speedz99 145 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 (and then there's that nagging possibility that maybe I'm just smarter than you, but we will never know since there really aren't any means to prove it on a BBS forum. Maybe you're just smarter than I am and I'm just too dumb to see your point.)There's always that. You're obviously on the level of intelligence where you're juuuust smart enough to come to solid conclusions, but not quite smart enough to realize that there is always the chance that you're not 100% correct (and there is still another side of the issue).Since we're working with condescending quotes...The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Because there would be no need for gun use between these parties if drugs were legal. You never hear about drive-by shootings over pencil sharpeners, phones, groceries, etc. It is because of the illegal nature of drugs that the sellers need to resort to gun use to defend their product. Gun crimes would drop *dramatically* in this country if the Insane War on Drugs were ended. Don't believe it? Just watch the reports of murders in your city. Notice how 95% of them get little attention? That's because they are caused by two criminal elements defending their turf because they have no legal means of recourse to settle disputes.Quoted for truth Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 Will this do all that much to help things? Probably not.... but it will make me "feel" better, and that's all that matters. Link to post Share on other sites
LadyGrey 6 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Actually, there is a massive group of sport shooters who were screwed by your laws. There are plenty of people in the UK who would gladly own firearms, and do so in an entirely law abiding fashion. They just aren't the "majority", so they're subject to the dreadful "tyranny of the majority". Once you escape the notion that "the majority is right", your question takes on a whole new dynamic.By "using" the "word" "domestic" I sought to "disinclude" "firearms used for hunting", because "they" are "recreational" rather than for "security" or "similar purposes". Hence your "post" is "redundant" and "irrelevant". Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 There's always that. You're obviously on the level of intelligence where you're juuuust smart enough to come to solid conclusions, but not quite smart enough to realize that there is always the chance that you're not 100% correct (and there is still another side of the issue).No, actually, I'm smart enough to know when I am right on an issue, and objective enough to know when I don't know enough about something to make a conclusion about it.If the roles were reversed- I had your base of knowledge about this issue and you had mine- I would be quiet right now. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I agree with you on this one. Looking at it that way you are right. As for the gun man having two guns i heard the same on cnn it said he had a 9mm and a 22. both hand guns.Uh oh.To my knowledge, the type of firearm/s the shooter used hasn't been released yet.Are you clairvoyant, or just making dumb assumptions? (or am I just behind the news curve?)Apparentely you're not only behind the news curve, but officially an asshole.Add to that assault weapons, AK47's, M16's, UZI's, RCP 90's, M60's and a few others (okay, maybe one of those was a gun from Golden Eye). Really, the only guns that people not in the police should own are shotguns and maybe giant bolt action rifles. They do the job when it comes to hunting, so it covers that ground. They're difficult to conceal. They don't fire fast enough to kill as much as a hand gun (they still could do some damage in the wrong hands, but it's slightly less I guess).Also, I think that there should be a long waiting period, there should be mandatory background checks, and people should have to pass courses to own guns (on safety, proper usage, proper storage, etc). People should need a license to buy bullets as well, and it should have to be renewed annually by the FBI.Will this do all that much to help things? Probably not. As was said, there's really not much you can do with a very devoted and patient madman. But it may reduce the casual person's ability to get really angry at once, grab a gun, and kill a bunch of people on a whim.Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites
IAGTTAYM 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I'm an outsider looking in, my $0.02 is:The sheer amount of weapons available in America, is absolutely terrifying.Because of that, availabillity becomes an issue.The amount of and the availability, basically creates an acceptance of guns (violence) All this, and more, creates a fear, that's creeping up in every corner in the Untied States of America. You can't trust your neighbour. And when you can't trust each other, well, then you need something to protect yourself...Flame away, I guess I'm just a stupid europeen anyways... Link to post Share on other sites
navybuttons 15 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Also, I think that there should be a long waiting period, there should be mandatory background checks, and people should have to pass courses to own guns (on safety, proper usage, proper storage, etc).done and done. california is now rid of all gun crime. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 By "using" the "word" "domestic" I sought to "disinclude" "firearms used for hunting", because "they" are "recreational" rather than for "security" or "similar purposes". Hence your "post" is "redundant" and "irrelevant".LOL!So, I guess now the word "domestic" has a totally new meaning.I sure do love innovative, abstract interpretations of old standards like the word "domestic".Try again. Link to post Share on other sites
InsanityCubed 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 No, actually, I'm smart enough to know when I am right on an issue, and objective enough to know when I don't know enough about something to make a conclusion about it.If the roles were reversed- I had your base of knowledge about this issue and you had mine- I would be quiet right now.What IS your base of knowledge, exactly? Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 done and done. california is now rid of all gun crime.LOLMcPherson Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 No, actually, I'm smart enough to know when I am right on an issue, and objective enough to know when I don't know enough about something to make a conclusion about it.If the roles were reversed- I had your base of knowledge about this issue and you had mine- I would be quiet right now.I'm amused by the fact that you think you're so much more informed than everyone else about this issue. I'd like a few example of what you know that nobody else in this conversation does. Actually, I've just reread this thread...you've said absolutely nothing that any reasonably intelligent person wouldn't already know. In fact, the only time we disagreed on facts is when we bet on who could kill more people based on our weapons of choice.And I won that bet. Remember? I bet you do. Link to post Share on other sites
LadyGrey 6 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 LOL!So, I guess now the word "domestic" has a totally new meaning.I sure do love innovative, abstract interpretations of old standards like the word "domestic".Try again.domestic (HOME)adjectivebelonging or relating to the home, house or family:domestic chores/duties/arrangementsI don't see your point. Hunting is not a household activity. Home security is. Link to post Share on other sites
7upncider 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I own guns for collecting and I have been collecting them for a long time. To say I cant collect them its just bullsh*t. To say my guns will kill people is crap. I keep them in safes and they all have safety locks on them. They are investments and have very good value. I have a lot of handguns and people saying we need to outlaw them piss me off. Lets outlaw alcohol again, we all know how that worked out right. Lets outlaw stocks and bonds lets outlaw being able to own anything of value. In my eyes it all means the same. Your taking a way of making money for me. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I'm amused by the fact that you think you're so much more informed than everyone else about this issue. I'd like a few example of what you know that nobody else in this conversation does. Actually, I've just reread this thread...you've said absolutely nothing that any reasonably intelligent person wouldn't already know. In fact, the only time we disagreed on facts is when we bet on who could kill more people based on our weapons of choice.And I won that bet. Remember? I bet you do.For the record, I'm putting this argument in the win column for me. Having been victorious as usual, I'm done with this thread. Thank you and goodnight. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 What IS your base of knowledge, exactly?Decades as a sport shooter, advocate for such and a library on the topic that consists of damn near every book every written on the issue, both pro and con. Someone who has invested a great deal of thought into the philosophy, and someone who has spent an equal amount of time seeking out the actual truth pertaining to the laws (what's legal, what isn't)I could probably tell you more about Canadian Gun Laws than google could, and I'm not even a Canadian. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 For the record, I'm putting this argument in the win column for me. Having been victorious as usual, I'm done with this thread. Thank you and goodnight.Yeh, self-delusion is another common trait of people who think like you. Tell yourself you win, then scurry away. (quoting yourself sure is cute)I love that. Link to post Share on other sites
Governator 54 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Gun Control works and Canada has done a great job with it. Crime rate from the result of guns was high in Canada until the 70's when Canada stepped up its law and it wasn't until the early 90's when they added the much stiffer policy in obtaining a gun.Since the gun laws got tighter in the early 90's, homicide rate has declined 40% (1991-2004 - According to wiki).Gun Control works if it's done right, nothing is perfect and never will be. People will always be able to get their hands on guns, but implementing stricter laws definitely helps. Link to post Share on other sites
Yoda 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Yeh, self-delusion is another common trait of people who think like you. Tell yourself you win, then scurry away. (quoting yourself sure is cute)I love that. I don't have any opinion on gun control, but I am pretty sure I hate you. That is all. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 Gun Control works and Canada has done a great job with it. Crime rate from the result of guns was high in Canada until the 70's when Canada stepped up its law and it wasn't until the early 90's when they added the much stiffer policy in obtaining a gun.Since the gun laws got tighter in the early 90's, homicide rate has declined 40% (1991-2004 - According to wiki).Gun Control works if it's done right, nothing is perfect and never will be. People will always be able to get their hands on guns, but implementing stricter laws definitely helps.Again, like the Brit, them pesky "facts" just say otherwise... http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/for...section_09.htmlQ: Have gun murders increased or decreased since the federal firearms registry began operations in 1998?A: Increased. Gun murders have risen 21 percent; handgun murders now account for almost 60 percent of firearms murders. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted April 16, 2007 Author Share Posted April 16, 2007 I don't have any opinion on gun control, but I am pretty sure I hate you. That is all.Being hated by certain people is often a very, very good sign. Link to post Share on other sites
Miguel McHarris 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 the difference in your analogy is that one kills much much more then the other. In fact, the war on drugs is very much fueled by rampant gun use and it exascerbates the problems with crime associated with the war on drugs. Gun violence kills the owner more then it kills those that it is defending against in the case of home break ins and it also aids in the underworld crime. What need does someone other then a cop or member of the armed forces have for a glock or a baretta. I can easily see an argument to own guns for sport hunting, but owning a rifle for hunting is massivly different from owning a handgun. Taking the word control to task is silly because w/o controls there'd be no government and we'd be in chaos. To say that people will do bad things even with control, so there is no need for controls is a silly idea to infer because with gun control, the amount of violent crime would drop drasticallyOf course the war on drugs is fueled by rampant gun use, but it's even more fueled by profit. My main argument in this issue is that it's more of a social issue than a government issue. Maybe I'm going a little too far with the word control, but gov't programs and policies in our society don't work very well. FEMA, the ATF and the IRS are all good examples. It's not a coincidence that every school shooting in this country has been in rural mostly white areas. I'm not sure why that is, but to use gun control as the solution to the problem is being shortsighted. Don't get me wrong I'm not into guns, never owned one even when I lived in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in NYC, Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn I never felt the need to arm myself. Most gun owners in this country are law abiding citizens, why change a law whenever it's a small percentage of people abusing it? Link to post Share on other sites
IAGTTAYM 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Again, like the Brit, them pesky "facts" just say otherwise...At the top, I'm reading: "February 2002" ? Link to post Share on other sites
insano 0 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 In my mind, the issue of gun control is fairly simple. In a perfect world, we could outlaw guns, everyone would get rid of their guns and / or stop obtaining them, and then bam... No more guns. It's obviously not a perfect world, and even if it was, what does gun control solve? People were being murdered long before guns were invented, and even if guns were eliminated other methods of killing would soon arrise. Hell, with technology at the point that it is BETTER forms of killing might even come about.We can't treat the symptoms of a larger underlying problem by eliminating one form of violence. It doesn't make sense, and I really can't see how anyone can argue that banning guns would solve anything. Violence is violence, and weapons are weapons. I can think of a thousand different ways I could hurt and/or kill someone if I wanted to, the thing is, I don't want to hurt anyone. And the first thing we need to figure out is why these people want to hurt others, period. Let's stop playing the blame game and fix the real problem. Link to post Share on other sites
aadams_22 3 Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I think your forgetting why that part of the constitution was put into place.Yeah, it had to do with the British invading again, but nowadays the law makes little sense. I agree with SuitedAces21, the constitution needs to be amended.Japan and Britain have some of the most strict gun laws in the world, and I don't think it's a coincidence that their crime rates are some of the lowest in the world as well. The big problem is, is that the biggest gun honks in the USA come from rural areas, suburbia, small communities...in other words...places that have no clue what real crime is. You'll see farmers load up on guns because they are scared to death of possible intruders that never come. You will not find many gun supporters from the major cities because they know what damage they cause.Also, the comment that guns don't kill people...people do is ludicrous and asinine. Me making a trigger finger motion with my hand won't do a thing, but put a gun in my hand with me making that same motion and someone is getting killed. I have no problems with hunters having rifles and shotguns, but there absolutely no reason for anyone other than military or law enforcement personnel to own pistols, assault rifles, etc.Also look at places like Texas and Missouri where conceal and carry is now legal. Every single state that has legalized conceal and carry have seen sharp increases in gun crime. The way of getting guns out of the hands of criminals is NOT putting more guns on the street, which is what that law does. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now