevant as me having an anti UFO gun in case the little green men come to attack me. The two main responses so far have boiled down to, well what if we elect a new Hitler and, it's my right so I'm having one. Yet those of us who would rather our children didn't get shot at school are the nuts. Erm....ok, that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post

what do you mean irrelivent? that is the entire point of the right to bear ams and take up arms against a tyranical government is at the very heart of the severe lack of gun control, my point is that the right to bear arms is obsolete against even such a militerised police force let alone the full might of the government forces is futile, im nit saying ban the guns, but there certainly seems to be something inherently wrong and unique to the us and its obvious their laws need strenghtening

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree with you that the law is obsolete. It's pointless. The issue of whether or not the people could ever win a fight if they have to take up their arms to overthrow the government will never need to be debated.

Share this post


Link to post

The fact is that the reason that schools have been the locations of shootings is simple. The criminals pick what are called soft targets, which means that they pick locations where they are likely to encounter the least resistance. Schools are "gun free zones" which means that someone who is intent on doing harm is going to have much less chance of having someone armed and able to defend themselves. The answer is twofold. One all children should be educated about gun safety. They should be taught how to safely handle a gun, and taught how fire one safely. When you teach the children about guns, they no longer become something forbidden

The second part of the answer is to allow teachers and other school personnel to carry concealed on campus.

As to the comment about increased suicide, If someone is intent on taking their life, they are going to find a way to do so. Removal of firearms will not stop suicide. I remember one case where I responded to a suicide. the individual had started a car inside a closed garage, and had died from carbon monoxide poisoning. While attempting (unsuccessfully) to revive him we found a loaded pistol in a holster on his belt. If he did not have the gun, would he still be alive?

Share this post


Link to post

Give me a fact that proves that less children will die as a result of shooting whilst sat in their classrooms than they would if you handed in your guns and a mandatory prison sentence was introduced for anyone carrying a firearm in the street. Prove to me that your theory is saving the lives of innocent children who should have the right to at least grow up and be able to decide for themselves how they feel about gun control. Explain why per head, this country has so much less gun crime than yours, the numbers are barely even on the same chart.

Share this post


Link to post
the only chance the mob could have in overthrowing the us federal government by force of arms would be the police and army wouldnt open fire on their fellow countrymen, in any case they would be villified in the media dehumanised and called insurgents and percieved to be a threat. remember up until a few years ago at least there were still dependents of the us civil war who were drawing a pension off of tt so i wouldnt hold too much faith in your fellow americans and lets face it they are a bit shootfirst and ask questions later, failing that they bringin the meceneraies, probably russians whowill have no qualms about putting down any resistance

When people join the military, they take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Many military members hold that oath sacred. Currently the present administration has little support from the military, and I would not could on them attacking their fellow citizens to support the current government. Add to that the veterans who love this country, (but not the government) and the idea that the people are powerless has problems

Share this post


Link to post
There is an irony in the situation that by voting for Trump, and should the unlikely happen and he were to actually become president there would probably more of a need for the people to have to take up their weapons and overthrow the government than at any point in America's history!"

so why did you mention it?

Edit by EGwalrus to separate the quote from the reply

Share this post


Link to post

Give me a fact that proves that fewer people will die if you disarm the law abiding. Murder is already against the law. Robbery is already against the law. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law.

Share this post


Link to post

Per head fewer school children in the UK are shot dead whilst at school than in America. That is a fact. If you can show that all the extra blood shed in America is purely a coincidence then I'm all ears.

Share this post


Link to post

Lordof there is an irony there and I would think Egwalrus can appreciate that I was being tongue in cheek by basically saying if you vote Trump in, you might just have cause to pick up your guns and go throw him out!

Share this post


Link to post

Since the Dunblane massacre, not a single child has died at school as a result of a shooting. That was, I think without checking, 20 years ago. How many children in America have died in that time at the hands of an "active shooter"?

Share this post


Link to post

your police force is supposed to serve and protect the citizens, but theres barely a day goes by without polce killing someone, and they are brutally efficiant at stopping demonstrations andhave been militerising for years i personally think those who ould refuse to give up firearms would be put down brutally eventually but more than likely rounded at the first signs of unrest. on some levels deolgically and morally yes you are right and in an ideal world guns are a tool and in themselves pose no danger, but its not and restrictions need to be brought in

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not at all trying to be rude but I'm really struggling to understand what point exactly you are trying to make. At least when Egwalrus tells me I'm talking rubbish he does so in an easy to read manner!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sort of the liberal, tree hugging hippie type TBH.

I'm not a big fan of guns, but I understand they're here and there's really not much you can do about it now and people will find ways to kill each other no matter what sorta laws you make.

That being said though, I can't see why anyone wouldn't support "reasonable" gun laws. Owning and operating a gun is a pretty fuckin serious responsibility that shouldn't be open to any fuckin lunatic with a passed history of violence. I don't think anyone is really saying we should send the troops out and have them march into people's homes taking away the guns of sane and law-abiding citizens. But I do think there should be some common sense regulations. If you've committed a violent enough crime, you should never be able to legally own a gun again, and if you're caught with a gun after that you should be locked up forever. It might sound rough, but how hard is it to not be a violent asshole? I mean I've manged to go 35 years without seriously injuring anyone and so has virtually everyone else I know. If you go out and intentionally commit violence, that's your fault and you deserve to possibly have some rights taken away that you might have otherwise had if you weren't a violent dick.

I mean I would assume that most of us think it's reasonable that someone who's constantly driving drunk and getting into accidents should have their license taken away, right? No one is coming out and standing up for the rights of people to drive drunk. I mean we all have the right to drive but there are certain conditions and there are scenarios where you can and should lose that right. I think the same thing should logically apply to owning a gun.

I'm fully aware it's idealistic and it'd never happen and that it's sorta besides the point. But I'd much rather a world where there were absolutely no guns, bombs, weapons or war and we all just lived and let live in peace. A world where there would be no need for guns and the concept of "armies" would just be ridiculous because we'd all be working together as one race (the human race) towards the betterment of everyone. I think Bill Hicks said it best in this sorta loosely related piece.

[media]

[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
I will just have a pint of whatever you're on!

Heh, are you talking to me specifically? I'm not sure if that means you're agreeing or trying to imply that I must be tripping or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post

More people die of medical errors than firearms in he US. So let's lock up all the surgeons.

Sound logic, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
More people die of medical errors than firearms in he US. So let's lock up all the surgeons.

Sound logic, right?

Silly and false comparison. Surgeons save far more lives than they kill. Guns don't.

A surgeon's purpose is not to kill or wound, but to repair and heal. A gun's purpose IS to kill and wound. It cannot repair and heal!

Share this post


Link to post
Silly and false comparison. Surgeons save far more lives than they kill. Guns don't.

A surgeon's purpose is not to kill or wound, but to repair and heal. A gun's purpose IS to kill and wound. It cannot repair and heal!

I agree it's a silly comparison, but that's the point. Firearm deaths are superseded by medical errors, auto accidents, drug and alcohol use, among many other causes. That said, I don't believe that medical professionals, automobiles, or guns are inherently evil. If left unattended, the only item listed that has the ability to kill another human by itself would be the medical professionals(not that they necessarily would). My belief is that disarming the law abiding populace would do nothing to enhance safety, as most criminals, or humans with ill intent, tend to disregard laws as it is.

I would argue that firearms have broader purposes, such as protection. They are certainly used to kill/wound, however, being prepared to defend oneself and one's family would arguably save lives as well.

Just my $.02, thanks for listening.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree it's a silly comparison, but that's the point. Firearm deaths are superseded by medical errors, auto accidents, drug and alcohol use, among many other causes. That said, I don't believe that medical professionals, automobiles, or guns are inherently evil. If left unattended, the only item listed that has the ability to kill another human by itself would be the medical professionals(not that they necessarily would). My belief is that disarming the law abiding populace would do nothing to enhance safety, as most criminals, or humans with ill intent, tend to disregard laws as it is.

I would argue that firearms have broader purposes, such as protection. They are certainly used to kill/wound, however, being prepared to defend oneself and one's family would arguably save lives as well.

Just my $.02, thanks for listening.

For those such as myself who recognise that the ability of every Joe and his grandad to buy any gun they want at anytime, inevitably results in numerous fatal gun incidents, you raise an important point.

In my country it is easy because the genie hasn't already been let out of the bottle. Every Joe and his grandad don't have guns here.

But the USA is a nation already flooded with guns. Instant gun control laws would be totally ignored by the bad guys whilst decent people would be made more vulnerable. Gun control over there could potentially therefore make things a lot worse for a time before they - eventually - start to get better. I think the only realistic course is to perhaps limit gun control laws to weapons of overkill, eg semi-automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. I also think it would be wise to outlaw gun use by minors, and introduce mental health checks as a mandatory requirement for anyone wishing to purchase a gun. It surely cannot be good if nutters can gain legal access to them. Availability of guns more generally could be reduced gradually by incremental laws but it would take decades to complete safely.

I don't think instant heavy gun control introduced all at once would be workable there.

Share this post


Link to post

If you toss a frog into a pan of boiling water, it will immediately do everything it can do to jump out. If you put the frog in the same pan full of cool water, and then slowly raise the temperature, the frog will sit there until it is cooked.

Liberals try the same thing with incremental restrictions on freedom (usually calling them "common sense" rules). They get one restriction passed into law, and then they try for even more restrictions. Those of us who see what they want to do (the end goal is to disarm the law abiding and give the government more power) are not willing to accept their tactics, and in fact are buying more guns to protect ourselves

Share this post


Link to post
For those such as myself who recognise that the ability of every Joe and his grandad to buy any gun they want at anytime, inevitably results in numerous fatal gun incidents, you raise an important point.

In my country it is easy because the genie hasn't already been let out of the bottle. Every Joe and his grandad don't have guns here.

But the USA is a nation already flooded with guns. Instant gun control laws would be totally ignored by the bad guys whilst decent people would be made more vulnerable. Gun control over there could potentially therefore make things a lot worse for a time before they - eventually - start to get better. I think the only realistic course is to perhaps limit gun control laws to weapons of overkill, eg semi-automatic assault rifles and submachine guns. I also think it would be wise to outlaw gun use by minors, and introduce mental health checks as a mandatory requirement for anyone wishing to purchase a gun. It surely cannot be good if nutters can gain legal access to them. Availability of guns more generally could be reduced gradually by incremental laws but it would take decades to complete safely.

I don't think instant heavy gun control introduced all at once would be workable there.

Steve, I have to respectfully disagree with you.

First, I don't disagree with having regulations, for example, felons and minors are not permitted to own weapons, background checks are in place, and there are numerous other laws, variable by state. I do disagree with instituting additional regulations as well as the general reduction in the availability of firearms. Disarming the law abiding public is not a necessity, but is certainly a dangerous idea. Those who use firearms for violent reasons are typically not the law abiding public.

The bigger issue is that there are people who have no regard for the lives of their fellow humans, and will kill those people to accomplish their goal, be it terrorism, theft, publicity, etc. A worldwide ban on firearms and other weapons would not stop these people. For argument's sake, lets say assault weapons are banned for civilian use, meaning I can't legally own one, but I can still keep a pistol. Lets then assume a thug or several, armed with assault weapons and body armor are running from the police following crime of choice, and happen to crash their vehicle in my neighborhood, and enter my home seeking refuge from the police. I'm at a heavy disadvantage to begin with. Should I not have the ability to arm myself as I see fit to protect myself from such people?

Additionally, my main argument still stands that firearm deaths rank so low with regard to preventable causes of death, that I feel the entire gun control argument is propelled forward by the media at large as well as politicians with a particular agenda. Diabetes kills more people, so perhaps we should institute more extreme sugar controls, or background check/waiting periods on candy bars. Maybe a beverage capacity limit rather than a magazine capacity limit would also do us some good. If we're truly interested in saving lives from preventable causes of death, rather than disarming the population...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Promised I wouldn't get involved but I can't help myself. Basically the point being made toward those who support having guns is that surely even you would prefer to live in a society where you didn't need a gun for protection? I don't need a gun to protect myself because chances are, if my house is broken into, it won't be by someone armed with a gun. If you're going to go through the huge hassle and expense of getting hold of a gun, you're going to use it for a big job, not to steal a TV.

I understand to a point, that, as Steve says, there are so many guns around, it's no different to me keeping a baseball bat under the bed. But would you not rather in generations to come, guns were so rare that you didn't need to have one for protection?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×