lol @ CMEast's bad logic Saying that criminals will get "bigger and better" weapons if everybody is armed is about as logical as the guy in this thread trying to make a serious case about using a sword for self defense. It's a fact that violent crime rates are lowest in states with the most liberal (liberal in the real sense of the word) CCW laws. You can continue to believe that you live in your utopia, but if some **** high on PCP (hint: when you're on PCP, you don't feel pain, ie, pepper spray ain't gunna work) breaks into my house and tries to kill me to buy another vial of his illegal substance, he's going to get 911 alright, 911 m/s!
CMEast, anyone willing to kill some kids playing a football game or a family when he breaks in to their house would be be killing them with or without knowing if they're armed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Giving everyone weapons means giving the criminals BIGGER weapons. It almost forces them to use them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are wrong. Criminals are not filthy rich. Allowing everyone to buy guns means only the richer criminals will have bigger guns. And these rich criminals already have the bigger guns, because they have to fight off other criminals, promoting the need for bigger guns. And since by definition, criminals do not obey laws - they will have the big guns regardless if it is legal or not.
To those who say weapons are not nessesary; go out and live a bit. Preferably with a rougher crowd, and see what it is really like.
Is it even logical to say that "criminals will get 'bigger' weapons" if everybody concealed carries? A .38 is just as easily deadly as an AR15. More importantly, CCW laws are one hell of a deterrent. Johnny Punkass doesn't know whether or not you have a weapon on you.
I can't comprehend how you do not think it would help for people to prepare to defend themselves. There are countless examples of how you are wrong, but I just watched a true story yesterday (rescue 911), where a burglar entered a house, and held up the father with a gun for his wallet and any other goodies in the house.
Little sarah called 911 and police showed up outside. But they couldn't enter, knowing the situation. The burglar said he would kill the father if they entered. (Like you say, police aren't very good at prevention beyond deterrence). But jimmy (15 yr old boy) knew where his father's gun was, went and got it, and then shot the burglar to death (it was dark in the house because the burglar had turned off the lights, and he was able to sneak up on him).
As far as the big-guns beget bigger-guns argument... I agree with others who have already posted why you're wrong.
I think the problem I have with CMEast is that he gives too much credit to criminals and too little credit to common people. Paranoid that "anyone", at any time, could kill you... Well, right now, anyone, at any time, could randomly punch you in the face. But they don't. Because they don't have any reason to. Freedom is based on the assumption that all people are reasonable. As soon as you start creating policies based on a notion that people are helpless cattle, you destroy freedom. You make people helpless, whether or not they were originally, and take power away from those who wouldn't misuse it anyway. Police state? (Also known as criminal state) No thanks. When every person has the power of self defense, everyone is less likely to use it. Give the powa to the people.
Will it escalate certain situations? Sure. But you know what? I don't care. People need to fight the ****-ers.
Weapons, weapons for all. Women too. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-NGE+Jul 21 2005, 01:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jul 21 2005, 01:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To those who say weapons are not nessesary; go out and live a bit. Preferably with a rougher crowd, and see what it is really like. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So what kind of crowd have you lived with NGE? How many fights have you been in? How many people have you put in hospital? How many weapons have been waved in your face? Perhaps you've spent time on the streets after losing everything you've owned huh? Or maybe lived in hostels and drug dens etc?
It isn't paranoia Juice, it's fact. I don't think that everyone is out to get me but I do know that everyone human is capable of killing. I'd prefer to walk down a street with unarmed people than armed people.
People arn't 'helpless cattle'. They are dumb and irresponsible. I can think of very few people I'd trust to back me up in an aggressive situation and none of those should ever hold a weapon, that includes those with weapons training. I happen to be the most cold blooded and rational person I know and I wouldn't dare use a weapon because it would only make things worse.
... Sigh, this is as bad as the idea that if we all have nukes then no country will ever get nuked. I'd far prefer it if there were no nukes and yes, that includes you America with its 'everyone stop stockpiling weapons' while it sits on one of the biggest collections going (if not the biggest, I try not to look at the stats because they are so depressing)./
You are right, freedom is based on the idea that everyone is reasonable <i>despite</i> all of of the evidence to the contrary. I don't see how you guys can argue this really, I just can't see it. If there were less guns there would be less gun crime. People will always hurt people, lets not give them efficient ways of doing it.
I guarentee that for every story you hear about some brave 15yr old shooting an intruder and saving his family there are another dozen accounts of that kid dying followed by the rest of his family. Except those stories aren't nice to hear about whereas 'Child Hero Saves Family!' gets plastered all over the news.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-NGE+Jul 21 2005, 01:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jul 21 2005, 01:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To those who say weapons are not nessesary; go out and live a bit. Preferably with a rougher crowd, and see what it is really like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So what kind of crowd have you lived with NGE? How many fights have you been in? How many people have you put in hospital? How many weapons have been waved in your face? Perhaps you've spent time on the streets after losing everything you've owned huh? Or maybe lived in hostels and drug dens etc?
It isn't paranoia Juice, it's fact. I don't think that everyone is out to get me but I do know that everyone human is capable of killing. I'd prefer to walk down a street with unarmed people than armed people.
People arn't 'helpless cattle'. They are dumb and irresponsible. I can think of very few people I'd trust to back me up in an aggressive situation and none of those should ever hold a weapon, that includes those with weapons training. I happen to be the most cold blooded and rational person I know and I wouldn't dare use a weapon because it would only make things worse.
... Sigh, this is as bad as the idea that if we all have nukes then no country will ever get nuked. I'd far prefer it if there were no nukes and yes, that includes you America with its 'everyone stop stockpiling weapons' while it sits on one of the biggest collections going (if not the biggest, I try not to look at the stats because they are so depressing)./
You are right, freedom is based on the idea that everyone is reasonable <i>despite</i> all of of the evidence to the contrary. I don't see how you guys can argue this really, I just can't see it. If there were less guns there would be less gun crime. People will always hurt people, lets not give them efficient ways of doing it.
I guarentee that for every story you hear about some brave 15yr old shooting an intruder and saving his family there are another dozen accounts of that kid dying followed by the rest of his family. Except those stories aren't nice to hear about whereas 'Child Hero Saves Family!' gets plastered all over the news. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> People will always try to kill other people, no matter what the means. Even if you were to somehow get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US (no), then people would resort to knives, baseball bats, homemade explosives, etc. As for your last paragraph, WTH? That makes no sense. You're trying to argue for the removal of weapons because of the fact that they're not always available to people who need them? What?
What! Jmms... what are you on about. You seem to really be in to the whole 'guns are good' thing, so much so that when I write that the kid will die WITH the gun or perhaps even <b>because</b> of the gun you can't actually read it that way.
What, so every 15yr old is a crack shot with a weapon? Even if they are, you really think he will always burst in, kill the bad guy, save the princess (whatever)? No, the chances are no matter how much training he has, any 15 yr old kid is gonna get someone killed when trying to sneak up on the guy who's got a bunch of lives in his hands and I guarentee 9 times out of 10 it won't be the bad guy.
Yes, you are right. People will always try and kill people. Thats what I've been saying. So you are arguing that if we give people weapons that allow them to do it more efficiently that it will happen less... ? How does that happen.
If I knew the biggest weapon available to someone was a baseball bat then I'd be much happier. Yes people can build their own but they will never beat the toys that are floating about currently, all because 'guns are cool' and every likes to feel big and powerful while waving a weapon around.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 02:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What! Jmms... what are you on about. You seem to really be in to the whole 'guns are good' thing, so much so that when I write that the kid will die WITH the gun or perhaps even <b>because</b> of the gun you can't actually read it that way.
What, so every 15yr old is a crack shot with a weapon? Even if they are, you really think he will always burst in, kill the bad guy, save the princess (whatever)? No, the chances are no matter how much training he has, any 15 yr old kid is gonna get someone killed when trying to sneak up on the guy who's got a bunch of lives in his hands and I guarentee 9 times out of 10 it won't be the bad guy.
Yes, you are right. People will always try and kill people. Thats what I've been saying. So you are arguing that if we give people weapons that allow them to do it more efficiently that it will happen less... ? How does that happen.
If I knew the biggest weapon available to someone was a baseball bat then I'd be much happier. Yes people can build their own but they will never beat the toys that are floating about currently, all because 'guns are cool' and every likes to feel big and powerful while waving a weapon around. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It happens because it gives the good guys a chance to fight off the bad guys. Your whole argument stems around the fact that apparently people in general are too incompetent to have or use firearms. Have you ever shot a gun before? If you have, then you'd know that it's not exactly hard to hit a target at 7 yards. Firearms are used more than 2 million times a year to defend lives. Explain to me why states with CCW laws have less violent crime than those who don't? And why Washington, D.C., with it's strict anti-handgun laws, has some of the highest violent crime rates in the US? And why is it that you fail to grasp the concept that criminals break the law? Drugs are illegal, yet I can walk 5 minutes from my house and buy a dime bag. Laws are only here for punishment, not prevention. A victim with a gun in hand is hundreds of times more likely to survive the situation as opposed to a phone in hand, trying to dial 911. Sounds to me like you get all your information from hollywood movies, because I hear stories all the time about teenagers firing upon intruders in their home and stopping a rape/murder/etc.
erm... I don't know many movies where the 'hero' fails and kills his family.
I wonder how, in many of those situations where a gun 'saved a life' ... how many times do you reckon the lives were only in danger because a gun was there in the first place.
I cannot believe that you can save lives with a device that is designed soley for taking them. If the vast majority of people didn't have weapons and only the army/police etc did then there would be far less danger for the average person. Ok so you might get mugged by some guy with a knife... so what, in your world you'd be held up at gunpoint.
Ok, so when that happens how are you gonna save yourself with the gun thats safely in its holster? Or do you carry it around openly in your hand? Either way, you've got to defend yourself with it before he robs you. Obviously common sense says that you do what he says... except now what, is he gonna leave you standing there with a gun? No, he'll take it from you or, of course, kill you.
Oh but of course, you'd never be taken by surprise like that. No, you and every innocent out there will be scanning the area around looking for villains, doing commando rolls across the road and keeping your back to the wall to reduce the chances of ambush...
I'm trying to tell you all that a world where everyone has to 'defend' themselves with weapons is a world where you will always have to be on defense and doing anything else will kill you.
Yes, laws don't prevent, the only thing... hold on, again, the <b><i>ONLY</i></b> thing that prevents a crime is the general idea that everyone has 'right' and 'wrong' drummed in to them since birth. Taking the law in to your own hands blurs those lines.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 01:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 01:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ... Sigh, this is as bad as the idea that if we all have nukes then no country will ever get nuked. I'd far prefer it if there were no nukes and yes, that includes you America with its 'everyone stop stockpiling weapons' while it sits on one of the biggest collections going (if not the biggest, I try not to look at the stats because they are so depressing)./ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Apparently no one has ever explained this particular gem of logic to you then. Allow me to enlighten you.
Ideal solution: No one has nukes, and therefore, no one can nuke anyone else. Chance of occuring: Precisely 0%. Now that they have been invented, <i>SOMEONE</i> will always have a nuke, even if they have to build it themselves.
Consequence of failed attempt to remove nukes from all: only a select few will have nukes, and they can then use those nuclear weapons freely, without fear of retaliation, since their victims will be unable to fight back. Nuclear warfare becomes increasingly likely.
Second best solution: Let <i>lots</i> of people have nukes. Now, they <i>could</i> use their nuclear weapons on others, but if they possess any semblance of rationality, they will never use their nukes because of the high risk of nuclear retaliation. International consensus is then needed only to disarm those who <i>don't</i> have any rationality, and might be willing to start a nuclear war even knowing the devastating consequences for both sides.
In fact, the same logic applies quite nicely to guns. Now that they have been invented, its too late to disarm everyone, and attempting to will only ensure that those who manage to acquire guns anyway will be unstoppable.
Actually, the logic doesn't make sense whatsoever.
Why does someone <i>have</i> to have a nuke. Of course some countries will want to but why can't everyone agree to just never have them with the UN policing it. Its not too difficult to work out who is building them and who isn't as there are signs everywhere (especially if you are bush).
Can you make a gun? Can the vast majority? And when I say gun I mean can you make something that is more likely to kill the other person and not you? No. So if guns weren't doled out for everyone then yes, maybe the odd person might get one but they won't nuke the country or anything and can be dealt with easily. Meanwhile it stops all of the other gun crimes from taking place. Far better.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> erm... I don't know many movies where the 'hero' fails and kills his family.
I wonder how, in many of those situations where a gun 'saved a life' ... how many times do you reckon the lives were only in danger because a gun was there in the first place.
I cannot believe that you can save lives with a device that is designed soley for taking them. If the vast majority of people didn't have weapons and only the army/police etc did then there would be far less danger for the average person. Ok so you might get mugged by some guy with a knife... so what, in your world you'd be held up at gunpoint.
Ok, so when that happens how are you gonna save yourself with the gun thats safely in its holster? Or do you carry it around openly in your hand? Either way, you've got to defend yourself with it before he robs you. Obviously common sense says that you do what he says... except now what, is he gonna leave you standing there with a gun? No, he'll take it from you or, of course, kill you.
Oh but of course, you'd never be taken by surprise like that. No, you and every innocent out there will be scanning the area around looking for villains, doing commando rolls across the road and keeping your back to the wall to reduce the chances of ambush...
I'm trying to tell you all that a world where everyone has to 'defend' themselves with weapons is a world where you will always have to be on defense and doing anything else will kill you.
Yes, laws don't prevent, the only thing... hold on, again, the <b><i>ONLY</i></b> thing that prevents a crime is the general idea that everyone has 'right' and 'wrong' drummed in to them since birth. Taking the law in to your own hands blurs those lines. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, I fail to see how "lives are in danger because a gun was there in the first place". That statement makes absolutely no sense. Second of all, every smart concealed carrier knows that if someone robs them, then you should just hand over your wallet. There's no point in risking your life by clearing your holster if it's just some homeless punk wanting your money. However, if this person shows intent to harm or kill you or others, you are obligated to draw. Almost all of the time when a gun is drawn in self-defense a shot is never fired, that's how good of a <i>deterrent</i> it is. And please, I'd rather die trying to save my life than die a defenseless sheep. Your "take the weapons away from everybody and we will be safe" logic is terrible and has just been disproven by Cxwf. I've got a hint for you: people die from stabbings, arson, bombs, and brute force too! Better outlaw those darn knives, oh wait- that's Britain, and that's not surprising, because the parliament over there is full of flipping dumbasses. You can continue to remain a sheep. I however, will not err on the side of the media, as I refuse to become a statistic.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, the logic doesn't make sense whatsoever.
Why does someone <i>have</i> to have a nuke. Of course some countries will want to but why can't everyone agree to just never have them with the UN policing it. Its not too difficult to work out who is building them and who isn't as there are signs everywhere (especially if you are bush).
Can you make a gun? Can the vast majority? And when I say gun I mean can you make something that is more likely to kill the other person and not you? No. So if guns weren't doled out for everyone then yes, maybe the odd person might get one but they won't nuke the country or anything and can be dealt with easily. Meanwhile it stops all of the other gun crimes from taking place. Far better. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you <i>have</i> to get those leather seats in your car? Speaking of manufacturing your own firearms, there are multiple websites out there dedicated to making your own firearms. Real firearms too, ie, machine and construct your own 1911 or AR15 receiver if you have access to a mill. Throw in a parts kit, and voila, instant gun! As for a rudimentary piece of **** firearm, you could easily assemble one with much less time involved. After all, all a gun is is a frame, action, and barrel.
PS: <a href='http://www.roughwheelers.com/montego/gun_cam.html' target='_blank'>http://www.roughwheelers.com/montego/gun_cam.html</a> PPS: You still haven't answered my question about why states with concealed carry laws have lower violent crime rates than states that don't.
I will answer all of these and any other 'points' that others have when I'm back from work (though I'll be out friday night so I may only have a short time).
Oh, thanks for the comment on our '****' parliment... did you vote for bush by any chance?
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 04:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 04:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, the logic doesn't make sense whatsoever.
Why does someone <i>have</i> to have a nuke. Of course some countries will want to but why can't everyone agree to just never have them with the UN policing it. Its not too difficult to work out who is building them and who isn't as there are signs everywhere (especially if you are bush). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And we all saw how well that worked out in Iraq, right? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You should also be aware that many of the steps involved in constructing nuclear weapons are nearly identical to processes used for peaceful nuclear energy. The administration necessary to ensure that a nation's nuclear program is entirely non-military in nature is crippling, and couldn't feasibly be run on a large scale in every nuclear-capable country in the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you make a gun? Can the vast majority? And when I say gun I mean can you make something that is more likely to kill the other person and not you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really have to. Unlike nukes, guns already exist by the <i>millions</i> all over the world. Obtaining a pre-existing gun, even if illegally, is <i>never</i> going to be a terribly hard task. And as Jmms pointed out, it is in fact possible to make your own guns. They may not be quite as efficient as factory-produced weapons, but they'll work.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 06:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 06:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I will answer all of these and any other 'points' that others have when I'm back from work (though I'll be out friday night so I may only have a short time).
Oh, thanks for the comment on our '****' parliment... did you vote for bush by any chance? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> better bush than kerry
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 21 2005, 03:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 21 2005, 03:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wonder how, in many of those situations where a gun 'saved a life' ... how many times do you reckon the lives were only in danger because a gun was there in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is not logic. This is irrational, emotional thinking. Can you actualy prove what you are saying?
If it were true, then perhaps guns would be bad. But in the real world this happen. You are making up stories to state why you think guns are bad.
This isn't a discussion. You offer no evidence other than your pacisfistic views. Not only that, you base your entire argument of why "guns are bad" off this one view I have quoted, which makes no sense.
"Pacifists are nothing more than useful idoits."
- Lenin
While we are at it, lets illegalize war. That will solve everything.
Say Congress passes a law BANNING firearms. Totaly. NONE.
Legitimate, law abiding citizens would turn them in, having to do so to remain legal.
Criminals would LAUGH, turn around, and start running amock cause NOBODY could defend themself. Would a CRIMINAL really listen to a new law? Especially one that NOT listening to would cause him to gain a significant advantage over his next victems?
This is exactly what I've been saying. The easiest way to solve a problem is to shoot it. Also spares you the painful effort of having to solve it rationally.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
edited July 2005
CMEast on your point about making firearms, perhaps you should go to google, and look up the word "Sten" or perhaps "PPS43" "MP40" "PPSh41" "M3 Greasegun", or heck, look up the "MG42" sometime, only complexity beyond the first 6 is the feed tray. Really simple, ingenious pieces of work....look like <censored> but you know what? They're not really difficult to make. At all. They were (Along with MOST small arms nowdays) DESIGNED to be easily produced in large numbers.
Ineffective? Take a look at europe about 400-500 years ago. Let's ask all the dead folks who were quite handily killed by these "Relatively Ineffective" arms and see if they agree with you. I'll bet you a whole dollar that they will laugh in your face...oh wait. Dead is dead, by hand, by blade, or by bullet. You cannot become "more dead" by being shot by a mall ninja in tactical pantyhose with a colt M4A1 with (insert long list of bolt on crapola) versus being stabbed in the neck with a metal pen. Sorry.
In many situations where a gun "saved a life" I figure lives were put in danger by the criminal creating the situation in the first place. But hey, bad me, going and blaming the MAN instead of the tool eh?
I also like how the idea that bad guys will carry a ...*whispered tone*...GUN!...while victimizing someone is invalid..........because the bad guys could ONLY be carrying a knife instead to do it!...Pardon me but this doesn't seem like a bloody improvement here. Just a change in scenery, kinda like the american government.
"Currently most of you walk around in crowd every day not even realising that every single person you walk past, every single one you see could at any moment kill you and those around them." Have you stopped to consider that some of us might be MORE aware of that fact than you are? And hence....have some situational awareness SOMETIMES? Maybe carry a OC + knife/pistol along with that in case any of them makes the attempt?
And since we just blasted right onto the optimal world, In mine there would be no crime or government for that matter. Don't ask how it would work. Just a bunch of firing ranges, steak joints and very attractive amorous people as far as the eye can see. Nudists, as well.
Meh, I've got a feeling that preaching pacifism to those that make a religion out of weapons is a waste of time.
If you look online you'll find various stats, most of which are inconclusive as to wether gun control helps. However, I know that I've been attacked by people with knives before and survived. If they had a gun I'd be dead by now.
I'm also quite amazed at some of the arguments like "but if we banned guns there would still be loads lying around"... so what, that is because they weren't banned soon enough. If guns were banned today would you be defenseless? No, because the police could go in and take the guns, it would be against the law to have them and so you'd be protected from them.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+Jul 22 2005, 03:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ Jul 22 2005, 03:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Meh, I've got a feeling that preaching pacifism to those that make a religion out of weapons is a waste of time.
If you look online you'll find various stats, most of which are inconclusive as to wether gun control helps. However, I know that I've been attacked by people with knives before and survived. If they had a gun I'd be dead by now.
I'm also quite amazed at some of the arguments like "but if we banned guns there would still be loads lying around"... so what, that is because they weren't banned soon enough. If guns were banned today would you be defenseless? No, because the police could go in and take the guns, it would be against the law to have them and so you'd be protected from them.
Weapons are stupid. End of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> HAHAHAHAHA So, the police will disarm the legal gunowners, and you'll be safe because no one will <b>legally</b> have guns, just the criminals? Holy **** on a stick your logic scares me. Weapons aren't stupid; sheeple are.
<!--QuoteBegin-JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven+Jul 22 2005, 09:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (JmmsbndZeroZeroSeven @ Jul 22 2005, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> HAHAHAHAHA So, the police will disarm the legal gunowners, and you'll be safe because no one will <b>legally</b> have guns, just the criminals? Holy **** on a stick your logic scares me. Weapons aren't stupid; sheeple are. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What... no. The legal people don't need to be disarmed, those that refuse to give up their weapons (criminals) do. You are either a) trying to twist my words in order to wind me up in which case you are a troll or b) you honestly intrepret every phrase you say as "guns are good, pacifism bad" in which case there is no use in talking to you.
How did you manage to read that one wrong, you seem to presume that criminals are somehow untouchable and will be running around with guns while the police look on helpless. Not every country is like your own where guns are easy to get hold of you know, in England the closest people get to seeing a gun usually is a paintball or BB gun. Yes, that includes the criminals too. So you get the odd case of gun crime (something that is sadly rising too) but outside of cities it's still pretty rare.
I'm still amazed by the paradox that is 'the more weapons there are in the world, the safer I am'. I'm a big believer in getting rid of as many as possible, leaving the last few in the hands of police to protect us against those that have them.
Sometimes I really wish this board wasn't so over run with americans :/ I guess you can't help it as the idea of owning a weapon is in your constitution, its programmed in to your brain that guns are good and there is very little that can be done when it's so ingrained that it becomes part of you.
If I never see a gun I'll be happy. FPS's are games, real life is not.
Do you think the columbine massacre would have happened if they weren't brought up in a 'gun culture'?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you seem to presume that criminals are somehow untouchable and will be running around with guns while the police look on helpless<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It kind of seems that way now, if we have to resort to banning guns alltogether.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sometimes I really wish this board wasn't so over run with americans :/ I guess you can't help it as the idea of owning a weapon is in your constitution, its programmed in to your brain that guns are good and there is very little that can be done when it's so ingrained that it becomes part of you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sometimes I wish this board wasn't so over run with gamers <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> If you knew anything about America, you'd see that about half, or over half of us are just as anti-gun as you.
As somebody who is about to get his concealed carry permit, and someone who lives here, I know full well how gun-phobic people here can be.
OK, I'd suggest a few people, not naming names, CM, Jmms, and lol, polish their understanding of the rules in here. If all you have to offer are sarcastic one-liners, try a local bar.
Anyway, on topic, I think it might help both sides to abandon their partisan positions:
Guns are quite obviously of a significant lethal potential. This is what the whole logic of the second Amendment centers around - it essentially implies that these "arms" can empower a people far enough to stand up to whatever comes their way. But, in the logical conclusion, this also means that guns are really damn dangerous. Yes, we can go into discussions as to the up- and downsides of knifes, batons, and hands, but you'll have to admit that firearms have proven to be more effective across the board.
So, leaving the overarching political potentials out for a second, it seems to make sense to restrict gun ownership, by the simple equation that, the less guns in a population, the less danger for the individual. This equation has a whole lot going for itself: In real world terms, a big amount of petty criminals only employ guns because they can steal them from careless owners, for example. Still, there is a basic argument against it, too: Logistics. Assuming for a second that all non-criminals agreed with a weapon ban, it'd still take very long to disarm whole countries, and the weapons in criminal circulation alone would last for indeterminable lengths even then. Europe was pretty 'fortunate' in that regard: WW2 just offered the perfect break point during which the field could be levelled. Sadly, you can just not have bloody wars rage over every country that wants to get rid of gun abuse, though.
The sensible compromise is, to me, certification. Ensure that only people who can act and handle their weapons responsibly, who lock them away when they don't use them and are unlikely to drop an innocent guy next door while cleaning the weapon, can get weapons, and ensure that they stay at that level. It's the best thing one can hope for, really.
Code9Bored and running out of ammunition.Join Date: 2003-11-29Member: 23740Members
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How did you manage to read that one wrong, you seem to presume that criminals are somehow untouchable and will be running around with guns while the police look on helpless<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We presume that criminals break laws. Including laws against the possession of arms. In other words: They get em anyway. The peopl who break no laws don't, as you said, need to be disarmed. There's no reason to as they've broken no laws. The question is, how do you go about that? Prohibit the ownership of guns by felons? Already in place in the states, as you can guess, felons tend to ignore it. Also goes for metal/body armor. They tend to ignore that as well. Ban EVERYONE from possessing X? People who by definition follow the law disarm. The rest don't - they just get a couple years added to their sentance IF CAUGHT.
Frankly I don't know how you can not see having a gun and wanting to avoid a fight are not mutually exclusive. Your opinion SEEMS to be that you pick up a gun and become John Rambo, gunning down the detergent aisle in the local supermarket. Wanting to fight, and preparing for a fight, are two different animals.
Also, i'd like to know, and i've asked this before in other threads and no one seemed able to answer the question: WHAT exactly makes a policeman "more trustworthy" than anyone else as far as arms are concerned? Does academy training and a yearly qualification of about 60 rounds give them some jedi like mastery over firearms and their own tempers that mere mortals like we have on this forum cannot hope to obtain? Does a government issued badge wipe them clean of all atitude/anger problems? It has been said in this thread that guns can not defend life, only take it, that they only escalate the situation, so I ask another question: Why do we give them to the police even? Are they protectors, or are they warriors? Are they there to save lives, or are they there to deliver violence and vengeance?
I ask the question rhetorically. I think any sane person wants to say that the police are protectors. But then that is at odds with statements that have been made in this thread.
Do I think columbine would've still happened with a total gun ban? Since the original plan was to set up bombs and blow the heck out of the place, Yes.
You're also not quite right on that.... It's not: "'the more weapons there are in the world, the safer I am'" its "The more weapons *I* Have the safer I am." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Joking aside, I'm no more afraid of the average armed policeman than the average armed citizen. Most are good people. Some are idiots. Luckily the good folks usually outnumber the latter in both groups. If they choose to carry a weapon, do so with my blessing. But woe be unto thee if you make a bad judgement call. I agree with nem to a point, education is key. Wether it should be mandatory or not, I will not say one way or the other. The rest of the post should be read carefully.
Comments
Saying that criminals will get "bigger and better" weapons if everybody is armed is about as logical as the guy in this thread trying to make a serious case about using a sword for self defense. It's a fact that violent crime rates are lowest in states with the most liberal (liberal in the real sense of the word) CCW laws. You can continue to believe that you live in your utopia, but if some **** high on PCP (hint: when you're on PCP, you don't feel pain, ie, pepper spray ain't gunna work) breaks into my house and tries to kill me to buy another vial of his illegal substance, he's going to get 911 alright, 911 m/s!
You are wrong. Criminals are not filthy rich. Allowing everyone to buy guns means only the richer criminals will have bigger guns. And these rich criminals already have the bigger guns, because they have to fight off other criminals, promoting the need for bigger guns. And since by definition, criminals do not obey laws - they will have the big guns regardless if it is legal or not.
To those who say weapons are not nessesary; go out and live a bit. Preferably with a rougher crowd, and see what it is really like.
I can't comprehend how you do not think it would help for people to prepare to defend themselves. There are countless examples of how you are wrong, but I just watched a true story yesterday (rescue 911), where a burglar entered a house, and held up the father with a gun for his wallet and any other goodies in the house.
Little sarah called 911 and police showed up outside. But they couldn't enter, knowing the situation. The burglar said he would kill the father if they entered. (Like you say, police aren't very good at prevention beyond deterrence). But jimmy (15 yr old boy) knew where his father's gun was, went and got it, and then shot the burglar to death (it was dark in the house because the burglar had turned off the lights, and he was able to sneak up on him).
As far as the big-guns beget bigger-guns argument... I agree with others who have already posted why you're wrong.
I think the problem I have with CMEast is that he gives too much credit to criminals and too little credit to common people. Paranoid that "anyone", at any time, could kill you... Well, right now, anyone, at any time, could randomly punch you in the face. But they don't. Because they don't have any reason to. Freedom is based on the assumption that all people are reasonable. As soon as you start creating policies based on a notion that people are helpless cattle, you destroy freedom. You make people helpless, whether or not they were originally, and take power away from those who wouldn't misuse it anyway. Police state? (Also known as criminal state) No thanks. When every person has the power of self defense, everyone is less likely to use it. Give the powa to the people.
Will it escalate certain situations? Sure. But you know what? I don't care. People need to fight the ****-ers.
Weapons, weapons for all. Women too. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So what kind of crowd have you lived with NGE? How many fights have you been in? How many people have you put in hospital? How many weapons have been waved in your face? Perhaps you've spent time on the streets after losing everything you've owned huh? Or maybe lived in hostels and drug dens etc?
It isn't paranoia Juice, it's fact. I don't think that everyone is out to get me but I do know that everyone human is capable of killing. I'd prefer to walk down a street with unarmed people than armed people.
People arn't 'helpless cattle'. They are dumb and irresponsible. I can think of very few people I'd trust to back me up in an aggressive situation and none of those should ever hold a weapon, that includes those with weapons training. I happen to be the most cold blooded and rational person I know and I wouldn't dare use a weapon because it would only make things worse.
... Sigh, this is as bad as the idea that if we all have nukes then no country will ever get nuked. I'd far prefer it if there were no nukes and yes, that includes you America with its 'everyone stop stockpiling weapons' while it sits on one of the biggest collections going (if not the biggest, I try not to look at the stats because they are so depressing)./
You are right, freedom is based on the idea that everyone is reasonable <i>despite</i> all of of the evidence to the contrary. I don't see how you guys can argue this really, I just can't see it. If there were less guns there would be less gun crime. People will always hurt people, lets not give them efficient ways of doing it.
I guarentee that for every story you hear about some brave 15yr old shooting an intruder and saving his family there are another dozen accounts of that kid dying followed by the rest of his family. Except those stories aren't nice to hear about whereas 'Child Hero Saves Family!' gets plastered all over the news.
So what kind of crowd have you lived with NGE? How many fights have you been in? How many people have you put in hospital? How many weapons have been waved in your face? Perhaps you've spent time on the streets after losing everything you've owned huh? Or maybe lived in hostels and drug dens etc?
It isn't paranoia Juice, it's fact. I don't think that everyone is out to get me but I do know that everyone human is capable of killing. I'd prefer to walk down a street with unarmed people than armed people.
People arn't 'helpless cattle'. They are dumb and irresponsible. I can think of very few people I'd trust to back me up in an aggressive situation and none of those should ever hold a weapon, that includes those with weapons training. I happen to be the most cold blooded and rational person I know and I wouldn't dare use a weapon because it would only make things worse.
... Sigh, this is as bad as the idea that if we all have nukes then no country will ever get nuked. I'd far prefer it if there were no nukes and yes, that includes you America with its 'everyone stop stockpiling weapons' while it sits on one of the biggest collections going (if not the biggest, I try not to look at the stats because they are so depressing)./
You are right, freedom is based on the idea that everyone is reasonable <i>despite</i> all of of the evidence to the contrary. I don't see how you guys can argue this really, I just can't see it. If there were less guns there would be less gun crime. People will always hurt people, lets not give them efficient ways of doing it.
I guarentee that for every story you hear about some brave 15yr old shooting an intruder and saving his family there are another dozen accounts of that kid dying followed by the rest of his family. Except those stories aren't nice to hear about whereas 'Child Hero Saves Family!' gets plastered all over the news. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
People will always try to kill other people, no matter what the means. Even if you were to somehow get rid of the hundreds of millions of guns in the US (no), then people would resort to knives, baseball bats, homemade explosives, etc. As for your last paragraph, WTH? That makes no sense. You're trying to argue for the removal of weapons because of the fact that they're not always available to people who need them? What?
What, so every 15yr old is a crack shot with a weapon? Even if they are, you really think he will always burst in, kill the bad guy, save the princess (whatever)? No, the chances are no matter how much training he has, any 15 yr old kid is gonna get someone killed when trying to sneak up on the guy who's got a bunch of lives in his hands and I guarentee 9 times out of 10 it won't be the bad guy.
Yes, you are right. People will always try and kill people. Thats what I've been saying. So you are arguing that if we give people weapons that allow them to do it more efficiently that it will happen less... ? How does that happen.
If I knew the biggest weapon available to someone was a baseball bat then I'd be much happier. Yes people can build their own but they will never beat the toys that are floating about currently, all because 'guns are cool' and every likes to feel big and powerful while waving a weapon around.
What, so every 15yr old is a crack shot with a weapon? Even if they are, you really think he will always burst in, kill the bad guy, save the princess (whatever)? No, the chances are no matter how much training he has, any 15 yr old kid is gonna get someone killed when trying to sneak up on the guy who's got a bunch of lives in his hands and I guarentee 9 times out of 10 it won't be the bad guy.
Yes, you are right. People will always try and kill people. Thats what I've been saying. So you are arguing that if we give people weapons that allow them to do it more efficiently that it will happen less... ? How does that happen.
If I knew the biggest weapon available to someone was a baseball bat then I'd be much happier. Yes people can build their own but they will never beat the toys that are floating about currently, all because 'guns are cool' and every likes to feel big and powerful while waving a weapon around. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It happens because it gives the good guys a chance to fight off the bad guys. Your whole argument stems around the fact that apparently people in general are too incompetent to have or use firearms. Have you ever shot a gun before? If you have, then you'd know that it's not exactly hard to hit a target at 7 yards. Firearms are used more than 2 million times a year to defend lives. Explain to me why states with CCW laws have less violent crime than those who don't? And why Washington, D.C., with it's strict anti-handgun laws, has some of the highest violent crime rates in the US? And why is it that you fail to grasp the concept that criminals break the law? Drugs are illegal, yet I can walk 5 minutes from my house and buy a dime bag. Laws are only here for punishment, not prevention. A victim with a gun in hand is hundreds of times more likely to survive the situation as opposed to a phone in hand, trying to dial 911. Sounds to me like you get all your information from hollywood movies, because I hear stories all the time about teenagers firing upon intruders in their home and stopping a rape/murder/etc.
I wonder how, in many of those situations where a gun 'saved a life' ... how many times do you reckon the lives were only in danger because a gun was there in the first place.
I cannot believe that you can save lives with a device that is designed soley for taking them. If the vast majority of people didn't have weapons and only the army/police etc did then there would be far less danger for the average person. Ok so you might get mugged by some guy with a knife... so what, in your world you'd be held up at gunpoint.
Ok, so when that happens how are you gonna save yourself with the gun thats safely in its holster? Or do you carry it around openly in your hand? Either way, you've got to defend yourself with it before he robs you. Obviously common sense says that you do what he says... except now what, is he gonna leave you standing there with a gun? No, he'll take it from you or, of course, kill you.
Oh but of course, you'd never be taken by surprise like that. No, you and every innocent out there will be scanning the area around looking for villains, doing commando rolls across the road and keeping your back to the wall to reduce the chances of ambush...
I'm trying to tell you all that a world where everyone has to 'defend' themselves with weapons is a world where you will always have to be on defense and doing anything else will kill you.
Yes, laws don't prevent, the only thing... hold on, again, the <b><i>ONLY</i></b> thing that prevents a crime is the general idea that everyone has 'right' and 'wrong' drummed in to them since birth. Taking the law in to your own hands blurs those lines.
Apparently no one has ever explained this particular gem of logic to you then. Allow me to enlighten you.
Ideal solution: No one has nukes, and therefore, no one can nuke anyone else.
Chance of occuring: Precisely 0%. Now that they have been invented, <i>SOMEONE</i> will always have a nuke, even if they have to build it themselves.
Consequence of failed attempt to remove nukes from all: only a select few will have nukes, and they can then use those nuclear weapons freely, without fear of retaliation, since their victims will be unable to fight back. Nuclear warfare becomes increasingly likely.
Second best solution: Let <i>lots</i> of people have nukes. Now, they <i>could</i> use their nuclear weapons on others, but if they possess any semblance of rationality, they will never use their nukes because of the high risk of nuclear retaliation. International consensus is then needed only to disarm those who <i>don't</i> have any rationality, and might be willing to start a nuclear war even knowing the devastating consequences for both sides.
In fact, the same logic applies quite nicely to guns. Now that they have been invented, its too late to disarm everyone, and attempting to will only ensure that those who manage to acquire guns anyway will be unstoppable.
Why does someone <i>have</i> to have a nuke. Of course some countries will want to but why can't everyone agree to just never have them with the UN policing it. Its not too difficult to work out who is building them and who isn't as there are signs everywhere (especially if you are bush).
Can you make a gun? Can the vast majority? And when I say gun I mean can you make something that is more likely to kill the other person and not you? No. So if guns weren't doled out for everyone then yes, maybe the odd person might get one but they won't nuke the country or anything and can be dealt with easily. Meanwhile it stops all of the other gun crimes from taking place. Far better.
I wonder how, in many of those situations where a gun 'saved a life' ... how many times do you reckon the lives were only in danger because a gun was there in the first place.
I cannot believe that you can save lives with a device that is designed soley for taking them. If the vast majority of people didn't have weapons and only the army/police etc did then there would be far less danger for the average person. Ok so you might get mugged by some guy with a knife... so what, in your world you'd be held up at gunpoint.
Ok, so when that happens how are you gonna save yourself with the gun thats safely in its holster? Or do you carry it around openly in your hand? Either way, you've got to defend yourself with it before he robs you. Obviously common sense says that you do what he says... except now what, is he gonna leave you standing there with a gun? No, he'll take it from you or, of course, kill you.
Oh but of course, you'd never be taken by surprise like that. No, you and every innocent out there will be scanning the area around looking for villains, doing commando rolls across the road and keeping your back to the wall to reduce the chances of ambush...
I'm trying to tell you all that a world where everyone has to 'defend' themselves with weapons is a world where you will always have to be on defense and doing anything else will kill you.
Yes, laws don't prevent, the only thing... hold on, again, the <b><i>ONLY</i></b> thing that prevents a crime is the general idea that everyone has 'right' and 'wrong' drummed in to them since birth. Taking the law in to your own hands blurs those lines. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You couldn't be more wrong. First of all, I fail to see how "lives are in danger because a gun was there in the first place". That statement makes absolutely no sense. Second of all, every smart concealed carrier knows that if someone robs them, then you should just hand over your wallet. There's no point in risking your life by clearing your holster if it's just some homeless punk wanting your money. However, if this person shows intent to harm or kill you or others, you are obligated to draw. Almost all of the time when a gun is drawn in self-defense a shot is never fired, that's how good of a <i>deterrent</i> it is. And please, I'd rather die trying to save my life than die a defenseless sheep. Your "take the weapons away from everybody and we will be safe" logic is terrible and has just been disproven by Cxwf. I've got a hint for you: people die from stabbings, arson, bombs, and brute force too! Better outlaw those darn knives, oh wait- that's Britain, and that's not surprising, because the parliament over there is full of flipping dumbasses. You can continue to remain a sheep. I however, will not err on the side of the media, as I refuse to become a statistic.
Why does someone <i>have</i> to have a nuke. Of course some countries will want to but why can't everyone agree to just never have them with the UN policing it. Its not too difficult to work out who is building them and who isn't as there are signs everywhere (especially if you are bush).
Can you make a gun? Can the vast majority? And when I say gun I mean can you make something that is more likely to kill the other person and not you? No. So if guns weren't doled out for everyone then yes, maybe the odd person might get one but they won't nuke the country or anything and can be dealt with easily. Meanwhile it stops all of the other gun crimes from taking place. Far better. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you <i>have</i> to get those leather seats in your car? Speaking of manufacturing your own firearms, there are multiple websites out there dedicated to making your own firearms. Real firearms too, ie, machine and construct your own 1911 or AR15 receiver if you have access to a mill. Throw in a parts kit, and voila, instant gun! As for a rudimentary piece of **** firearm, you could easily assemble one with much less time involved. After all, all a gun is is a frame, action, and barrel.
PS: <a href='http://www.roughwheelers.com/montego/gun_cam.html' target='_blank'>http://www.roughwheelers.com/montego/gun_cam.html</a>
PPS: You still haven't answered my question about why states with concealed carry laws have lower violent crime rates than states that don't.
Oh, thanks for the comment on our '****' parliment... did you vote for bush by any chance?
Why does someone <i>have</i> to have a nuke. Of course some countries will want to but why can't everyone agree to just never have them with the UN policing it. Its not too difficult to work out who is building them and who isn't as there are signs everywhere (especially if you are bush). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And we all saw how well that worked out in Iraq, right? <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You should also be aware that many of the steps involved in constructing nuclear weapons are nearly identical to processes used for peaceful nuclear energy. The administration necessary to ensure that a nation's nuclear program is entirely non-military in nature is crippling, and couldn't feasibly be run on a large scale in every nuclear-capable country in the world.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you make a gun? Can the vast majority? And when I say gun I mean can you make something that is more likely to kill the other person and not you?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really have to. Unlike nukes, guns already exist by the <i>millions</i> all over the world. Obtaining a pre-existing gun, even if illegally, is <i>never</i> going to be a terribly hard task. And as Jmms pointed out, it is in fact possible to make your own guns. They may not be quite as efficient as factory-produced weapons, but they'll work.
Oh, thanks for the comment on our '****' parliment... did you vote for bush by any chance? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
better bush than kerry
This is not logic. This is irrational, emotional thinking. Can you actualy prove what you are saying?
If it were true, then perhaps guns would be bad. But in the real world this happen. You are making up stories to state why you think guns are bad.
This isn't a discussion. You offer no evidence other than your pacisfistic views. Not only that, you base your entire argument of why "guns are bad" off this one view I have quoted, which makes no sense.
"Pacifists are nothing more than useful idoits."
- Lenin
While we are at it, lets illegalize war. That will solve everything.
Say Congress passes a law BANNING firearms. Totaly. NONE.
Legitimate, law abiding citizens would turn them in, having to do so to remain legal.
Criminals would LAUGH, turn around, and start running amock cause NOBODY could defend themself. Would a CRIMINAL really listen to a new law? Especially one that NOT listening to would cause him to gain a significant advantage over his next victems?
Ineffective? Take a look at europe about 400-500 years ago. Let's ask all the dead folks who were quite handily killed by these "Relatively Ineffective" arms and see if they agree with you. I'll bet you a whole dollar that they will laugh in your face...oh wait. Dead is dead, by hand, by blade, or by bullet. You cannot become "more dead" by being shot by a mall ninja in tactical pantyhose with a colt M4A1 with (insert long list of bolt on crapola) versus being stabbed in the neck with a metal pen. Sorry.
In many situations where a gun "saved a life" I figure lives were put in danger by the criminal creating the situation in the first place. But hey, bad me, going and blaming the MAN instead of the tool eh?
I also like how the idea that bad guys will carry a ...*whispered tone*...GUN!...while victimizing someone is invalid..........because the bad guys could ONLY be carrying a knife instead to do it!...Pardon me but this doesn't seem like a bloody improvement here. Just a change in scenery, kinda like the american government.
"Currently most of you walk around in crowd every day not even realising that every single person you walk past, every single one you see could at any moment kill you and those around them." Have you stopped to consider that some of us might be MORE aware of that fact than you are? And hence....have some situational awareness SOMETIMES? Maybe carry a OC + knife/pistol along with that in case any of them makes the attempt?
And since we just blasted right onto the optimal world, In mine there would be no crime or government for that matter. Don't ask how it would work. Just a bunch of firing ranges, steak joints and very attractive amorous people as far as the eye can see. Nudists, as well.
If you look online you'll find various stats, most of which are inconclusive as to wether gun control helps. However, I know that I've been attacked by people with knives before and survived. If they had a gun I'd be dead by now.
I'm also quite amazed at some of the arguments like "but if we banned guns there would still be loads lying around"... so what, that is because they weren't banned soon enough. If guns were banned today would you be defenseless? No, because the police could go in and take the guns, it would be against the law to have them and so you'd be protected from them.
Weapons are stupid. End of.
If you look online you'll find various stats, most of which are inconclusive as to wether gun control helps. However, I know that I've been attacked by people with knives before and survived. If they had a gun I'd be dead by now.
I'm also quite amazed at some of the arguments like "but if we banned guns there would still be loads lying around"... so what, that is because they weren't banned soon enough. If guns were banned today would you be defenseless? No, because the police could go in and take the guns, it would be against the law to have them and so you'd be protected from them.
Weapons are stupid. End of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
HAHAHAHAHA
So, the police will disarm the legal gunowners, and you'll be safe because no one will <b>legally</b> have guns, just the criminals? Holy **** on a stick your logic scares me. Weapons aren't stupid; sheeple are.
I loves my gun. Loves my gun. Without a gun, the communist nazi british will invade and make my country a colony.
So, the police will disarm the legal gunowners, and you'll be safe because no one will <b>legally</b> have guns, just the criminals? Holy **** on a stick your logic scares me. Weapons aren't stupid; sheeple are. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What... no. The legal people don't need to be disarmed, those that refuse to give up their weapons (criminals) do. You are either a) trying to twist my words in order to wind me up in which case you are a troll or b) you honestly intrepret every phrase you say as "guns are good, pacifism bad" in which case there is no use in talking to you.
How did you manage to read that one wrong, you seem to presume that criminals are somehow untouchable and will be running around with guns while the police look on helpless. Not every country is like your own where guns are easy to get hold of you know, in England the closest people get to seeing a gun usually is a paintball or BB gun. Yes, that includes the criminals too. So you get the odd case of gun crime (something that is sadly rising too) but outside of cities it's still pretty rare.
I'm still amazed by the paradox that is 'the more weapons there are in the world, the safer I am'. I'm a big believer in getting rid of as many as possible, leaving the last few in the hands of police to protect us against those that have them.
Sometimes I really wish this board wasn't so over run with americans :/ I guess you can't help it as the idea of owning a weapon is in your constitution, its programmed in to your brain that guns are good and there is very little that can be done when it's so ingrained that it becomes part of you.
If I never see a gun I'll be happy. FPS's are games, real life is not.
Do you think the columbine massacre would have happened if they weren't brought up in a 'gun culture'?
It kind of seems that way now, if we have to resort to banning guns alltogether.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sometimes I really wish this board wasn't so over run with americans :/ I guess you can't help it as the idea of owning a weapon is in your constitution, its programmed in to your brain that guns are good and there is very little that can be done when it's so ingrained that it becomes part of you.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sometimes I wish this board wasn't so over run with gamers <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If you knew anything about America, you'd see that about half, or over half of us are just as anti-gun as you.
As somebody who is about to get his concealed carry permit, and someone who lives here, I know full well how gun-phobic people here can be.
Anyway, on topic, I think it might help both sides to abandon their partisan positions:
Guns are quite obviously of a significant lethal potential. This is what the whole logic of the second Amendment centers around - it essentially implies that these "arms" can empower a people far enough to stand up to whatever comes their way. But, in the logical conclusion, this also means that guns are really damn dangerous. Yes, we can go into discussions as to the up- and downsides of knifes, batons, and hands, but you'll have to admit that firearms have proven to be more effective across the board.
So, leaving the overarching political potentials out for a second, it seems to make sense to restrict gun ownership, by the simple equation that, the less guns in a population, the less danger for the individual. This equation has a whole lot going for itself: In real world terms, a big amount of petty criminals only employ guns because they can steal them from careless owners, for example.
Still, there is a basic argument against it, too: Logistics. Assuming for a second that all non-criminals agreed with a weapon ban, it'd still take very long to disarm whole countries, and the weapons in criminal circulation alone would last for indeterminable lengths even then. Europe was pretty 'fortunate' in that regard: WW2 just offered the perfect break point during which the field could be levelled. Sadly, you can just not have bloody wars rage over every country that wants to get rid of gun abuse, though.
The sensible compromise is, to me, certification. Ensure that only people who can act and handle their weapons responsibly, who lock them away when they don't use them and are unlikely to drop an innocent guy next door while cleaning the weapon, can get weapons, and ensure that they stay at that level. It's the best thing one can hope for, really.
We presume that criminals break laws. Including laws against the possession of arms. In other words: They get em anyway. The peopl who break no laws don't, as you said, need to be disarmed. There's no reason to as they've broken no laws. The question is, how do you go about that? Prohibit the ownership of guns by felons? Already in place in the states, as you can guess, felons tend to ignore it. Also goes for metal/body armor. They tend to ignore that as well. Ban EVERYONE from possessing X? People who by definition follow the law disarm. The rest don't - they just get a couple years added to their sentance IF CAUGHT.
Frankly I don't know how you can not see having a gun and wanting to avoid a fight are not mutually exclusive. Your opinion SEEMS to be that you pick up a gun and become John Rambo, gunning down the detergent aisle in the local supermarket. Wanting to fight, and preparing for a fight, are two different animals.
Also, i'd like to know, and i've asked this before in other threads and no one seemed able to answer the question: WHAT exactly makes a policeman "more trustworthy" than anyone else as far as arms are concerned? Does academy training and a yearly qualification of about 60 rounds give them some jedi like mastery over firearms and their own tempers that mere mortals like we have on this forum cannot hope to obtain? Does a government issued badge wipe them clean of all atitude/anger problems? It has been said in this thread that guns can not defend life, only take it, that they only escalate the situation, so I ask another question: Why do we give them to the police even? Are they protectors, or are they warriors? Are they there to save lives, or are they there to deliver violence and vengeance?
I ask the question rhetorically. I think any sane person wants to say that the police are protectors. But then that is at odds with statements that have been made in this thread.
Do I think columbine would've still happened with a total gun ban? Since the original plan was to set up bombs and blow the heck out of the place, Yes.
You're also not quite right on that.... It's not: "'the more weapons there are in the world, the safer I am'" its "The more weapons *I* Have the safer I am." <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Joking aside, I'm no more afraid of the average armed policeman than the average armed citizen. Most are good people. Some are idiots. Luckily the good folks usually outnumber the latter in both groups. If they choose to carry a weapon, do so with my blessing. But woe be unto thee if you make a bad judgement call. I agree with nem to a point, education is key. Wether it should be mandatory or not, I will not say one way or the other. The rest of the post should be read carefully.