Discuss the second amendment here.

[MF Perm]

Guns really suck for murder anyway. The sound is loud and draws attention.. so much is traceable.. and the $200 purchase on your credit card at the gun store just gives it away. Guns make the coverup more complicated than it needs be and most people end up getting caught in the coverup.

The best way to kill someone in a moment of passion is to randomly (and in public) just run up, stab them, and then run off.

No bullets, no forensics, and no way to trace the knife back specifically to you.

Only downside would be if they had a gun..

You mean, only downside is if/when the victim cries out and a couple guys in the crowd chase you down, seeing that you don't have a gun?

Seriously, just shut up with the Tom Clancy bullshit. You aren't gonna go Rainbow 6 with Rin-Tin-Tin if someone breaks in your house and you aren't gonna 1-stab kill someone with a dagger and blend effortlessly into the crowd without a sound.

This actually reminds me of a conversation with some friends about this from a couple months ago.

A good friend of ours is a very pro-gun paranoid type person who is also afraid of "the criminals" and he has about 13 guns, even sleeps with one under his pillow and has a shotty under his bed.

One of my friends brought up the point that, even alot of pro gun people have never experienced killing something, even while hunting. He went on to say how profound it was for him to hunt and kill a deer, and to actually watch it die.

He hasn't touched a gun since.

It's alot easier to say you can shoot someone invading your home or person but, I believe it to be alot harder than that.

When I trained in the Navy I learned how to battle load shotguns and pistols. Got Sharpshooter certified. Hated every minute of it, but it was out of necessity, not personal defense or pleasure. It was part of my job.

I have experience with guns ( thankfully not having to use them on anyone ), and they are a very terrible and mighty thing to behold. They are extremely trivialized in this country through many areas, one I hold belief to is the ability for any citizen to walk into a gun store and review their options firsthand - moreso than the media blitz.

I think because of the availability of guns is the cause of the trivialization of what they really can do.

[Beckwin]

When the netherlands has to control a country that is larger than half the size of california, i think that would be a fair comparison.

We're also the wealthiest nation on the planet, so if "freedom isn't free" then we should have no fucking problems paying for it.

[BarthelloSylph]

And preventing someone from having a gun is

1) costly
2) impossible
3) only prevents a crime by gun if you are successful

It doesnt prevent crime

What if we could solve our issues of poverty, lack of education, homelessness, and decrease the crime rate, or ban guns and decrease the crime rate (temporarily). Which is better? I say its better to help those who commit the crime to rise above their current situations and better themselves. You say, leave em but take their guns away. OK, it works but I don't think it's better.

And it's really fucking lame to keep referring to me as no gun control guy. I am for gun control. There is no need for automatics or assault rifles.

Basically, you come across not sounding completely ridiculous because you put opinions I've either never said or directly refuted in my mouth.

Now if you simply agreed to disagree on how to solve the problem, that's something we can do. Cause in the end, whether it's banning guns, or helping those most likely to commit crime, we're trying to solve the same problem, and there's no way to prove that either method is more beneficial to our country and to the human race than the other.

But anyways, bout time to put some more false info in my mouth, have at it.

[Lynsy]

Edit: Second quote. Less than 50% of domestic murders where the weapon was known, it was a firearm. Not most of the time as you stated.

Flat. Out. Wrong.

From the FBI Website:

Of the murders in 2003 for which law enforcement identified the type of weapon, nearly 71 percent (70.9) involved firearms. Offenders used knives or cutting instruments in 13.4 percent of murders; personal weapons such as hands, fists, and feet in 7.0 percent of murders; and blunt objects in 4.8 percent of murders. Four percent of murders were committed with other types of weapons.

More than 30 percent (30.7) of violent crimes were committed with personal weapons such as hands, fists, feet, etc. Perpetrators used firearms in 26.9 percent and knives or cutting instruments in 15.2 percent of violent crimes. Other weapons were used in 27.3 percent of violent offenses during 2003.

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel...stat102504.htm

[Tyche]

Why do we fall that low, because we have to enforce stricter policies to police the 300,000,000+ people that live here and the millions of people who aim to destroy us as a nation. So as far as civil liberties are concerned, yeah, were a little tighter knit that little fucking norway who has to police 14,000,000 stoners and has no worries of terrorists blowing up their fucking buildings. That is why it isn't a fair comparison.

And to the above quote, i said domestic murders, which i specifically said above "crimes of passion". In domestic murders less that 50% are used with a firearm. FLAT OUT RIGHT. You quoted me correctly but interpretted incorrectly. No doubt that the majority of all murders, domestic, passionate, random, all the above is indisputably done with a gun the majority of the time.

[MF Perm]

you keep accusing me of not wanting it to be hard to get a gun. Did you not read my posts? Gun control is good! Let's make it hard as hell. Make it so you have to have a squeaky clean record and pass 20 psychatric tests. That's fine. I'm for it. I'm not for banning guns.

Why do you keep making up something that I never said?

I said that the kid in the VT incident was noticed to be unstable before - as were the Columbine kids, and therefore it could have been possibly STOPPED if someone had said something.

You sound retarded when you make up ridiculous arguments (such as mentally testing everyone) and put them in my mouth.

You might want to check the quotes you quote me quoting you quoting me quoting you saying that people need 20 psychiatric tests before getting a gun, before you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

[Devek]

Something fun you kids can argue about.

Going to bed early for now.

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/9739/sex2tf8.png

The only reason I post this is because you can see lots of large shifts in numbers without without any ban on guns.

[Beckwin]

Barthello, please read this: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm

I agree that more than taking away guns is necessary to really help the problem, but at the same time, taking away guns will help.

To compound your situation further: the people who don't want to take away guns are the same people that don't want to spend tax dollars on education and social reforms. So the problem never gets better.

[Lynsy]

Why do we fall that low, because we have to enforce stricter policies to police the 300,000,000+ people that live here and the millions of people who aim to destroy us as a nation. So as far as civil liberties are concerned, yeah, were a little tighter knit that little fucking norway who has to police 14,000,000 stoners and has no worries of terrorists blowing up their fucking buildings. That is why it isn't a fair comparison.

And to the above quote, i said domestic murders, which i specifically said above "crimes of passion". In domestic murders less that 50% are used with a firearm. FLAT OUT RIGHT. No doubt that the majority of all murders, domestic, passionate, random, all the above is indisputably done with a gun the majority of the time.

In context, I assumed you meant domestic as in...in the US not international...But the point remains, the overwhelming majority of homicide in the US occurs with guns. The overwhelming majority of general violent crime here does not. I don't have the statistics on specifically domestic crime, so I can't say either way.

Further more, making a blanket statement (The United States is the freest country in the world, for example) and then being proven wrong and then trying to say "but that doesn't count and its irrelevant" is really bad debate form.

[MF Perm]

Barthello, please read this: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm

I agree that more than taking away guns is necessary to really help the problem, but at the same time, taking away guns will help.

To compound your situation further: the people who don't want to take away guns are the same people that don't want to spend tax dollars on education and social reforms. So the problem never gets better.

It's definitely a left vs right world we live in, where you get one or the other. It's just funny that the majority sways and can be connected to a stance on one topic to the next.

In the end I'd rather live in a left world than a right one.

[MF Perm]

Why do we fall that low, because we have to enforce stricter policies to police the 300,000,000+ people that live here and the millions of people who aim to destroy us as a nation. So as far as civil liberties are concerned, yeah, were a little tighter knit that little fucking norway who has to police 14,000,000 stoners and has no worries of terrorists blowing up their fucking buildings. That is why it isn't a fair comparison.

And to the above quote, i said domestic murders, which i specifically said above "crimes of passion". In domestic murders less that 50% are used with a firearm. FLAT OUT RIGHT. No doubt that the majority of all murders, domestic, passionate, random, all the above is indisputably done with a gun the majority of the time.

In context, I assumed you meant domestic as in...in the US not international...But the point remains, the overwhelming majority of homicide in the US occurs with guns. The overwhelming majority of general violent crime here does not. I don't have the statistics on specifically domestic crime, so I can't say either way.

Further more, making a blanket statement (The United States is the freest country in the world, for example) and then being proven wrong and then trying to say "but that doesn't count and its irrelevant" is really bad debate form.

Considering the cause for his argument wasn't without variable. There's a reason people hate the US and not other countries. And it's not because of moral ground.

Some countries don't use their military and economic resources to fuck over and pillage other countries, leading their disillusioned citizens to want their piece and get us back for it.

So ya, I agree on the terrible comparison.

[Beckwin]

Why do we fall that low, because we have to enforce stricter policies to police the 300,000,000+ people that live here and the millions of people who aim to destroy us as a nation. So as far as civil liberties are concerned, yeah, were a little tighter knit that little fucking norway who has to police 14,000,000 stoners and has no worries of terrorists blowing up their fucking buildings. That is why it isn't a fair comparison.

If the terrorists really just hated freedom, then Norway would be the ones with greater security problems and spending than us. But that's obviously not it. Another topic for another day, however.

Also, it's extremely ignorant to say that European countries don't have to worry about terror threats. One major attack in how many years doesn't make the US the most in-danger nation in the world, despite what Bush would like you to believe.

[Lynsy]

Considering the cause for his argument wasn't without variable. There's a reason people hate the US and not other countries. And it's not because of moral ground.

Some countries don't use their military and economic resources to fuck over and pillage other countries, leading their disillusioned citizens to want their piece and get us back for it.

So ya, I agree on the terrible comparison.

If that was his initial argument, maybe. But he said "We have the freest society in the world" which is, categorically, untrue. No measure of "freedom" do we rank highest on. Religious, economic, personal, speech. Nothing. We are not the freest nation. There may be good reason for this, there may not, but ultimately it is irrelevant to the point that we aren't.

[MF Perm]

Considering the cause for his argument wasn't without variable. There's a reason people hate the US and not other countries. And it's not because of moral ground.

Some countries don't use their military and economic resources to fuck over and pillage other countries, leading their disillusioned citizens to want their piece and get us back for it.

So ya, I agree on the terrible comparison.

If that was his initial argument, maybe. But he said "We have the freest society in the world" which is, categorically, untrue. No measure of "freedom" do we rank highest on. Religious, economic, personal, speech. Nothing. We are not the freest nation. There may be good reason for this, there may not, but ultimately it is irrelevant to the point that we aren't.

I was agreeing with you lol.

[Lynsy]

[quote=MF Perm]

Considering the cause for his argument wasn't without variable. There's a reason people hate the US and not other countries. And it's not because of moral ground.

Some countries don't use their military and economic resources to fuck over and pillage other countries, leading their disillusioned citizens to want their piece and get us back for it.

So ya, I agree on the terrible comparison.

If that was his initial argument, maybe. But he said "We have the freest society in the world" which is, categorically, untrue. No measure of "freedom" do we rank highest on. Religious, economic, personal, speech. Nothing. We are not the freest nation. There may be good reason for this, there may not, but ultimately it is irrelevant to the point that we aren't.

I was agreeing with you lol.[/quote:e51c9]

Oh, I thought you meant it was a terrible comparison to compare US freedom to other countries so of course we're still the freest. In that case, carry on XD

[Tyche]

Domestic as in "against a mate". If you read all my posts, i said that Gun control isn't going to stop the thousands of "crimes of passion" everyday. It may lower crimes of opportunity, which is very low regardless, but in most crimes if the intent is to kill someone, then they will kill them no matter the weapon used. Guns just seem to be the weapon of choice because it's quick, effective, and readily available.

As far as my statement about the US being the freest country in the world, i apologize for so damned niave to think that the US was more free than these very small countries that have no threats to their well-being what-so-ever. Mistake on my part. Doesn't diminish my point at all that the US, just as, or more easily can cater to anyone wanting drugs, alcohol, and firearms as any other country. Add that to all the other points regarding illegals, terrorists, and population surges. The fact this happens once every 3+ years is amazing given how easily available it all is for 300,000,000+ which was my point the whole time. Arguing petty differences as in "exactly how free we are" doesn't diminish any of the points i was making. Why terrorist hate us is completely irrelevant, the laws that restrict the citizens because of the terrorist is why my statement was incorrect, which in turn, was completely irrelevant to my point in the larger picture.

[BarthelloSylph]

Quote after quote taken out of context. Misdirection and deception is your game MFPerm and you are good at lying.

I said a test of someone's mental well being WHEN PURCHASING A GUN might be a decent idea in terms of cutting down on crazy people getting guns. I never said mental testing was a great way to cut down on crime. And there is a difference!

----------------

I'm just going to have to assume that you have your opinion that all guns are evil and that without guns there is no crime, and you're sticking to it. That's fine. Sometimes agreeing to disagree is all ya can do It's a great and idealistic world you imagine, but it'll never happen And I agree with you. Banning guns will bring down the crime rate. 100% agree. Less guns = less gun related deaths. I can understand that.

But as they say "there's more than one way to skin a cat".

My opinion: In the end, the problem isn't the fact that there is a weapon out there that can kill someone. It's that there are people who WANT to kill someone. Once again, it's going to be just as hard to fix this problem, but I think the goal is MORE NOBLE than to just ban guns. If we can fix the underlying problems in society, we can help many people become valuable members of society, thus relieving the nation of one of the biggest motivators for crimes being committed.

We can help those in need...
or we can (attempt) to ban guns.

Two ways to skin a cat.

One eliminates the means.

One eliminates the problem.

Your choice. And your opinion.

I'm done here, have fun - I feel like a majority of people on the thread agree with me anyways. Banning guns will help, but it won't fix. The problem will still be there!

[Beckwin]

The problem will always be there, no matter what we do. It's about how close we can get to fixing it, and there isn't just one solution that will get us there.

And please, be realistic and realize that the people who want to take away the guns are also the people who are willing to spend tax dollars to help "those in need." That's the inescapable reality.

[BarthelloSylph]

The problem will always be there, no matter what we do. It's about how close we can get to fixing it, and there isn't just one solution that will get us there.

And please, be realistic and realize that the people who want to take away the guns are also the people who are willing to spend tax dollars to help "those in need." That's the inescapable reality.

Agreed with the first paragraph. I'm not talking a total solution. But I maintain that the problem isn't the guns. The guns are a part of it, but not the majority of the problem. The biggest part is the people. We need to help those people.

And there have been some countries that have done a great job of helping those people. And you'll see that banning guns may have happened, but it wasn't a leading principle of the plan. The plan was about helping those people - feeding them, housing them, educating them, and finding them work. That is what helped the problem. Banning guns, it was a smaller part of the solution than the "banning guns" people here make it out to be.

That's been my entire point from the get-go. I'm not against gun control. I'm for it. I just think that - like those who say VIDEO GAMES = VIOLENCE - those who are screaming GUNS = INNOCENT DEATHS, are only partially getting it. And they are misleading you from the REAL REASONS innocent people are dying. Yes guns are part of it - but you can't blame the guns as the #1 reason. You have to blame the people. If you can't understand why the person is more to blame than the gun... then I simply can't help ya!

The second part of your post - that's a Democrat vs Republican debate... and that's not the point of the thread. So let's not derail it to that! People's opinions often times don't fall solidly into those categories, so let's not attempt to classify.

Anyways, I said I was going to be done - but I liked your post. Kudos.

[Plow]

Read above

So yeah you obviously didn't read any of the previous posts in this thread. And hell i go to gun shows whenever they are within 200 miles of my house. And if you want to be honest there is a pawn shop in town that is selling a uzi, 1000 rounds of amo, and a scope all for $100. Don't blame all that shit on gun shows. Obviously you have never been to a pawn shop. Get your fucking facts straight. You want to lump all gun owners together well gtfo. I get so pissed about this because i have guns for a hobby. I have guns more valuable than my car and most other peoples car. I have one gun i was on the waiting list for 3 years to get and i have never even shot it. Most of my guns were purchased at gun shows and as stated before i took the time to register most of them. Yeah i hunt but only have 2 rifles and one shotgun that i hunt with the rest are just i guess you could say toys for me. I figure a robber will run from my house when he sees the 4 gun safes sitting in my living room and run out. And well i still believe a fucking loud home security system does work. Watch "It takes a thief" and learn about home security. I don't keep a gun next to me while asleep but if shit hits the fan i could have one in under 30 seconds. And hell i have a concealed-carry permit meaning i can walk down the street with a gun on my ankle fully legal.

So quit lumping all gun owners together.

I didn't lump anyone together. And the point about pawn shops goes *alongside* my point about gun shows, not against it. Do you not see that it's absolutely ridiculous that you can do these things? Not to mention, at least the pawn shop has to register the damn thing.

There is NO REASON whatsoever for you to have an assault weapon. It is fucking absurd.

The NRA is a LOBBY. If you honestly believe that the normal members of this LOBBY actually have any impact on what it does, you're a fool. The NRA exists to keep extremely rich gun manufacturers in business. That's it.

And you're right, I didn't read half the posts because 99% is the same worthless drivel about "zomg I'm gonna shoot a robber cuz my tv is worth more than a human life."

And hey, the cops do such a good job protecting us from criminals( re: 33 dead in blacksburg) we have NO NEED for weapons to protect ourselves with. Everyone knows all people everywhere are nice and civil and never want to harm you, ever.

Yeah, it woulda been so much better if all the people in the classrooms had guns. Then we could have only 10 dead by the shooter, and 50 dead + 100 wounded by dipshits that saw someone hold a pistol sideways in some gangsta movie and shot a full clip through the wall without a shot going near the perp. Along with the hundreds to thousands that would die yearly in road rage, barfight, etc incidents when any drunken asshole that wants to run around with a gun is allowed to.

edit: nvm, here's my wish. I wish that someone tonight breaks into your house and makes you rethink your position. I hope they steal things that are valuable to you, and then I hope they are a total prick that smashes your family pictures, tears up momentos, maybe even hurts someone you live with or are close to.

I want all this to happen, and then come back to this thread and tell me that someone that would BREAK AND ENTER INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME is someone that deserves to live. You act like a 13 year old who's been raised on Grand Theft Auto, or a 45 year old hippie who lives in a van and has smoked a little too much. Either way, it's you who is out of touch with reality.

And here's my wish: a robber with a gun enters your home with no intentions of hurting anyone, simply to steal shit, just having the gun to protect himself. Then you see him and pull out your gun. Next, you realize that it's not fucking easy to decide "I'm going to end the life of this human being I'm face to face with, and watch him die right in front of me at my hand." Meanwhile, he goes "oh shit I'm gonna die," whips out his gun and shoots you first. You live, but get paralyzed from the neck down and go on to spend the rest of your life fighting for much stronger gun control and someday actually make a difference.