<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 8 2004, 07:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 8 2004, 07:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hey, I can multitask. I'm all for the banning of cigarettes as well. But I still dont feel you have sufficiently answered the car analogy. You were comparing banning guns to banning cars. I find deaths caused by a specifically designed killing machine and deaths from misusing transport as a way of killing two very different things. Apples and oranges really.
And I dont believe people being murdered by firearms is in anyway a misuse of the gun. The gun performed in exactly the way its manufacturers intended it to - to lauch steel at extreme speed to penetrate flesh and disrupt organs/bodily function. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why ban? Why? You can't simply control something, so you want to ban it? Are you in favor of banning all narcotics as well? That's worked so well in the past with the 'War on Drugs' after all, right? Just like it did during Prohibition.
And is it misusing your transport when you release hundreds of pounds of cancer-causing and ozone-depleting agents into the air every year? A combined total of which cause ozone alerts, emphezema, tuberculosis, cancer, asthma attacks, etc. and kill far more people every year than firearms (then add in the 50,000 vehicular deaths). You are using your car as it was designed, right?
You can't just ban things and expect everything to be ok. You need to be practical, work within the confines of a society, and control things which are dangerous. Cars are dangerous, but we don't ban them - we make people take drivers tests, we add safety features, we improve road infrastructure. Banning things is just the lazy and pointless approach to law and societal control.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Jan 9 2004, 10:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Jan 9 2004, 10:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Why ban? Why? You can't simply control something, so you want to ban it? Are you in favor of banning all narcotics as well? That's worked so well in the past with the 'War on Drugs' after all, right? Just like it did during Prohibition.
And is it misusing your transport when you release hundreds of pounds of cancer-causing and ozone-depleting agents into the air every year? A combined total of which cause ozone alerts, emphezema, tuberculosis, cancer, asthma attacks, etc. and kill far more people every year than firearms (then add in the 50,000 vehicular deaths). You are using your car as it was designed, right?
You can't just ban things and expect everything to be ok. You need to be practical, work within the confines of a society, and control things which are dangerous. Cars are dangerous, but we don't ban them - we make people take drivers tests, we add safety features, we improve road infrastructure. Banning things is just the lazy and pointless approach to law and societal control. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why ban? Because I've yet to see a better solution. The whole "we should, y'know, educate kids and stuff....." doesnt cut it with me. You guys use it in murders, more than most other western nations (I'm saying "most other western nations" to be lazy and avoid having to prove myself). Thats not irresponsible use, thats complete moral absence. Morality is not taught through Government grants, it isnt taught in the schools. Thats why at the end of the day, the problem is Americans imo. They have issues, large social issues. Supplying a plethora of weapons in varying degrees of deadliness to a population suffering from social issues doesnt seem right in my mind.
The NRA put it quite nicely - Guns dont kill people, people kill people. To add my own addendum, guns just make it all easier.
On transport, thats just a nasty side-effect of having extremely useful means of travel. One that we are trying to deal with. With guns, the nasty part is the whole and entire point of the firearm, one that many companies spend millions on trying to improve upon. It just doesnt do anything good, save in hunting and in "threatening" to do nasty things. Hunting is easily taken care of - just limit firearms to only 5 round rifles.
I dont think banning is the be all and end all of the American Gun problem, but its a start. Deal with saturation, increase punishments for carrying/owning outlawed firearms. Banning firearms will make them harder to get for the average joe, and putting large punishments on doing so will make them less desirable. Guns and drugs are different. People get addicted to drugs, and they need more. If you are addicted to guns, then you a very rare and special individual. If you really really must obtain an illegal firearm, chances are you arent going to be up to any good with it.
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 9 2004, 07:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 9 2004, 07:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marine, whats the difference between a vehicular homicide with alcohol involved then a crime commited with a unregistered firearm?
McDonalds has a higher body count then any firearms manufacturer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> One happened because someone misused a car to commit murder. The other happened as a result of someone wielding a firearm in exactly the manner it was constructed for - killing and maiming. Guns are here for killing and maiming - thats their thing, thats what guns do, thats their primary purpose, thats why we make em. And thats why I dont like the idea of civilians having them, I dont want joe average with the latest killing technology, which is all guns are.
I guess thats my whole point, its the latest and greatest killing machine available, its being used more than should be common as such, and it seems like every man and his dog has one. If that doesnt seem strange to you, I'm probably not making much diff but still....
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2004
What so a sword is what? a killing machine? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well your Euro. We in America don't enjoy serfdom.
Speaking of which did you know Finland's violent crime rate is twice as high as the US's?
Scandinavia is no better then the US as well.
Have you ever been to the US? Have you ever known what its like to live here?
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Jan 9 2004, 04:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Jan 9 2004, 04:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The NRA put it quite nicely - Guns dont kill people, people kill people. To add my own addendum, guns just make it all easier. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So do:
Spoons, knives, forks, ropes, pillows, TV sets, wires, rolls of coins, electrical generators, bottles, alarm blocks, baseball bats, papers, pencils, pens, pins, staplers, nails, wood beams, concrete blocks, automobiles, blankets, tissues, any bodies of water over an inch or two deep, fiery arguements, fingernails, hands, feet, heads, hammers, saws, levers, pulleys, wheels, springs, gravitational disturbances, diseases, poisons, swords, fires, radioactive substances, animal droppings, and even a rubber duck.
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 9 2004, 08:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 9 2004, 08:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What so a sword is what? a killing machine? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well your Euro. We in America don't enjoy serfdom.
Speaking of which did you know Finland's violent crime rate is twice as high as the US's?
Scandinavia is no better then the US as well.
Have you ever been to the US? Have you ever known what its like to live here? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not Euro, I'm Australian.
As for finland/america, could you show me those stats?
Thats precisely what a sword is, a killing machine also. But it has nothing on a gun and we all know it. All those things scorpion mentioned can be used to kill. They just weren't created for it/are outdated and for pure efficiency and effect they cant compete with a gun. They have other uses for which we tolerate their killing capacity. For a gun, it has one very obvious purpose.
A glock is a people killing device, one of the best available for the average civilian. Why does Joe Civilian have a people killer when people killing is illegal/heavily frowned on even in self defence?
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2004
Why does big government need a gun? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Show you these satistics?
<a href='http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5156/index.php' target='_blank'>Indymedia since you won't take NRA's word for it.</a>
Guns aren't are product of killing another human being they are product of the civilized population.
To remove the gun from private hands is setting us back to using swords to protect yourself. Banning swords just makes thugs find firearms on the black market or threaten a person with a knife.
I read that link, and to be honest it kinda had me scratching my head. I'm not sure I follow their translation of what that guy actually said, and I'm not sure if they are talking crime rate or crime solving rate.
I'm surprised that no-one has called MonsE on the smoking/gun ownership thing, ok so if you want to compare cigarettes and gun ownership, fine, but its silly to. No-one fires a gun in a crowded room 20 times a day, no one spins the chamber on a revolver and fires at their children every day. Same for cars, no one fires an assault weapon on a crowded road for half an hour on their way to work.
cigarette vs bullet, being on the receiving end of the effects of one is FAR less likely to be fatal.
Like I say, the analogy is flawed because the two are simply not comparable. How many cigarettes are as dangerous as a bullet? or a gun? Should you perform endless translations to get deaths per bullet fired? or cigarette users vs total gun owners correlated to use, and resultant death?
Finally, most smokers I know have the courtesy to either a) use a designated smoking area, or b) ask before sparking up.
I'm not really in favour of smoking as a rule, people that do it should be helped to quit. The sad fact is though, that most governments need the tax revenue...
I'm reminded of something that left me giggling like a madman:
In terminator 1, Arnie goes into the guns & ammo shop, and selects his weapons of choice (sadly failing to secure the phased plasma rifle in a 40W range). The storekeeper tells him he can take the shotties, the SMGs, and the rifles, but that there is a 14 day wait for the handguns! HAHAHAHAHA!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Guns aren't are product of killing another human being they are product of the civilized population. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To remove the gun from private hands is setting us back to using swords to protect yourself. Banning swords just makes thugs find firearms on the black market or threaten a person with a knife. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Thats what anti-gun supporters are suggesting is a step forward.
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
edited January 2004
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Jan 9 2004, 06:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Jan 9 2004, 06:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Guns aren't are product of killing another human being they are product of the civilized population. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To remove the gun from private hands is setting us back to using swords to protect yourself. Banning swords just makes thugs find firearms on the black market or threaten a person with a knife. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Thats what anti-gun supporters are suggesting is a step forward. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is your idea to live into a police state. Not mine.
Gun laws/bans/registrations only affect those who wish to abide by the law. It makes NO SIGNIFICANT DENT in crime.
But don't take my word for it. Washington D.C. is murder capital of the world...yet no one owns a handgun so thugs aren't scared to rob/rape/murder whatever.
How can you enforce a law on outlaws?
It's a good step to oppression something alot of countries suffern then forget.
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 9 2004, 05:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 9 2004, 05:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> another picture from A-Human-Right
<img src='http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_1984.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> HAHAHAHA! Please! no more! I can't take it!
*wipes away tears*
So a fictional character in a fictional state with almost total support didn't supply one malcontent with a weapon? I'm missing the point again.
Its been a while since I've read 1984, but I seem to remember that the vast majority of citizens were in favour of the state, so under those circumstances (no matter how repellant we may find that state) Winston Smith is a single criminal, who is unable to use a gun to disrupt the smooth running of that State. Unless of course you believe that terrorists should be able to have free access to weapons?
UZiEight inches of C4 between the legs.Join Date: 2003-02-20Member: 13767Members
I take it you never liked Equilibrium either. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
You do realise a gun and a vote are different, right? One black and shiny, make a loud noise, the other a stake in a democratic process?
I don't know if you've ever left the US's territory, but if one day you do you may be surprised to find that the jackbooted forces of oppression haven't crushed the poor citizens of gun free States. Indeed, as a citizen of the OLDEST democracy in the western world, I'd say its entirely possible to have a gun-free state and hold the police state at bay.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gun laws/bans/registrations only affect those who wish to abide by the law. It makes NO SIGNIFICANT DENT in crime. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other than ensuring that no-one has a gun accident, and making it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns, of course. Oh, and ensuring that the only ones with guns are either criminals, or trained police firearms units.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But don't take my word for it. Washington D.C. is murder capital of the world...yet no one owns a handgun so thugs aren't scared to rob/rape/murder whatever. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one owns a handgun? not even the criminals? ok glib, but so what? By extension you're saying that anywhere where handguns are not owned by the general populace is overrun by murderers? Um...thats not the case either. I'd start by looking at the causes of the high murder rate first, DC being known for its massive rich/poor divide, and all. Secondly policing - but then you wouldn't be happy with a larger police presence and no guns, would you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you enforce a law on outlaws? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only people you ENFORCE laws on are outlaws, ordinary people obey them. Unless you are suggesting abolition of laws so that we can all "get" the criminals? Care to point them out to me?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's a good step to oppression something alot of countries suffern then forget. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, the majority of "oppressed" countries in the world today have readily available, or easily accessed guns. Take......ooh Iraq for example, where possesion of a gun was seen as a rite of passage, and despite the massive number of firearms readily available, and indeed sanctioned, they were still oppressed by a dictator.
I know this has been done to death but anyway <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--UZi+Jan 9 2004, 07:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (UZi @ Jan 9 2004, 07:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I take it you never liked Equilibrium either. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Tool of the system. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude, I LOVED equilibrium! (for that matter I loved 1984 too. )
Small predominantly British film, dark, gritty, surprisingly happy ending, with good acting all round.
It wasn't real though.
I'll see your tool of the system and raise you an disenfanchised loner. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Good books. I'm not sure Solzhenitsyn, or any of the Russians that returned from being German POW's would have been able to guarantee their freedom by possessing a firearm, however. Nor that any difference would have been made to Stalinism/Leninism if all the citizens had possessed a firearm. Interestingly less guns were in circulation during the overthrow of the Tsars, (having been battered by the Japanese shortly before) yet they overthrew an unpopular undemocratic regime. Go figure. Also the police/army refused to fire on protesters- not armed revolutionaries, protesters.
I'm thoroughly unconvinced that any or all of a population having access to a firearm is able to guarantee a stable form of government. There's too many warlords and militias for that to ever hold water.
Hypothetically, would you have been in favour of an armed Black revolution within the USA in the 60s to uphold that all men are created equal? I'm not talking about a few small groups, I'm talking about a the million men all toting, and seeking to uphold the constitution....
There's an awful lot of misinformation starting to spread in this thread; a lot of made-up, unsourced statistics, a lot of opinions presented as fact. As you saw previously, some of us our trying to use reputable stats to back up our thoughts - I'd appreciate it if people would work a little harder to follow that good example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cigarette vs bullet, being on the receiving end of the effects of one is FAR less likely to be fatal.
Like I say, the analogy is flawed because the two are simply not comparable. How many cigarettes are as dangerous as a bullet? or a gun? Should you perform endless translations to get deaths per bullet fired? or cigarette users vs total gun owners correlated to use, and resultant death?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not flawed at all. The end result of smoking around people is the same as shooting someone - death or injury. One taking longer than the other is completely immaterial, because if you're the child of smokers you are forced to be a smoker yourself for at least 17 years. Just because one cigarette doesn't kill you doesn't mean it's any better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, most smokers I know have the courtesy to either a) use a designated smoking area, or b) ask before sparking up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your statistics of the smokers you know are not relevant to our conversation. Tens of thousands of children die every year in this country from people other than your polite friends. Based on your logic, since you do not know any murderers, there are no murderers. Syllogisms are your enemy! Fight them!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not really in favour of smoking as a rule, people that do it should be helped to quit. The sad fact is though, that most governments need the tax revenue... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well which is it. You're in favor of smoking or against it? Would you ban it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not really, the majority of "oppressed" countries in the world today have readily available, or easily accessed guns. Take......ooh Iraq for example, where possesion of a gun was seen as a rite of passage, and despite the massive number of firearms readily available, and indeed sanctioned, they were still oppressed by a dictator. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Those firearms were not available to common citizens when Saddam was in power. Only after the fall of the Iraqi army and it's disintegration into the public did they become freely available. I welcome any evidence you have to the contrary, other than your opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one owns a handgun? not even the criminals? ok glib, but so what? By extension you're saying that anywhere where handguns are not owned by the general populace is overrun by murderers? Um...thats not the case either <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, stop making up your stats and look back at those previously posted from reputable sources. It is illegal to own a firearm in DC (and LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.). Yet all those cities have the highest murder rates and firearm homicides in the nation. Do you want to explain how banning those weapons made it harder for firearm deaths to occur?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1984 was written by Eric Blair about the rise of fascism within western Europe. In no way did he ever allude to bearing arms to ensure freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Good attempt at tricking people into ocrrecting you incorrectly <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->, but Eric Blair was a pen name. It was written by George Orwell. And as for no allusions to arms bearing, I'm not sure we read the same book. Firearms are used throughtout the story, along with information control, as the means to supress the population and maintain control. And you should also know that George Orwell fought facism as an infantryman in the Spanish Civil War. His life and writings were a study in using any means necessary to fight autocratic and oppressive government control.
<i>Side Question</i>: by show of hands, who here is in favor of banning firearms, cigarettes, alcohol, and narcotics? All are killers, all serve only the purpose of causing death and injury. I'm curious to see those that want to ban some and not others - you are the ones that need to re-evaluate your thoughts and decide if you are not being contradictory or hypocritical. Which of course is the point of this discussion forum - not to change other people's minds, but to open your own to alternate thoughts and make you THINK, something your teachers and friends have been discouraging in you most of your life. I personally (no devil's advocate this time, unlike other topics) believe that all of these should be legalized, and heavily controlled and legislated to ensure that the innocent are not victims. History has proven (in the US) that trying to make all of these things illegal has been a complete and utter failure.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited January 2004
Alcohol, tobacco and narcortics' main purpose arent to kill, while the gun's are. GG stating opinion as fact <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All are killers, all serve only the purpose of causing death and injury<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Alcohol, tobacco and narcortics' main purpose arent to kill, while the gun's are. GG stating opinion as fact <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> GG not considering all sides of the conversation. From all we know of tobacco, narcotics, and booze and its effects after the last 60 years of research, everyone knows that they serve no final result but the shortening of your life, your injury, and the same effects on the ones around you.
I know you're going to just say "but a gun's only purpose is to kill people and those other things are designed for pleasure and relaxation", but I will just say that many guns are designed for target shooting, hunting, or for being the cool part of a sci-fi movie. All of which are pleasure activities that do not harm people. If you favor banning them all, then I'll not call you a hypocrite. If you support any of them being legal and others not, you are double-thinking.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
edited January 2004
Which is why countries with guns banned you can seek compensation (against a clean record and delivering them to a public deposit). And you might also say that the atomic bomb is designed for cool fireworks, can be a very beautiful scenario. You forget one thing, they can heighten life quality <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you're going to just say "but a gun's only purpose is to kill people and those other things are designed for pleasure and relaxation"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You said the word! the gun's only purpose is to kill, and while I'm sure murderers find it relaxing and enjoyable to kill as well, there are certain level of risk there can be allowed. You see you cant really compare guns with other life-shortening things that is infact the individual's choice. Guns can do way more, you dont just walk in a shop and threat the shopkeeper to fork over the money or he is getting "smoked" (pun <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->) Guns are power, self-intoxication not. There is actually alot of life-shortening activities that will affect your family if you die, guns differ from that as it's not usually the owner who stands infront of it.
I agree - "purpose" was a poor choice of words. I'll replace it with "result", and the "result" is to invalidate your argument. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see you cant really compare guns with other life-shortening things that is infact the individual's choice. Guns can do way more, you dont just walk in a shop and threat the shopkeeper to fork over the money or he is getting "smoked" (pun ) Guns are power, self-intoxication not. There is actually alot of life-shortening activities that will affect your family if you die, guns differ from that as it's not usually the owner who stands infront of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We have spoken at long length about the statistics of non-smoking children killed by tobbaco, of people killed by drunk drivers, and of plenty of other innocent people killed by products which are designed for pleasure - you need to read everything here before posting next time, that's a FAQ rule. You are indulging in double-think and not really considering other people's points. You can of course compare them - alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes kill 50 times the number of people in this country every year than firearms (see previous posts for all the stats from American Medical Association, Dept. of Justice, WHO, etc.), but because you <i>like</i> them you do not want to ban them. I think that you need to reflect on this a bit more and see if you're not being completely contradictory. Either you ban them all, or you allow them all - anything else is hypocrisy.
And no one has had the guts to answer my question directly yet: are you in favor of banning drugs, cigarrettes, and alcohol as well as firearms? All have no result ( <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ) except shortened life and injury of you and those around you.
Thank you for playing, but George Orwell was the pen name.
Possibly, my take on it was that it was a direct commentary on fascism itself, its possible direction, and <i>the way in which people would not just accept, but wholeheartedly welcome it.</i>
It's not flawed at all. The end result of smoking around people is the same as shooting someone - death or injury. One taking longer than the other is completely immaterial, because if you're the child of smokers you are forced to be a smoker yourself for at least 17 years. Just because one cigarette doesn't kill you doesn't mean it's any better.
For the record, Narcotics, tobacco and alcohol are unnecessary, and CAN cause harm, they need to be regulated, such that the general populace has help to avoid becoming addicted to them. Basically, the state of play at the moment. Unless someone has a way to stop wanting to use them, people will want to (the cache, the physical addiction etc). I'll agree with what you've said, legalise and control.
The end result of pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger is ALWAYS harm. Democracy doesn't need a loaded weapon.
Your statistics of the smokers you know are not relevant to our conversation. Tens of thousands of children die every year in this country from people other than your polite friends. Based on your logic, since you do not know any murderers, there are no murderers. Syllogisms are your enemy! Fight them!
Those firearms were not available to common citizens when Saddam was in power. Only after the fall of the Iraqi army and it's disintegration into the public did they become freely available. I welcome any evidence you have to the contrary, other than your opinion.
Believe me I'd love to have the stats for you, sadly Iraq was a bit remiss in submitting them. Instead have this extract from K Hagler's blog:
"Good for them. I've got a question, though. Just a few months ago, we kept reading articles that said weapons ownership in Iraq was as widespread as it is in America. Now Tierney says Saddam had "forbade private citizens to carry weapons, effectively outlawing the security industry." So what was the law?"
Unfortunately there is REALLY little on this online. To paraphrase the few sources there are. Gun ownership was illegal. Every household had guns. *shrug*
Again, stop making up your stats and look back at those previously posted from reputable sources. It is illegal to own a firearm in DC (and LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.). Yet all those cities have the highest murder rates and firearm homicides in the nation. Do you want to explain how banning those weapons made it harder for firearm deaths to occur?
No, but I can give statistics on the slowdown of the increase in gun crime in the UK <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm#map' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/...3195908.stm#map</a> following the complete ban.
Its Friday, 5pm now, so I bid you adieu. See you on Monday.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thank you for playing, but George Orwell was the pen name.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I managed to reverse it and I apologise. Pray continue your snobbery. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The end result of living is death. Ban life?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We can't have a real discussion if you're going to be flippant. As I said many times throughout this discussion, it shortens life. Based on your argument, if we're all going to die anyway, why ban guns?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The end result of pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger is ALWAYS harm. Democracy doesn't need a loaded weapon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> By saying ALWAYS, you just invalidated your argument. If you add 'and the bullet hits the person', then you are correct. You are saying that 'well, some people don't die from second hand smoke and drunk driving, so it's ok'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortunately there is REALLY little on this online. To paraphrase the few sources there are. Gun ownership was illegal. Every household had guns. *shrug*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I found the same quotes and I agree 100%. The problem is that when you're run by a dictatorship, most of the reliable history and information is missing, disputable, faked, etc. It will be years before we know. HOWEVER, I ask you to name any dictatorships that <i>are</i> well documented where citizens were allowed to remain armed. Nazi Germany - no. Soviet Russia - no. Communist China - no. The list goes on, so we can extrapolate that Saddam's regime was likely no different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, but I can give statistics on the slowdown of the increase in gun crime in the UK <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/...3195908.stm#map' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/...3195908.stm#map</a> following the complete ban. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes... so you are telling me that gun crime is on the rise in a country where guns have been illegal for a decade (the Dunblane Massacre being the catalyst of the 'complete' ban that you seem to be talking about), but that it's only a slow rise this year??? Dude, you have given me a better argument to help my cause than I ever would have found. Hilarious! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Thanks!
People always seem to add their last word and bid adieu around here when they have no answer to my points. Dread does it all the time too. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
And I dont believe people being murdered by firearms is in anyway a misuse of the gun. The gun performed in exactly the way its manufacturers intended it to - to lauch steel at extreme speed to penetrate flesh and disrupt organs/bodily function. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why ban? Why? You can't simply control something, so you want to ban it? Are you in favor of banning all narcotics as well? That's worked so well in the past with the 'War on Drugs' after all, right? Just like it did during Prohibition.
And is it misusing your transport when you release hundreds of pounds of cancer-causing and ozone-depleting agents into the air every year? A combined total of which cause ozone alerts, emphezema, tuberculosis, cancer, asthma attacks, etc. and kill far more people every year than firearms (then add in the 50,000 vehicular deaths). You are using your car as it was designed, right?
You can't just ban things and expect everything to be ok. You need to be practical, work within the confines of a society, and control things which are dangerous. Cars are dangerous, but we don't ban them - we make people take drivers tests, we add safety features, we improve road infrastructure. Banning things is just the lazy and pointless approach to law and societal control.
This is an example of what happens when you meet a criminal that wants to leave no witnesses.
And is it misusing your transport when you release hundreds of pounds of cancer-causing and ozone-depleting agents into the air every year? A combined total of which cause ozone alerts, emphezema, tuberculosis, cancer, asthma attacks, etc. and kill far more people every year than firearms (then add in the 50,000 vehicular deaths). You are using your car as it was designed, right?
You can't just ban things and expect everything to be ok. You need to be practical, work within the confines of a society, and control things which are dangerous. Cars are dangerous, but we don't ban them - we make people take drivers tests, we add safety features, we improve road infrastructure. Banning things is just the lazy and pointless approach to law and societal control. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why ban? Because I've yet to see a better solution. The whole "we should, y'know, educate kids and stuff....." doesnt cut it with me. You guys use it in murders, more than most other western nations (I'm saying "most other western nations" to be lazy and avoid having to prove myself). Thats not irresponsible use, thats complete moral absence. Morality is not taught through Government grants, it isnt taught in the schools. Thats why at the end of the day, the problem is Americans imo. They have issues, large social issues. Supplying a plethora of weapons in varying degrees of deadliness to a population suffering from social issues doesnt seem right in my mind.
The NRA put it quite nicely - Guns dont kill people, people kill people. To add my own addendum, guns just make it all easier.
On transport, thats just a nasty side-effect of having extremely useful means of travel. One that we are trying to deal with. With guns, the nasty part is the whole and entire point of the firearm, one that many companies spend millions on trying to improve upon. It just doesnt do anything good, save in hunting and in "threatening" to do nasty things. Hunting is easily taken care of - just limit firearms to only 5 round rifles.
I dont think banning is the be all and end all of the American Gun problem, but its a start. Deal with saturation, increase punishments for carrying/owning outlawed firearms. Banning firearms will make them harder to get for the average joe, and putting large punishments on doing so will make them less desirable. Guns and drugs are different. People get addicted to drugs, and they need more. If you are addicted to guns, then you a very rare and special individual. If you really really must obtain an illegal firearm, chances are you arent going to be up to any good with it.
McDonalds has a higher body count then any firearms manufacturer.
McDonalds has a higher body count then any firearms manufacturer. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
One happened because someone misused a car to commit murder. The other happened as a result of someone wielding a firearm in exactly the manner it was constructed for - killing and maiming. Guns are here for killing and maiming - thats their thing, thats what guns do, thats their primary purpose, thats why we make em. And thats why I dont like the idea of civilians having them, I dont want joe average with the latest killing technology, which is all guns are.
I guess thats my whole point, its the latest and greatest killing machine available, its being used more than should be common as such, and it seems like every man and his dog has one. If that doesnt seem strange to you, I'm probably not making much diff but still....
Well your Euro. We in America don't enjoy serfdom.
Speaking of which did you know Finland's violent crime rate is twice as high as the US's?
Scandinavia is no better then the US as well.
Have you ever been to the US? Have you ever known what its like to live here?
So do:
Spoons, knives, forks, ropes, pillows, TV sets, wires, rolls of coins, electrical generators, bottles, alarm blocks, baseball bats, papers, pencils, pens, pins, staplers, nails, wood beams, concrete blocks, automobiles, blankets, tissues, any bodies of water over an inch or two deep, fiery arguements, fingernails, hands, feet, heads, hammers, saws, levers, pulleys, wheels, springs, gravitational disturbances, diseases, poisons, swords, fires, radioactive substances, animal droppings, and even a rubber duck.
Well your Euro. We in America don't enjoy serfdom.
Speaking of which did you know Finland's violent crime rate is twice as high as the US's?
Scandinavia is no better then the US as well.
Have you ever been to the US? Have you ever known what its like to live here? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not Euro, I'm Australian.
As for finland/america, could you show me those stats?
Thats precisely what a sword is, a killing machine also. But it has nothing on a gun and we all know it. All those things scorpion mentioned can be used to kill. They just weren't created for it/are outdated and for pure efficiency and effect they cant compete with a gun. They have other uses for which we tolerate their killing capacity. For a gun, it has one very obvious purpose.
A glock is a people killing device, one of the best available for the average civilian. Why does Joe Civilian have a people killer when people killing is illegal/heavily frowned on even in self defence?
Show you these satistics?
<a href='http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5156/index.php' target='_blank'>Indymedia since you won't take NRA's word for it.</a>
Guns aren't are product of killing another human being they are product of the civilized population.
To remove the gun from private hands is setting us back to using swords to protect yourself. Banning swords just makes thugs find firearms on the black market or threaten a person with a knife.
<img src='http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_1984.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
Anyone else understand it better than I?
Same for cars, no one fires an assault weapon on a crowded road for half an hour on their way to work.
cigarette vs bullet, being on the receiving end of the effects of one is FAR less likely to be fatal.
Like I say, the analogy is flawed because the two are simply not comparable. How many cigarettes are as dangerous as a bullet? or a gun? Should you perform endless translations to get deaths per bullet fired? or cigarette users vs total gun owners correlated to use, and resultant death?
Finally, most smokers I know have the courtesy to either a) use a designated smoking area, or b) ask before sparking up.
I'm not really in favour of smoking as a rule, people that do it should be helped to quit. The sad fact is though, that most governments need the tax revenue...
I'm reminded of something that left me giggling like a madman:
In terminator 1, Arnie goes into the guns & ammo shop, and selects his weapons of choice (sadly failing to secure the phased plasma rifle in a 40W range). The storekeeper tells him he can take the shotties, the SMGs, and the rifles, but that there is a 14 day wait for the handguns! HAHAHAHAHA!
Right, I'd best get back to my cave then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
To remove the gun from private hands is setting us back to using swords to protect yourself. Banning swords just makes thugs find firearms on the black market or threaten a person with a knife.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Thats what anti-gun supporters are suggesting is a step forward.
Right, I'd best get back to my cave then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
To remove the gun from private hands is setting us back to using swords to protect yourself. Banning swords just makes thugs find firearms on the black market or threaten a person with a knife.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes? Thats what anti-gun supporters are suggesting is a step forward. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is your idea to live into a police state. Not mine.
Gun laws/bans/registrations only affect those who wish to abide by the law. It makes NO SIGNIFICANT DENT in crime.
But don't take my word for it. Washington D.C. is murder capital of the world...yet no one owns a handgun so thugs aren't scared to rob/rape/murder whatever.
How can you enforce a law on outlaws?
It's a good step to oppression something alot of countries suffern then forget.
<img src='http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_1984.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
HAHAHAHA! Please! no more! I can't take it!
*wipes away tears*
So a fictional character in a fictional state with almost total support didn't supply one malcontent with a weapon? I'm missing the point again.
Its been a while since I've read 1984, but I seem to remember that the vast majority of citizens were in favour of the state, so under those circumstances (no matter how repellant we may find that state) Winston Smith is a single criminal, who is unable to use a gun to disrupt the smooth running of that State. Unless of course you believe that terrorists should be able to have free access to weapons?
Tool of the system.
<img src='http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_gulag.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
or one of my favorites
<img src='http://www.conservativebookstore.com/gifs/bookcovers/solz.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
It is your idea to live into a police state. Not mine.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realise a gun and a vote are different, right? One black and shiny, make a loud noise, the other a stake in a democratic process?
I don't know if you've ever left the US's territory, but if one day you do you may be surprised to find that the jackbooted forces of oppression haven't crushed the poor citizens of gun free States. Indeed, as a citizen of the OLDEST democracy in the western world, I'd say its entirely possible to have a gun-free state and hold the police state at bay.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Gun laws/bans/registrations only affect those who wish to abide by the law. It makes NO SIGNIFICANT DENT in crime.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Other than ensuring that no-one has a gun accident, and making it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns, of course. Oh, and ensuring that the only ones with guns are either criminals, or trained police firearms units.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But don't take my word for it. Washington D.C. is murder capital of the world...yet no one owns a handgun so thugs aren't scared to rob/rape/murder whatever.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one owns a handgun? not even the criminals? ok glib, but so what? By extension you're saying that anywhere where handguns are not owned by the general populace is overrun by murderers? Um...thats not the case either. I'd start by looking at the causes of the high murder rate first, DC being known for its massive rich/poor divide, and all. Secondly policing - but then you wouldn't be happy with a larger police presence and no guns, would you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
How can you enforce a law on outlaws?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only people you ENFORCE laws on are outlaws, ordinary people obey them. Unless you are suggesting abolition of laws so that we can all "get" the criminals? Care to point them out to me?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It's a good step to oppression something alot of countries suffern then forget.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really, the majority of "oppressed" countries in the world today have readily available, or easily accessed guns. Take......ooh Iraq for example, where possesion of a gun was seen as a rite of passage, and despite the massive number of firearms readily available, and indeed sanctioned, they were still oppressed by a dictator.
I know this has been done to death but anyway <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Tool of the system. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, I LOVED equilibrium! (for that matter I loved 1984 too. )
Small predominantly British film, dark, gritty, surprisingly happy ending, with good acting all round.
It wasn't real though.
I'll see your tool of the system and raise you an disenfanchised loner. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Theres a reason why books like 1984 exist. Not to spread fear. But as a reminder on what the cost of freedom is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, 1984 was written by Eric Blair about the rise of fascism within western Europe. In no way did he ever allude to bearing arms to ensure freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<img src='http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_gulag.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
or one of my favorites
<img src='http://www.conservativebookstore.com/gifs/bookcovers/solz.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good books. I'm not sure Solzhenitsyn, or any of the Russians that returned from being German POW's would have been able to guarantee their freedom by possessing a firearm, however. Nor that any difference would have been made to Stalinism/Leninism if all the citizens had possessed a firearm.
Interestingly less guns were in circulation during the overthrow of the Tsars, (having been battered by the Japanese shortly before) yet they overthrew an unpopular undemocratic regime. Go figure.
Also the police/army refused to fire on protesters- not armed revolutionaries, protesters.
I'm thoroughly unconvinced that any or all of a population having access to a firearm is able to guarantee a stable form of government. There's too many warlords and militias for that to ever hold water.
Hypothetically, would you have been in favour of an armed Black revolution within the USA in the 60s to uphold that all men are created equal? I'm not talking about a few small groups, I'm talking about a the million men all toting, and seeking to uphold the constitution....
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->cigarette vs bullet, being on the receiving end of the effects of one is FAR less likely to be fatal.
Like I say, the analogy is flawed because the two are simply not comparable. How many cigarettes are as dangerous as a bullet? or a gun? Should you perform endless translations to get deaths per bullet fired? or cigarette users vs total gun owners correlated to use, and resultant death?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not flawed at all. The end result of smoking around people is the same as shooting someone - death or injury. One taking longer than the other is completely immaterial, because if you're the child of smokers you are forced to be a smoker yourself for at least 17 years. Just because one cigarette doesn't kill you doesn't mean it's any better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Finally, most smokers I know have the courtesy to either a) use a designated smoking area, or b) ask before sparking up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your statistics of the smokers you know are not relevant to our conversation. Tens of thousands of children die every year in this country from people other than your polite friends. Based on your logic, since you do not know any murderers, there are no murderers. Syllogisms are your enemy! Fight them!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm not really in favour of smoking as a rule, people that do it should be helped to quit. The sad fact is though, that most governments need the tax revenue...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well which is it. You're in favor of smoking or against it? Would you ban it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not really, the majority of "oppressed" countries in the world today have readily available, or easily accessed guns. Take......ooh Iraq for example, where possesion of a gun was seen as a rite of passage, and despite the massive number of firearms readily available, and indeed sanctioned, they were still oppressed by a dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Those firearms were not available to common citizens when Saddam was in power. Only after the fall of the Iraqi army and it's disintegration into the public did they become freely available. I welcome any evidence you have to the contrary, other than your opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No one owns a handgun? not even the criminals? ok glib, but so what? By extension you're saying that anywhere where handguns are not owned by the general populace is overrun by murderers? Um...thats not the case either
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, stop making up your stats and look back at those previously posted from reputable sources. It is illegal to own a firearm in DC (and LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.). Yet all those cities have the highest murder rates and firearm homicides in the nation. Do you want to explain how banning those weapons made it harder for firearm deaths to occur?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1984 was written by Eric Blair about the rise of fascism within western Europe. In no way did he ever allude to bearing arms to ensure freedom.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good attempt at tricking people into ocrrecting you incorrectly <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->, but Eric Blair was a pen name. It was written by George Orwell. And as for no allusions to arms bearing, I'm not sure we read the same book. Firearms are used throughtout the story, along with information control, as the means to supress the population and maintain control. And you should also know that George Orwell fought facism as an infantryman in the Spanish Civil War. His life and writings were a study in using any means necessary to fight autocratic and oppressive government control.
<i>Side Question</i>: by show of hands, who here is in favor of banning firearms, cigarettes, alcohol, and narcotics? All are killers, all serve only the purpose of causing death and injury. I'm curious to see those that want to ban some and not others - you are the ones that need to re-evaluate your thoughts and decide if you are not being contradictory or hypocritical. Which of course is the point of this discussion forum - not to change other people's minds, but to open your own to alternate thoughts and make you THINK, something your teachers and friends have been discouraging in you most of your life. I personally (no devil's advocate this time, unlike other topics) believe that all of these should be legalized, and heavily controlled and legislated to ensure that the innocent are not victims. History has proven (in the US) that trying to make all of these things illegal has been a complete and utter failure.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All are killers, all serve only the purpose of causing death and injury<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
GG not considering all sides of the conversation. From all we know of tobacco, narcotics, and booze and its effects after the last 60 years of research, everyone knows that they serve no final result but the shortening of your life, your injury, and the same effects on the ones around you.
I know you're going to just say "but a gun's only purpose is to kill people and those other things are designed for pleasure and relaxation", but I will just say that many guns are designed for target shooting, hunting, or for being the cool part of a sci-fi movie. All of which are pleasure activities that do not harm people. If you favor banning them all, then I'll not call you a hypocrite. If you support any of them being legal and others not, you are double-thinking.
And you might also say that the atomic bomb is designed for cool fireworks, can be a very beautiful scenario.
You forget one thing, they can heighten life quality <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know you're going to just say "but a gun's only purpose is to kill people and those other things are designed for pleasure and relaxation"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You said the word! the gun's only purpose is to kill, and while I'm sure murderers find it relaxing and enjoyable to kill as well, there are certain level of risk there can be allowed.
You see you cant really compare guns with other life-shortening things that is infact the individual's choice. Guns can do way more, you dont just walk in a shop and threat the shopkeeper to fork over the money or he is getting "smoked" (pun <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->)
Guns are power, self-intoxication not. There is actually alot of life-shortening activities that will affect your family if you die, guns differ from that as it's not usually the owner who stands infront of it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You see you cant really compare guns with other life-shortening things that is infact the individual's choice. Guns can do way more, you dont just walk in a shop and threat the shopkeeper to fork over the money or he is getting "smoked" (pun )
Guns are power, self-intoxication not. There is actually alot of life-shortening activities that will affect your family if you die, guns differ from that as it's not usually the owner who stands infront of it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We have spoken at long length about the statistics of non-smoking children killed by tobbaco, of people killed by drunk drivers, and of plenty of other innocent people killed by products which are designed for pleasure - you need to read everything here before posting next time, that's a FAQ rule. You are indulging in double-think and not really considering other people's points. You can of course compare them - alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes kill 50 times the number of people in this country every year than firearms (see previous posts for all the stats from American Medical Association, Dept. of Justice, WHO, etc.), but because you <i>like</i> them you do not want to ban them. I think that you need to reflect on this a bit more and see if you're not being completely contradictory. Either you ban them all, or you allow them all - anything else is hypocrisy.
And no one has had the guts to answer my question directly yet: are you in favor of banning drugs, cigarrettes, and alcohol as well as firearms? All have no result ( <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> ) except shortened life and injury of you and those around you.
Good attempt at intellectual snobbery, but Eric Blair was a pen name.
His life and writings were a study in using any means necessary to fight autocratic and oppressive government control.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for playing, but George Orwell was the pen name.
Possibly, my take on it was that it was a direct commentary on fascism itself, its possible direction, and <i>the way in which people would not just accept, but wholeheartedly welcome it.</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
It's not flawed at all. The end result of smoking around people is the same as shooting someone - death or injury. One taking longer than the other is completely immaterial, because if you're the child of smokers you are forced to be a smoker yourself for at least 17 years. Just because one cigarette doesn't kill you doesn't mean it's any better.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The end result of living is death. Ban life?
For the record, Narcotics, tobacco and alcohol are unnecessary, and CAN cause harm, they need to be regulated, such that the general populace has help to avoid becoming addicted to them. Basically, the state of play at the moment. Unless someone has a way to stop wanting to use them, people will want to (the cache, the physical addiction etc). I'll agree with what you've said, legalise and control.
The end result of pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger is ALWAYS harm. Democracy doesn't need a loaded weapon.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Your statistics of the smokers you know are not relevant to our conversation. Tens of thousands of children die every year in this country from people other than your polite friends. Based on your logic, since you do not know any murderers, there are no murderers. Syllogisms are your enemy! Fight them!
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't fight them! I have no gun with which to do so! Ok, fair point, I'll accept I don't know every smoker in the world. :S
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Those firearms were not available to common citizens when Saddam was in power. Only after the fall of the Iraqi army and it's disintegration into the public did they become freely available. I welcome any evidence you have to the contrary, other than your opinion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Believe me I'd love to have the stats for you, sadly Iraq was a bit remiss in submitting them. Instead have this extract from K Hagler's blog:
"Good for them. I've got a question, though. Just a few months ago, we kept reading articles that said weapons ownership in Iraq was as widespread as it is in America. Now Tierney says Saddam had "forbade private citizens to carry weapons, effectively outlawing the security industry." So what was the law?"
Unfortunately there is REALLY little on this online. To paraphrase the few sources there are. Gun ownership was illegal. Every household had guns. *shrug*
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Again, stop making up your stats and look back at those previously posted from reputable sources. It is illegal to own a firearm in DC (and LA, NYC, Chicago, etc.). Yet all those cities have the highest murder rates and firearm homicides in the nation. Do you want to explain how banning those weapons made it harder for firearm deaths to occur?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but I can give statistics on the slowdown of the increase in gun crime in the UK <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm#map' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/...3195908.stm#map</a> following the complete ban.
Its Friday, 5pm now, so I bid you adieu. See you on Monday.
I managed to reverse it and I apologise. Pray continue your snobbery. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The end result of living is death. Ban life?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We can't have a real discussion if you're going to be flippant. As I said many times throughout this discussion, it shortens life. Based on your argument, if we're all going to die anyway, why ban guns?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The end result of pointing a loaded gun at someone and pulling the trigger is ALWAYS harm. Democracy doesn't need a loaded weapon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By saying ALWAYS, you just invalidated your argument. If you add 'and the bullet hits the person', then you are correct. You are saying that 'well, some people don't die from second hand smoke and drunk driving, so it's ok'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortunately there is REALLY little on this online. To paraphrase the few sources there are. Gun ownership was illegal. Every household had guns. *shrug*<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I found the same quotes and I agree 100%. The problem is that when you're run by a dictatorship, most of the reliable history and information is missing, disputable, faked, etc. It will be years before we know. HOWEVER, I ask you to name any dictatorships that <i>are</i> well documented where citizens were allowed to remain armed. Nazi Germany - no. Soviet Russia - no. Communist China - no. The list goes on, so we can extrapolate that Saddam's regime was likely no different.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, but I can give statistics on the slowdown of the increase in gun crime in the UK <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/...3195908.stm#map' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/...3195908.stm#map</a> following the complete ban.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes... so you are telling me that gun crime is on the rise in a country where guns have been illegal for a decade (the Dunblane Massacre being the catalyst of the 'complete' ban that you seem to be talking about), but that it's only a slow rise this year??? Dude, you have given me a better argument to help my cause than I ever would have found. Hilarious! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> Thanks!
People always seem to add their last word and bid adieu around here when they have no answer to my points. Dread does it all the time too. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->