Originally Posted By: 1 FMF
the liberal idea of gun control is America's Maginot Line !
Um, wut lol
the liberal idea of gun control is America's Maginot Line !
Um, wut lol
Anyone carry "protection" when driving?
- Thread starter Lolvoguy
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Yeah, compared to any country that is not the United States the French aren't lacking for guns. Germany is right there with them.
I don't think France has nearly the numbers or wide array of firearms as we do in the U.S. I think Croatia might be a better example where firearms ownership (both legal and illegal by otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens who have large stashes of weapons hidden around their homes) is widespread yet the crime and murder rates are generally low...
Yeah, we agree. Like I said, compared to countries that are not the United States. The US is the undisputed champion of the "guns per capita competition."
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Yeah, compared to any country that is not the United States the French aren't lacking for guns. Germany is right there with them.
I don't think France has nearly the numbers or wide array of firearms as we do in the U.S. I think Croatia might be a better example where firearms ownership (both legal and illegal by otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens who have large stashes of weapons hidden around their homes) is widespread yet the crime and murder rates are generally low...
Yeah, we agree. Like I said, compared to countries that are not the United States. The US is the undisputed champion of the "guns per capita competition."
My previous post was tongue in cheek and deliberately ambiguous as to wether pro or anti..
Yes guns do make it easier to kill someone compared to using a blunt object, nobody can deny that - my objection (and it was only slight) was the statement that without guns 99% of killings would stop. I don't believe that for a second.
20 or 30 percent, maybe, but if someone is so angry/crazy/whatever that they actually want to take a life then a lack of guns isn't going to stop them.
The socioeconomic conditions that put gun stores next to liquor stores are equally to blame, not to mention the apparent lack of compassion and empathy in these people. Why are they so violent? Maybe we have a chicken and egg situation?
Are the people violent BECAUSE guns are available? Or are guns available because there is a market to sell them to violent people?
Yes guns do make it easier to kill someone compared to using a blunt object, nobody can deny that - my objection (and it was only slight) was the statement that without guns 99% of killings would stop. I don't believe that for a second.
20 or 30 percent, maybe, but if someone is so angry/crazy/whatever that they actually want to take a life then a lack of guns isn't going to stop them.
The socioeconomic conditions that put gun stores next to liquor stores are equally to blame, not to mention the apparent lack of compassion and empathy in these people. Why are they so violent? Maybe we have a chicken and egg situation?
Are the people violent BECAUSE guns are available? Or are guns available because there is a market to sell them to violent people?
Really interesting the moderately rural (slight urbaness) area I live in the population is quite heavily armed. No murders. Low crime. Really low gun crime.
No. Guns are not the cause.
It must be combined with crowded areas, gun free zones, guns on the black market, lower social economy, not growing up respecting guns and gun rules. Etc.
No. Guns are not the cause.
It must be combined with crowded areas, gun free zones, guns on the black market, lower social economy, not growing up respecting guns and gun rules. Etc.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Really interesting the moderately rural (slight urbaness) area I live in the population is quite heavily armed. No murders. Low crime. Really low gun crime.
No. Guns are not the cause.
It must be combined with crowded areas, gun free zones, guns on the black market, lower social economy, not growing up respecting guns and gun rules. Etc.
I agree, Guns are not the cause.
Largely (I believe) it's the social/economic problems that breed violence in a society.
Guns (if they are available) are just a better tool for the job.
I can't believe there are actual 'Gun free zones' in the U.S. There are just too many guns available.
Other parts of the world may have 'problem areas' but have an overall 'lack of guns' making them scarce and/or expensive. So other, less efficient, weapons are then used. which likely results in lower death tolls.
Really interesting the moderately rural (slight urbaness) area I live in the population is quite heavily armed. No murders. Low crime. Really low gun crime.
No. Guns are not the cause.
It must be combined with crowded areas, gun free zones, guns on the black market, lower social economy, not growing up respecting guns and gun rules. Etc.
I agree, Guns are not the cause.
Largely (I believe) it's the social/economic problems that breed violence in a society.
Guns (if they are available) are just a better tool for the job.
I can't believe there are actual 'Gun free zones' in the U.S. There are just too many guns available.
Other parts of the world may have 'problem areas' but have an overall 'lack of guns' making them scarce and/or expensive. So other, less efficient, weapons are then used. which likely results in lower death tolls.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
I'm not a gun-nut or anything, but that's just not practical nor realistic...
Originally Posted By: Olas
...
Killing doesn't happen because guns, killing happens because people. Take away their guns and they'll use knives, bats, crossbows, pits full of punjji sticks, booby-traps and other methods to kill each other...
C'mon dude, that's B.S. too. Compare U.S. murder rates with yours. Yeah, people will always kill each other but guns make it a [censored] lot easier and convenient to do. Anyone that thinks ease of access to firearms in society doesn't significantly increase homicide rates is lying or ignorant. Guns are not the only factor here, but they certainly are one of the biggest...
If you remove the five worst metro areas in the US, places like Detroit, DC, then the murder rate in the US is about the same as France or other European nations, despite the overwhelmingly higher rate of gun ownership in the US outside those areas.
Sure, guns make killing simpler, but a third of murders in the US are committed with blunt objects, poison, fists, knives and other methods that aren't guns. Clearly, in those cases, intent of the murderer, not weapon choice, is all that matters. Taking guns away will require some killers to seek alternate means, but it also will have zero effect on lawbreakers. Violent criminals already acquire firearms illegally. Gun restrictions only genuinely impact those who are following the law to begin with.
And you will have deprived those law-abiding, non-threat citizens of their legitimate right to self defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, that the Second Amedment confers an individual right to self defense. Frankly, against a younger, stronger, larger, better armed, or more numerous assailant, a firearm is the only effective means of self defense. If you deprive someone of the means to exercise a right, you deprive them of the right itself...remember poll taxes? That slight inconvenience in the exercise of that right was deemed to disenfranchise citizens and it was unconstitutional.
So, the people affected by banning guns are the law abiding women, smaller, or older people who are the favored targets of violent criminals. Those living in high crime areas, like DC, are the most affected.
Finally, gun crime, murder, and violent crime in the US have all been declining for the past two decades.
They started declining when the assault weapons ban went into place in 1994. Not surprising, since more people are killed with fists, or blunt instruments than with rifles of any kind, including autoloading rifles. Then those rates all continued to decline when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. So, it's pretty clear that banning certain types of weapons (that weren't being used in much crime anyway) made zero difference in crime rates in the US.
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
I'm not a gun-nut or anything, but that's just not practical nor realistic...
Originally Posted By: Olas
...
Killing doesn't happen because guns, killing happens because people. Take away their guns and they'll use knives, bats, crossbows, pits full of punjji sticks, booby-traps and other methods to kill each other...
C'mon dude, that's B.S. too. Compare U.S. murder rates with yours. Yeah, people will always kill each other but guns make it a [censored] lot easier and convenient to do. Anyone that thinks ease of access to firearms in society doesn't significantly increase homicide rates is lying or ignorant. Guns are not the only factor here, but they certainly are one of the biggest...
If you remove the five worst metro areas in the US, places like Detroit, DC, then the murder rate in the US is about the same as France or other European nations, despite the overwhelmingly higher rate of gun ownership in the US outside those areas.
Sure, guns make killing simpler, but a third of murders in the US are committed with blunt objects, poison, fists, knives and other methods that aren't guns. Clearly, in those cases, intent of the murderer, not weapon choice, is all that matters. Taking guns away will require some killers to seek alternate means, but it also will have zero effect on lawbreakers. Violent criminals already acquire firearms illegally. Gun restrictions only genuinely impact those who are following the law to begin with.
And you will have deprived those law-abiding, non-threat citizens of their legitimate right to self defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, that the Second Amedment confers an individual right to self defense. Frankly, against a younger, stronger, larger, better armed, or more numerous assailant, a firearm is the only effective means of self defense. If you deprive someone of the means to exercise a right, you deprive them of the right itself...remember poll taxes? That slight inconvenience in the exercise of that right was deemed to disenfranchise citizens and it was unconstitutional.
So, the people affected by banning guns are the law abiding women, smaller, or older people who are the favored targets of violent criminals. Those living in high crime areas, like DC, are the most affected.
Finally, gun crime, murder, and violent crime in the US have all been declining for the past two decades.
They started declining when the assault weapons ban went into place in 1994. Not surprising, since more people are killed with fists, or blunt instruments than with rifles of any kind, including autoloading rifles. Then those rates all continued to decline when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. So, it's pretty clear that banning certain types of weapons (that weren't being used in much crime anyway) made zero difference in crime rates in the US.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
If you remove the five worst metro areas in the US, places like Detroit, DC, then the murder rate in the US is about the same as France or other European nations, despite the overwhelmingly higher rate of gun ownership in the US outside those areas.
Sure, guns make killing simpler, but a third of murders in the US are committed with blunt objects, poison, fists, knives and other methods that aren't guns. Clearly, in those cases, intent of the murderer, not weapon choice, is all that matters. Taking guns away will require some killers to seek alternate means, but it also will have zero effect on lawbreakers. Violent criminals already acquire firearms illegally. Gun restrictions only genuinely impact those who are following the law to begin with.
And you will have deprived those law-abiding, non-threat citizens of their legitimate right to self defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, that the Second Amedment confers an individual right to self defense. Frankly, against a younger, stronger, larger, better armed, or more numerous assailant, a firearm is the only effective means of self defense. If you deprive someone of the means to exercise a right, you deprive them of the right itself...remember poll taxes? That slight inconvenience in the exercise of that right was deemed to disenfranchise citizens and it was unconstitutional.
So, the people affected by banning guns are the law abiding women, smaller, or older people who are the favored targets of violent criminals. Those living in high crime areas, like DC, are the most affected.
Finally, gun crime, murder, and violent crime in the US have all been declining for the past two decades.
They started declining when the assault weapons ban went into place in 1994. Not surprising, since more people are killed with fists, or blunt instruments than with rifles of any kind, including autoloading rifles. Then those rates all continued to decline when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. So, it's pretty clear that banning certain types of weapons (that weren't being used in much crime anyway) made zero difference in crime rates in the US.
But you can't remove those areas from the United States, they're here and they're not going anywhere. I fully support your right to self defense and your right to have a weapon, no matter what your impression is simply because I don't toe the NRA line on the subject.
That said, if we're being honest with ourselves, the extent to which we Americans have armed ourselves does have drawbacks. But as a society we have made the conscious decision that those drawbacks are worth the benefits.
If you remove the five worst metro areas in the US, places like Detroit, DC, then the murder rate in the US is about the same as France or other European nations, despite the overwhelmingly higher rate of gun ownership in the US outside those areas.
Sure, guns make killing simpler, but a third of murders in the US are committed with blunt objects, poison, fists, knives and other methods that aren't guns. Clearly, in those cases, intent of the murderer, not weapon choice, is all that matters. Taking guns away will require some killers to seek alternate means, but it also will have zero effect on lawbreakers. Violent criminals already acquire firearms illegally. Gun restrictions only genuinely impact those who are following the law to begin with.
And you will have deprived those law-abiding, non-threat citizens of their legitimate right to self defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, that the Second Amedment confers an individual right to self defense. Frankly, against a younger, stronger, larger, better armed, or more numerous assailant, a firearm is the only effective means of self defense. If you deprive someone of the means to exercise a right, you deprive them of the right itself...remember poll taxes? That slight inconvenience in the exercise of that right was deemed to disenfranchise citizens and it was unconstitutional.
So, the people affected by banning guns are the law abiding women, smaller, or older people who are the favored targets of violent criminals. Those living in high crime areas, like DC, are the most affected.
Finally, gun crime, murder, and violent crime in the US have all been declining for the past two decades.
They started declining when the assault weapons ban went into place in 1994. Not surprising, since more people are killed with fists, or blunt instruments than with rifles of any kind, including autoloading rifles. Then those rates all continued to decline when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. So, it's pretty clear that banning certain types of weapons (that weren't being used in much crime anyway) made zero difference in crime rates in the US.
But you can't remove those areas from the United States, they're here and they're not going anywhere. I fully support your right to self defense and your right to have a weapon, no matter what your impression is simply because I don't toe the NRA line on the subject.
That said, if we're being honest with ourselves, the extent to which we Americans have armed ourselves does have drawbacks. But as a society we have made the conscious decision that those drawbacks are worth the benefits.
Video is silly but makes a point. Some people focus an awful lot on banning guns and it really makes some wonder why:
Originally Posted By: Mykl
But you can't remove those areas from the United States, they're here and they're not going anywhere. I fully support your right to self defense and your right to have a weapon, no matter what your impression is simply because I don't toe the NRA line on the subject.
I live in a suburb of Cleveland. There is a lot of drug related violent gun crime here in the inner city. I believe if it were not for the steady increase of law abiding CCW holders here the crime would be worse. It is simply a fact that the police cannot be everywhere all the time to protect you.
It is a shame but it is reality.
But you can't remove those areas from the United States, they're here and they're not going anywhere. I fully support your right to self defense and your right to have a weapon, no matter what your impression is simply because I don't toe the NRA line on the subject.
I live in a suburb of Cleveland. There is a lot of drug related violent gun crime here in the inner city. I believe if it were not for the steady increase of law abiding CCW holders here the crime would be worse. It is simply a fact that the police cannot be everywhere all the time to protect you.
It is a shame but it is reality.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
I'm not a gun-nut or anything, but that's just not practical nor realistic...
Originally Posted By: Olas
...
Killing doesn't happen because guns, killing happens because people. Take away their guns and they'll use knives, bats, crossbows, pits full of punjji sticks, booby-traps and other methods to kill each other...
C'mon dude, that's B.S. too. Compare U.S. murder rates with yours. Yeah, people will always kill each other but guns make it a [censored] lot easier and convenient to do. Anyone that thinks ease of access to firearms in society doesn't significantly increase homicide rates is lying or ignorant. Guns are not the only factor here, but they certainly are one of the biggest...
If you remove the five worst metro areas in the US, places like Detroit, DC, then the murder rate in the US is about the same as France or other European nations, despite the overwhelmingly higher rate of gun ownership in the US outside those areas.
Sure, guns make killing simpler, but a third of murders in the US are committed with blunt objects, poison, fists, knives and other methods that aren't guns. Clearly, in those cases, intent of the murderer, not weapon choice, is all that matters. Taking guns away will require some killers to seek alternate means, but it also will have zero effect on lawbreakers. Violent criminals already acquire firearms illegally. Gun restrictions only genuinely impact those who are following the law to begin with.
And you will have deprived those law-abiding, non-threat citizens of their legitimate right to self defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, that the Second Amedment confers an individual right to self defense. Frankly, against a younger, stronger, larger, better armed, or more numerous assailant, a firearm is the only effective means of self defense. If you deprive someone of the means to exercise a right, you deprive them of the right itself...remember poll taxes? That slight inconvenience in the exercise of that right was deemed to disenfranchise citizens and it was unconstitutional.
So, the people affected by banning guns are the law abiding women, smaller, or older people who are the favored targets of violent criminals. Those living in high crime areas, like DC, are the most affected.
Finally, gun crime, murder, and violent crime in the US have all been declining for the past two decades.
They started declining when the assault weapons ban went into place in 1994. Not surprising, since more people are killed with fists, or blunt instruments than with rifles of any kind, including autoloading rifles. Then those rates all continued to decline when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. So, it's pretty clear that banning certain types of weapons (that weren't being used in much crime anyway) made zero difference in crime rates in the US.
I agree with Astro. I wonder if France has as much derelict trash per capita as the US? If not,there lies the difference in crime. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
I'm not a gun-nut or anything, but that's just not practical nor realistic...
Originally Posted By: Olas
...
Killing doesn't happen because guns, killing happens because people. Take away their guns and they'll use knives, bats, crossbows, pits full of punjji sticks, booby-traps and other methods to kill each other...
C'mon dude, that's B.S. too. Compare U.S. murder rates with yours. Yeah, people will always kill each other but guns make it a [censored] lot easier and convenient to do. Anyone that thinks ease of access to firearms in society doesn't significantly increase homicide rates is lying or ignorant. Guns are not the only factor here, but they certainly are one of the biggest...
If you remove the five worst metro areas in the US, places like Detroit, DC, then the murder rate in the US is about the same as France or other European nations, despite the overwhelmingly higher rate of gun ownership in the US outside those areas.
Sure, guns make killing simpler, but a third of murders in the US are committed with blunt objects, poison, fists, knives and other methods that aren't guns. Clearly, in those cases, intent of the murderer, not weapon choice, is all that matters. Taking guns away will require some killers to seek alternate means, but it also will have zero effect on lawbreakers. Violent criminals already acquire firearms illegally. Gun restrictions only genuinely impact those who are following the law to begin with.
And you will have deprived those law-abiding, non-threat citizens of their legitimate right to self defense. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in Heller vs. District of Columbia, that the Second Amedment confers an individual right to self defense. Frankly, against a younger, stronger, larger, better armed, or more numerous assailant, a firearm is the only effective means of self defense. If you deprive someone of the means to exercise a right, you deprive them of the right itself...remember poll taxes? That slight inconvenience in the exercise of that right was deemed to disenfranchise citizens and it was unconstitutional.
So, the people affected by banning guns are the law abiding women, smaller, or older people who are the favored targets of violent criminals. Those living in high crime areas, like DC, are the most affected.
Finally, gun crime, murder, and violent crime in the US have all been declining for the past two decades.
They started declining when the assault weapons ban went into place in 1994. Not surprising, since more people are killed with fists, or blunt instruments than with rifles of any kind, including autoloading rifles. Then those rates all continued to decline when the assault weapons ban expired in 2004. So, it's pretty clear that banning certain types of weapons (that weren't being used in much crime anyway) made zero difference in crime rates in the US.
I agree with Astro. I wonder if France has as much derelict trash per capita as the US? If not,there lies the difference in crime. It's like comparing apples to oranges.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Turk
Originally Posted By: Pablo
No. Guns are not the cause.
Correct. An EVIL mind is the problem. The evil person will use whatever they have to do the killing.
Absolutely right. But the point that gets leveraged is that a tool more inclined for killing (lets face that this is indeed the point of firearms), be it a gun, bomb, etc., even if "home-brewed" will be more effective than something that just doesn't have the reach and capability (e.g. a knife or fist, which though effective sometimes, really isn't useful to most at a radius outside, say, 10ft, and is not as quick either).
Im not trying to be anti-gun or say they are right. But that is the point that needs to be argued. And its not just guns (though the automobile argument IMO is stupid), but anything else that has the ability to take out multiple people essentially at once.
But the evil mind that made everyone upset recently, i.e. the mass-murder shootings, is not why someone would want protection when driving. I drive between Boston and Richmond all the time for work. Though Im Hilton Diamond, and feel extremely secure in hotels, there are occasions when I stay in other motels and there is not quite the same security. I don't make it a rule to sleep in rest stops, but I had been on road trips for pleasure during my college and grad school years where we did just that. Those sorts of situations bring out another kind of sick/evil mind, and Im sure that robberies and murders at motels and rest stops are a goodly number. Those are exactly the time and reason one would want protection while driving.
The threat of getting car jacked while cruising on the I-95, or even most anywhere but inner-city streets, at least around here, is non-existent.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
No. Guns are not the cause.
Correct. An EVIL mind is the problem. The evil person will use whatever they have to do the killing.
Absolutely right. But the point that gets leveraged is that a tool more inclined for killing (lets face that this is indeed the point of firearms), be it a gun, bomb, etc., even if "home-brewed" will be more effective than something that just doesn't have the reach and capability (e.g. a knife or fist, which though effective sometimes, really isn't useful to most at a radius outside, say, 10ft, and is not as quick either).
Im not trying to be anti-gun or say they are right. But that is the point that needs to be argued. And its not just guns (though the automobile argument IMO is stupid), but anything else that has the ability to take out multiple people essentially at once.
But the evil mind that made everyone upset recently, i.e. the mass-murder shootings, is not why someone would want protection when driving. I drive between Boston and Richmond all the time for work. Though Im Hilton Diamond, and feel extremely secure in hotels, there are occasions when I stay in other motels and there is not quite the same security. I don't make it a rule to sleep in rest stops, but I had been on road trips for pleasure during my college and grad school years where we did just that. Those sorts of situations bring out another kind of sick/evil mind, and Im sure that robberies and murders at motels and rest stops are a goodly number. Those are exactly the time and reason one would want protection while driving.
The threat of getting car jacked while cruising on the I-95, or even most anywhere but inner-city streets, at least around here, is non-existent.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
[
The threat of getting car jacked while cruising on the I-95, or even most anywhere but inner-city streets, at least around here, is non-existent.
True, i consider what happens if i have a flat or trouble on the hwy. I prefer to be armed while i'm changing a tire, during that period i or my family is a sitting duck.
[
The threat of getting car jacked while cruising on the I-95, or even most anywhere but inner-city streets, at least around here, is non-existent.
True, i consider what happens if i have a flat or trouble on the hwy. I prefer to be armed while i'm changing a tire, during that period i or my family is a sitting duck.
Quote:
homicide rate in France is 1 for every 100,000. Compare this to the United States which is 4.7 for every 100,000.
Whatever France is doing is working great for them, because you are drastically less likely to be murdered there.
like with gun control someone with a narrow minded view and short time line that sounds and reads great. easy to say that and go to bed at night when your not that 1, or those 4 killed in the grocery hold up (because your dead) and when it's nobody you know or care about. not to mention the difference in total population number (65 vs 300+ million) and demographics so i would argue it's not a good rationale; it's more a numbers spin tactic and means very little if anything. that same kind of thinking is done with everything, death by automobile, weather, mad cow disease and other food born illness and so on.
I wonder if they presented the numbers/statistics in a similar manner just before France was invaded by Germany in WW2 ? yeah great place to live up until they got invaded then 300,000 dead. Factor that in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
oh wait that was ww2 what does that have to do with now... anyone who just thought that lacks any kind of brains... like in the pic below. and is why even with a black president, and all the welfare, some things within a given culture wherever the location regardless of race or skin color... don't change.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: 1 FMF
the liberal idea of gun control is America's Maginot Line !
Um, wut lol
last line of video sums it up
for those who know the movie, the follow up to that vid was interesting here's the link in case youtube goes different for you;
removed YouTube link due to comments
anyway, i'm done here. there was a time where i would help anyone in distress regardless of the situtation, road rage or terrorism. it's a simple matter of principle, i'd want someone to do the same for me. but CT made it clear no guns with more than 10 rounds loaded now, plently of incidents where lawful use of firearm for defense resulted in vilification and lawsuits. so unless i know you or see something obvious like a CCDL sticker you're on your own. sure i'll phone the cops for you but not until i'm safe which might be 10, 20, 30 minutes later. And i won't call while driving. so best of luck, keep referring to those statistics to make yourself feel better.... or whip out your smartphone and start taking video that always helps.
homicide rate in France is 1 for every 100,000. Compare this to the United States which is 4.7 for every 100,000.
Whatever France is doing is working great for them, because you are drastically less likely to be murdered there.
like with gun control someone with a narrow minded view and short time line that sounds and reads great. easy to say that and go to bed at night when your not that 1, or those 4 killed in the grocery hold up (because your dead) and when it's nobody you know or care about. not to mention the difference in total population number (65 vs 300+ million) and demographics so i would argue it's not a good rationale; it's more a numbers spin tactic and means very little if anything. that same kind of thinking is done with everything, death by automobile, weather, mad cow disease and other food born illness and so on.
I wonder if they presented the numbers/statistics in a similar manner just before France was invaded by Germany in WW2 ? yeah great place to live up until they got invaded then 300,000 dead. Factor that in. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country
oh wait that was ww2 what does that have to do with now... anyone who just thought that lacks any kind of brains... like in the pic below. and is why even with a black president, and all the welfare, some things within a given culture wherever the location regardless of race or skin color... don't change.
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: 1 FMF
the liberal idea of gun control is America's Maginot Line !
Um, wut lol
last line of video sums it up
for those who know the movie, the follow up to that vid was interesting here's the link in case youtube goes different for you;
removed YouTube link due to comments
anyway, i'm done here. there was a time where i would help anyone in distress regardless of the situtation, road rage or terrorism. it's a simple matter of principle, i'd want someone to do the same for me. but CT made it clear no guns with more than 10 rounds loaded now, plently of incidents where lawful use of firearm for defense resulted in vilification and lawsuits. so unless i know you or see something obvious like a CCDL sticker you're on your own. sure i'll phone the cops for you but not until i'm safe which might be 10, 20, 30 minutes later. And i won't call while driving. so best of luck, keep referring to those statistics to make yourself feel better.... or whip out your smartphone and start taking video that always helps.
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
And violent crime skyrockets by 250% overnight. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. It would take GENERATIONS to remove guns to a level that would see a huge decrease in homicides caused by firearms.
And you are forgetting a very important part of the 2nd amendment. Anti-gunners always say that the Constitution/Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago, that it's outdated, and that the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they knew what was currently going on today. What they wrote over 200 years ago applies as much today as it did back then.
The intent was to prevent a tyrannical govt from forcing it's will on the people and the people not having a means to defend themselves. It also intended to create a powerful, unbeatable citizen army that could be called upon to defend the homeland. You see, if World War 3 kicked off tomorrow, and the ENTIRE world decided to invade the United States, the United States would win. We simply cannot lose an invasion, period. We are protected by thousands of miles of water on both sides and there are too many people with guns in America. There is enough guns to arm every single man, woman, and child in America. Invading forces would be decimated in short order in the largest insurgency ever witnessed in the history of man.
Clearly, living in a country that could never lose a massive invasion has it's benefits, no?
Banning guns in America is a terribly bad idea. It's a no brainer.
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
And violent crime skyrockets by 250% overnight. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. It would take GENERATIONS to remove guns to a level that would see a huge decrease in homicides caused by firearms.
And you are forgetting a very important part of the 2nd amendment. Anti-gunners always say that the Constitution/Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago, that it's outdated, and that the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves if they knew what was currently going on today. What they wrote over 200 years ago applies as much today as it did back then.
The intent was to prevent a tyrannical govt from forcing it's will on the people and the people not having a means to defend themselves. It also intended to create a powerful, unbeatable citizen army that could be called upon to defend the homeland. You see, if World War 3 kicked off tomorrow, and the ENTIRE world decided to invade the United States, the United States would win. We simply cannot lose an invasion, period. We are protected by thousands of miles of water on both sides and there are too many people with guns in America. There is enough guns to arm every single man, woman, and child in America. Invading forces would be decimated in short order in the largest insurgency ever witnessed in the history of man.
Clearly, living in a country that could never lose a massive invasion has it's benefits, no?
Banning guns in America is a terribly bad idea. It's a no brainer.
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
Let's pretend you could press an easy button, and instantly remove all firearms from the hands of citizens. Gun crime will certainly fade to near nothing, but I disagree that "99% of the killing will stop" -- there are many murders each year by poison, by stabbing, by clubbing/bludgeoning, etc. In fact, I think you'd find that murder becomes MORE gruesome, because it'll have to be done the "dirty" way. After all, we know that guns don't have capability to WANT to kill someone else...they're simply a tool. We humans will still be a murderous lot. A tool called "the gun" will be gone, but we'll still have other tools. "The baseball bat". "The kitchen knife". "The vial of poison". The list can go on and one, and you and I both can probably fill a page of tools that can and would be used for murder. So I disagree that 99% of killing will stop...folks will just find different ways to do it.
And after you're pressed the easy button, and guns are gone, you've now got to find a way to KEEP them gone. They WILL get stolen from the police. They WILL get stolen from other countries. And if you take this story far enough, and pretend that you could take ALL firearms away from EVERYONE, someone will just re-invent the gun or build their own, as they have done in the past and as they do today. I think in the end, if you could *poof* all guns away, you'd eventually get back to what we have now. After all, "now" has already happened once... It'll happen again.
I'd also suggest that our country would look a whole lot different, and in a bad way, if the government had complete physical control over us. The 2nd amendment was put in place for a reason.
Some things aren't missed until they're really gone...
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
Let's pretend you could press an easy button, and instantly remove all firearms from the hands of citizens. Gun crime will certainly fade to near nothing, but I disagree that "99% of the killing will stop" -- there are many murders each year by poison, by stabbing, by clubbing/bludgeoning, etc. In fact, I think you'd find that murder becomes MORE gruesome, because it'll have to be done the "dirty" way. After all, we know that guns don't have capability to WANT to kill someone else...they're simply a tool. We humans will still be a murderous lot. A tool called "the gun" will be gone, but we'll still have other tools. "The baseball bat". "The kitchen knife". "The vial of poison". The list can go on and one, and you and I both can probably fill a page of tools that can and would be used for murder. So I disagree that 99% of killing will stop...folks will just find different ways to do it.
And after you're pressed the easy button, and guns are gone, you've now got to find a way to KEEP them gone. They WILL get stolen from the police. They WILL get stolen from other countries. And if you take this story far enough, and pretend that you could take ALL firearms away from EVERYONE, someone will just re-invent the gun or build their own, as they have done in the past and as they do today. I think in the end, if you could *poof* all guns away, you'd eventually get back to what we have now. After all, "now" has already happened once... It'll happen again.
I'd also suggest that our country would look a whole lot different, and in a bad way, if the government had complete physical control over us. The 2nd amendment was put in place for a reason.
Some things aren't missed until they're really gone...
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
Let's pretend you could press an easy button, and instantly remove all firearms from the hands of citizens. Gun crime will certainly fade to near nothing, but I disagree that "99% of the killing will stop" -- there are many murders each year by poison, by stabbing, by clubbing/bludgeoning, etc. In fact, I think you'd find that murder becomes MORE gruesome, because it'll have to be done the "dirty" way. After all, we know that guns don't have capability to WANT to kill someone else...they're simply a tool. We humans will still be a murderous lot. A tool called "the gun" will be gone, but we'll still have other tools. "The baseball bat". "The kitchen knife". "The vial of poison". The list can go on and one, and you and I both can probably fill a page of tools that can and would be used for murder. So I disagree that 99% of killing will stop...folks will just find different ways to do it.
And after you're pressed the easy button, and guns are gone, you've now got to find a way to KEEP them gone. They WILL get stolen from the police. They WILL get stolen from other countries. And if you take this story far enough, and pretend that you could take ALL firearms away from EVERYONE, someone will just re-invent the gun or build their own, as they have done in the past and as they do today. I think in the end, if you could *poof* all guns away, you'd eventually get back to what we have now. After all, "now" has already happened once... It'll happen again.
I'd also suggest that our country would look a whole lot different, and in a bad way, if the government had complete physical control over us. The 2nd amendment was put in place for a reason.
Some things aren't missed until they're really gone...
Nuh uh man, we'd all just sit around in circles smoking dope and singing Kumbaya, even the criminals. Cuz you know they'd stop being criminals without guns
Originally Posted By: andrewp1998
Take all the GUNS away and arm only the police and 99% of the killing will stop.. Its a no brainer !
Let's pretend you could press an easy button, and instantly remove all firearms from the hands of citizens. Gun crime will certainly fade to near nothing, but I disagree that "99% of the killing will stop" -- there are many murders each year by poison, by stabbing, by clubbing/bludgeoning, etc. In fact, I think you'd find that murder becomes MORE gruesome, because it'll have to be done the "dirty" way. After all, we know that guns don't have capability to WANT to kill someone else...they're simply a tool. We humans will still be a murderous lot. A tool called "the gun" will be gone, but we'll still have other tools. "The baseball bat". "The kitchen knife". "The vial of poison". The list can go on and one, and you and I both can probably fill a page of tools that can and would be used for murder. So I disagree that 99% of killing will stop...folks will just find different ways to do it.
And after you're pressed the easy button, and guns are gone, you've now got to find a way to KEEP them gone. They WILL get stolen from the police. They WILL get stolen from other countries. And if you take this story far enough, and pretend that you could take ALL firearms away from EVERYONE, someone will just re-invent the gun or build their own, as they have done in the past and as they do today. I think in the end, if you could *poof* all guns away, you'd eventually get back to what we have now. After all, "now" has already happened once... It'll happen again.
I'd also suggest that our country would look a whole lot different, and in a bad way, if the government had complete physical control over us. The 2nd amendment was put in place for a reason.
Some things aren't missed until they're really gone...
Nuh uh man, we'd all just sit around in circles smoking dope and singing Kumbaya, even the criminals. Cuz you know they'd stop being criminals without guns
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Yeah, compared to any country that is not the United States the French aren't lacking for guns. Germany is right there with them.
I don't think France has nearly the numbers or wide array of firearms as we do in the U.S. I think Croatia might be a better example where firearms ownership (both legal and illegal by otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens who have large stashes of weapons hidden around their homes) is widespread yet the crime and murder rates are generally low...
It's very difficult to get permission for holding guns over here. To get permit one needs to go to a variety of psychological test and of course not to have any criminal record. Even then you can only hold gun at home in a secure safe or locked cabinet with bullets separated and under lock in another safe or cabinet. Under no circumstances you can carry gun outside with you. Police check on ammunition count and weapon is often, a guy with gun told me maybe once a year. You cannot carry knife that have a blade longer than four fingers put together (7-8 centimetres).
Baseball bat in your car will get you a record if police find it in a car. There are illegal guns here but shooting is rare, mostly some domestic violence.
I live in a city with 250k people and never lock my cars and even rarely lock my house over night. I really do feel safe.
People here carry electrical cables with them (fat ones) in their cars. There's no law against that.
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Yeah, compared to any country that is not the United States the French aren't lacking for guns. Germany is right there with them.
I don't think France has nearly the numbers or wide array of firearms as we do in the U.S. I think Croatia might be a better example where firearms ownership (both legal and illegal by otherwise law abiding, peaceful citizens who have large stashes of weapons hidden around their homes) is widespread yet the crime and murder rates are generally low...
It's very difficult to get permission for holding guns over here. To get permit one needs to go to a variety of psychological test and of course not to have any criminal record. Even then you can only hold gun at home in a secure safe or locked cabinet with bullets separated and under lock in another safe or cabinet. Under no circumstances you can carry gun outside with you. Police check on ammunition count and weapon is often, a guy with gun told me maybe once a year. You cannot carry knife that have a blade longer than four fingers put together (7-8 centimetres).
Baseball bat in your car will get you a record if police find it in a car. There are illegal guns here but shooting is rare, mostly some domestic violence.
I live in a city with 250k people and never lock my cars and even rarely lock my house over night. I really do feel safe.
People here carry electrical cables with them (fat ones) in their cars. There's no law against that.
Last edited:
- Status
