Discuss the second amendment here.

[BarthelloSylph]

Innocent people die all the time. It's an unfortunate aspect of life. It's in our best interests to try and stop it when we can (an argument of pro-life supporters).

When you talk about banning guns, you could potentially cut down on certain crimes. But you are a fool if you think that banning guns will keep guns out of criminals hands. A fool, M F Perm. And as a result of banning guns, when someone breaks into my house, I won't have one. And as a result... you guessed it.

An innocent person will die.

Don't make the logical leap that guns = innocent people dying. Only a fool would do that. A complete fool. Things can be related, but often times they have a different impact than we initially anticipate. Banning guns won't make the world a safer place to live. It'll just make killing easier for those looking to kill. Need an example? Check out our recent events.

The logical leap is that easy access to guns = more innocent people dying than necessary. Making the logical leap that just because the public in general doesn't have easy access to guns = inspired criminals to break into your house and shoot you makes you a paranoid fool.

I don't own a gun. I've never been accosted on the streets or been held at gunpoint in my home. No one knows if I do or don't have a gun, and obviously the fact that people MIGHT POSSIBLY have a gun doesn't seem to stop violent crimes from occurring, now does it?

So in all of that name calling and nonsensical suggestion I'm looking very hard for a valid point, seeing as nations like Japan even the police that roam the street don't carry guns and they have one of the lowest rates of violence in the world.

The easy access to guns to the public in general is what puts guns in criminal hands. Even a rational person can become prone to irrational behavior that can threaten someones life in the climate we live in as far as gun control.

It's not only criminals that kill people with guns, this guy that went on a rampage wasn't a criminal until he killed someone.

So yes, I do think that abolishing guns will keep guns out of potential criminals hands, this is a very logically produced thought and statement, not as foolish and paranoid as assuming the boogieman criminals will take ur gunz awayz and kill u ded lol.

And when you do get accosted on the street, your only defense will be to beg for mercy. The criminal will have a gun, regardless of whether they are banned or not. And you may not get a chance to regret your mistake.

Go walk around the streets of DC sometime, or any big city. I don't know you, so I won't presume to speak of your upbringing, but a gun doesn't always kill innocent people. Sometimes its a source of protection from those looking to harm you.

Oh wait, I forgot. I should "turn the other cheek" and die to the person breaking into my house

And you are just as guilty of name calling and mocking (see the end of your post) as I am, so don't take the high road.

[divisortheory]

What is the difference between allowing every idiot to get a gun, and wanting every country to have nuclear weaponry?

I'm not sure, but I think the difference is one of scale.

The point is this: if everyone had a gun, even if they were dumb, they would rephrase from attacking one another - why? Self preservation. Even dumb people know that death ain't a good thing.

This goes for nukes, you nuke someone, you get wiped off the face of the earth, ballgame. Death ain't worth it to sane people.

Then there's the people that don't care about dying and are intent on hurting. Cue yesterday. Cue Columbine. Cue 9/11. The best you can do is try to stop THEM - not the means by which they do their crimes. Guns are safely used by many. Flights are very useful to many. Nuclear power and technology can be helpful to many. To stop all of these SIDE EFFECTS because you don't want to solve the problem is lazy. The atoms aren't killing people, the airplanes aren't flying themselves, the guns aren't pulling the trigger. In each of these instances, SOMEONE COULD HAVE STOPPED THEM BUT DID NOT.

Solve the problem, not the side effect. End of story.

You've got problem and side effect reversed.

Correct
CAUSE: Person has troubled life, emotional and psychological problems:
EFFECT: He goes on a rampage shooting people.

Incorrect
CAUSE: Person randomly wakes up and flips from totally normal to bat crazy out of nowhere
EFFECT: People get killed randomly with no warning and with no chance of preventative measures having saved their lives.

You are right though, we need to solve the CAUSE and not the EFFECT.

[MF Perm]

What is the difference between allowing every idiot to get a gun, and wanting every country to have nuclear weaponry?

I'm not sure, but I think the difference is one of scale.

The point is this: if everyone had a gun, even if they were dumb, they would rephrase from attacking one another - why? Self preservation. Even dumb people know that death ain't a good thing.

This goes for nukes, you nuke someone, you get wiped off the face of the earth, ballgame. Death ain't worth it to sane people.

Then there's the people that don't care about dying and are intent on hurting. Cue yesterday. Cue Columbine. Cue 9/11. The best you can do is try to stop THEM - not the means by which they do their crimes. Guns are safely used by many. Flights are very useful to many. Nuclear power and technology can be helpful to many. To stop all of these SIDE EFFECTS because you don't want to solve the problem is lazy. The atoms aren't killing people, the airplanes aren't flying themselves, the guns aren't pulling the trigger. In each of these instances, SOMEONE COULD HAVE STOPPED THEM BUT DID NOT.

Solve the problem, not the side effect. End of story.

Sorry dude but guns are not a side effect of people with social issues. Guns are as much a part of the problem as social problems are. Guns are made and distributed by warmongers and uncaring, greedy, sociopath corporate degenerates who PROFIT FROM WAR.

If guns and bullets aren't made, will "the criminals" make bullets to kill you with?

Rich countries make guns and ammo, and sell them to poor countries. They sell them to themselves. That is the root problem, not media, not society, not NOBODY PUT ON THUR CAPE RIGHT THUR.

[Omaedon]

If its true that most guns involved in violent crimes were originally obtained legally by someone, then outlawing guns would indeed mean only criminals have guns. But only those with connections who know how to obtain them, which I assume wouldn't be everybody.

Even if you outlaw guns, guns still exist. The reality of the world we live in is that I, Average Joe, can get a gun, legally or illegally, easier than it is for me to get a loan, or keep the roof over my head.

lolControl. Why hasn't anyone said this already?

[Lynsy]

Criminals are everywhere waiting for you to not have a gun so they can harm you. Happens all the time, gosh.


/off

Most crime is opportunistic, not sociopathic. Criminals rarely wait for you so they can harm you, particularly if they do not know you. They want your stuff and kill you so there are no witnesses.
Almost half of homicide victims were either related to (12 percent) or acquainted with (35 percent) their killers. Only 13 percent were killed by total strangers. Of female victims, 28 percent were killed by their husbands or boyfriends.
Further more, slightly more people die from suicide by guns each year than homicide. These statistics are old, but the proportions remain approximately equal
Types of Firearm deaths, 1993 (19)

Suicide 18,940
Firearm homicide 18,571
- Handgun homicide 13,980
- Justifiable homicide 251
Accidental 1,521
Undetermined 563
--------------------------------
Total 39,595

Based on that, approximately 1 in 160 gun deaths are considered "justifiable." (I.E. Defense related)

[BarthelloSylph]

What is the difference between allowing every idiot to get a gun, and wanting every country to have nuclear weaponry?

I'm not sure, but I think the difference is one of scale.

The point is this: if everyone had a gun, even if they were dumb, they would rephrase from attacking one another - why? Self preservation. Even dumb people know that death ain't a good thing.

This goes for nukes, you nuke someone, you get wiped off the face of the earth, ballgame. Death ain't worth it to sane people.

Then there's the people that don't care about dying and are intent on hurting. Cue yesterday. Cue Columbine. Cue 9/11. The best you can do is try to stop THEM - not the means by which they do their crimes. Guns are safely used by many. Flights are very useful to many. Nuclear power and technology can be helpful to many. To stop all of these SIDE EFFECTS because you don't want to solve the problem is lazy. The atoms aren't killing people, the airplanes aren't flying themselves, the guns aren't pulling the trigger. In each of these instances, SOMEONE COULD HAVE STOPPED THEM BUT DID NOT.

Solve the problem, not the side effect. End of story.

Sorry dude but guns are not a side effect of people with social issues. Guns are as much a part of the problem as social problems are. Guns are made and distributed by warmongers and uncaring, greedy, sociopath corporate degenerates who PROFIT FROM WAR.

If guns and bullets aren't made, will "the criminals" make bullets to kill you with?

Rich countries make guns and ammo, and sell them to poor countries. They sell them to themselves. That is the root problem, not media, not society, not NOBODY PUT ON THUR CAPE RIGHT THUR.

Actually, I think if we take your solutions of getting rid of all guns out to its logical conclusion, we need to take over the world to ensure no one makes guns. Cause saying they are illegal in the US won't stop people from having guns...

...you understand that, right?

So we need to launch a military campaign to take over all countries that allow guns. And if they refuse, we'll shoot them!

----

Dude, gun control is good. To an extent, I agree with you. I just wish that people wouldn't label guns as the #1 reason why things like this happen. It's simply not the case. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. The kid had issues. Maybe mental problems. That's a reason why it happened. Guns aren't a reason why things like this happen. They can be a means, but so can a lot of other things. If guns made you do this, then I'd have already shot up a bunch of people.

Guns aren't the cause. They aren't. The cause isn't guns. People are the cause. The nukes, the bombs, the guns, the airplanes, the baseball bats, the icepicks, the knives - they are the means.

People are the cause. Banning guns won't make people stop killing people. It will make them switch to something else.

One last, final breakdown:

Gun control and restrictions = yes!
Gun bans = no!

Guns cause murders = no!
Guns can be the means = yes!
Guns arent the only means = yes!
People are the cause = yes!

We should solve the problem - why people go crazy = yes!

--------

I don't know what will happen with guns after this, but I will make this one prediction:

This is where you continue to insult and demean my intelligence because of my opinions.
v

[Khamsin]

This false logic is incomprehensible. Criminals are everywhere waiting for you to not have a gun so they can harm you. Happens all the time, gosh.

Let's say all guns currently in america were mysteriously wiped from existence, and no one had them. We start fresh. The only way for anyone to get them now is to illegally manufacture them, or import them. There may be criminals everywhere waiting for you to not have a gun, but how many of them would have the connections to obtain one of these illegally manufactured or imported guns?

Of course, the only problem is we can't start fresh and wipe all current guns out of circulation so anyone who has one now would just keep them. But the point was just that if they weren't already in circulation, most people would not be able to find one. Your average american who, one day was doing just fine and the next just snaps, doesn't have those kinds of connections. Although one time I was out walking in a less than reputable area of Seattle around 2am once and some guy walking the other direction ambiguously asked if we needed anything as he passed by, we said no and kept walking. But I suspect that was more than likely drugs. Still, I wouldn't be able to go out and find such a person at will.

Someone who has a criminal history and makes a habit of robbery and such may have established such connections, and it won't stop them. But it would cut down on the random emo boy going nuts syndrome.

However, in general I don't agree with taking guns away from people since I'd rather people be able to defend themselves and there are other ways to tackle the problem. This is more of a what-if scenario. What really would happen if guns were taken away.

[divisortheory]

This is more of a what-if scenario. What really would happen if guns were taken away.

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it would probably end up much like the plethora of other countries where guns are not available legally: There wouldn't be a whole lot of violent crime. If you think violent crime would be just as bad, then you need to somehow make an argument for why America is so much different than the numerous other countries that do not allow guns and have extremely low violent crime rates.

[Elcura]

Chris Rock had the right idea.

"we don't need gun control, we need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost $5000"

or something like that, line always made me laugh.

[Khamsin]

This is more of a what-if scenario. What really would happen if guns were taken away.

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it would probably end up much like the plethora of other countries where guns are not available legally: There wouldn't be a whole lot of violent crime. If you think violent crime would be just as bad, then you need to somehow make an argument for why America is so much different than the numerous other countries that do not allow guns and have extremely low violent crime rates.

Biggest obstacle I can think of is getting the already existing guns out of circulation. Other countries who have outlawed guns have been that way a long time, and there aren't a lot of guns physically available to be had. If the USA outlawed guns today, there'd still be a ton of guns physically available somewhere, unaccounted for, making it much easier for people to obtain them illegally.

[Beckwin]

Suicide 18,940
Firearm homicide 18,571
- Handgun homicide 13,980
- Justifiable homicide 251
Accidental 1,521
Undetermined 563
--------------------------------
Total 39,595

I'm pretty sure tighter gun restrictions could cut down that total by more than 251, but that's just me.

[BarthelloSylph]

How come placess that have a high percentage of gun ownership per capita have low crime rates divisor?

That really pokes a hole in that theory.

If guns had never been invented, and instead it was a Bee Spatha+1 (or w/e that noob sword is called) that was the murderous weapon, I wonder if everyone would blame all the murders in the world on the Bee Spatha +1.

Guns don't cause crime. People cause it. Solve the cause. Take away the means, and people will just find another means. Limit the means (through control) and solve the CAUSE. Don't waste effort on ridding the world of something that will simply be replaced.

[Devek]

Have you ever fired a shotgun? Try firing it from the hip, I'm sure you can get a whole one or two shots off while a burglar is in your house.

Now a sawed off on the other hand, that'd be better for home defense, but then you're talking about modifying a weapon illegally...

Uh oh...

You don't want a sawed off shotgun.. they are devastating at short range but are useless in home defense when they might be at the end of a hall.

You can legally get 18" barrel shotguns with pistol grips that carry 5+1 shells at a time. That makes them pretty effective at 25m-20m range which is perfect.

A shorter barrel really isn't any good. There was a situation down here earlier where a guy went into a large room and opened fire with a sawed off and he didn't seriously injure anyone at all because no one was standing right by him.

EDIT: I'm trying to get one of those Benelli gas powered ones. It automatically loads the next shell so you can keep your eye on the sight between shots They are like $1000 though and I'm not having much luck getting a good deal.

[crazyrabbit]

So we need to launch a military campaign to take over all countries that allow guns. And if they refuse, we'll shoot them

This is was the US is already doing (or at least said they would do), or did you forget those (misterious) weapons of mass destruction.

I just wish that people wouldn't label guns as the #1 reason why things like this happen

This is true, but its wrong to completly ignore them. If its harder for those crazy ppl to get weapons then it will mean a drop in the number of murder and shit happening.

If you say "then they will get the guns illegal from other countrys" then you are right. And that is the next problem you need to solve. Make your country safe, dont let those idiots ship in thousands of weapons which put your family in danger.
Only talking is not enough anymore to solve the issues, or you would already not have ppl killing each other.

Why do ppl continue to whine about criminals getting illegal weapons but still refuse to make even one step to make it harder for those ppl.

I'm out of this conversation now. Was nice to hear different opinions without to much insulting (and it kept me awake while dyna-bastok -_- boring³) but its getting late <.<;

[MF Perm]

Dude, gun control is good. To an extent, I agree with you. I just wish that people wouldn't label guns as the #1 reason why things like this happen. It's simply not the case. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. The kid had issues. Maybe mental problems. That's a reason why it happened. Guns aren't a reason why things like this happen. They can be a means, but so can a lot of other things. If guns made you do this, then I'd have already shot up a bunch of people.

Please tell me the more rational solution in this situation; to monitor every single person in the country to make sure they are mentally ok to do day-to-day business without the concern they may snap and kill someone,

or,

remove the possibility that people who have the potential to commit a violent crime have the main tool used to commit that crime with ( a gun ) to access said tool.


Really, if we're going to have a valid argument on a logical solution please tell me which makes more sense.

[BarthelloSylph]

Dude, gun control is good. To an extent, I agree with you. I just wish that people wouldn't label guns as the #1 reason why things like this happen. It's simply not the case. I'm sorry if you can't understand that. The kid had issues. Maybe mental problems. That's a reason why it happened. Guns aren't a reason why things like this happen. They can be a means, but so can a lot of other things. If guns made you do this, then I'd have already shot up a bunch of people.

Please tell me the more rational solution in this situation; to monitor every single person in the country to make sure they are mentally ok to do day-to-day business without the concern they may snap and kill someone,

or,

remove the possibility that people who have the potential to commit a violent crime have the main tool used to commit that crime with ( a gun ) to access said tool.


Really, if we're going to have a valid argument on a logical solution please tell me which makes more sense.

Both are impossible. How about we have a measure of gun control - waiting periods, mental checks, etc. - and also have a system in place where people can report people who write nutso plays, or encourage people to speak up if they have info that people are about to fly plans into buildings.

In both situations, there were chances to stop the events. Maybe nothing would happened if there had been a system in place to inform the authorities, but we'll never know now.

MFPerm, you keep avoiding solving the problems, and instead continue to attack the means. Dude, don't know some history? Before guns people killed people, after guns people will kill people. You can make it better for awhile by accomplishing your IMPOSSIBLE goal of banning all guns - but you aren't going to stop people from killing each other.

Come on dude - you are smarter than this, I can tell. You can't rid everyone of guns. And guns aren't the underlying problem. Use your logic :wink:

[BarthelloSylph]

And the statement you quoted - you can't argue with it. I love how you didn't even try. Glad to prove your guns are evil schitck wrong.

Just cause something is easier doesn't mean it's right. And sometimes compromise is better. Keep the guns out of those criminal and crazy peoples hands, and let me have mine to keep my place safe.

[Rammses]

How come placess that have a high percentage of gun ownership per capita have low crime rates divisor?

Cause they don't have as many social problems..... It's not rocket science. If you take a look at the link I posted earlier you will see that the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

[BarthelloSylph]

So we need to launch a military campaign to take over all countries that allow guns. And if they refuse, we'll shoot them

This is was the US is already doing (or at least said they would do), or did you forget those (misterious) weapons of mass destruction.

[quote:01be5]I just wish that people wouldn't label guns as the #1 reason why things like this happen

This is true, but its wrong to completly ignore them. If its harder for those crazy ppl to get weapons then it will mean a drop in the number of murder and shit happening.

If you say "then they will get the guns illegal from other countrys" then you are right. And that is the next problem you need to solve. Make your country safe, dont let those idiots ship in thousands of weapons which put your family in danger.
Only talking is not enough anymore to solve the issues, or you would already not have ppl killing each other.

Why do ppl continue to whine about criminals getting illegal weapons but still refuse to make even one step to make it harder for those ppl.

I'm out of this conversation now. Was nice to hear different opinions without to much insulting (and it kept me awake while dyna-bastok -_- boring³) but its getting late <.<;[/quote:01be5]

1) WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH - The first point was sarcastic. Glad you could join us.

2) I'm not ignoring guns as a part of the whole mess - I advocate gun control. Not gun bans. Please read the whole post, and don't pick out a part and say your opinion suxlol.

[BarthelloSylph]

How come placess that have a high percentage of gun ownership per capita have low crime rates divisor?

Cause they don't have as many social problems..... It's is not rocket science. If you take a look at the link I posted earlier you will see that the 2 european countries with perhaps the most guns per capita, Finland and Switzerland, have a higher homocide rate than comparable nations with stricter gun laws.

A-ha! So the problem ISNT guns, it's social problems.

Let's solve the problems! If Sweden can live in peace with guns, why can't we!