Star Trek Armada II: Fleet Operations

The last time guns where allowed in Washington DC where I just MOVED from DC was ranked among the most unsafe places to live until guns were band a little after the guns left merrier started to fall.

TO DAY guns are now allowed back in DC. all studied done with out partisan effluents show that guns = violent crime/murders rate grow.

The only resin the second ammonite in the USA is so divisive is because corporations have figured out that if they get people worked up over a product that they can make money on they get rich.

THANGS DONT MAKE YOU HAPPIE ESPECIALLY MERDER WEAPONS you are at the sores of you own happens.

Yeah I waited up for the decision. I was very happy when it got handed down, hopefully it will start a domino effect across the nation.

What good can come of this a real question? How do having guns benefit the american people?

Well statistically, an armed population has always suffered from less crime. Maybe a picture will help.

(http://i32.tinypic.com/oabqli.jpg)

Not saying that that picture is entirely neutral in the discussion, but it does help set the mood.

Then combined with that knowledge, that we shouldn't have to fear our government taking away a constitutional right. I do indeed feel the Supreme Court made the right decision, a great day to be an American.

Not tow most colter dating from the don of man how had had weapons use them many time agents the ruling party. The DC gun ban was originally put in place to help lower what was know as the murder capitol of the world by some after guns where taken off the street violent crimes dropped.

What is it about guns is so important that we all should have one is it the fact they look pretty is it the fact they make loud noises?


Well in the UK they have a large number of al-kida like extremes how wont to kill those how don't believe there narrow version of Islam. Uk is all so has a much lower murder rate..... and no little to no guns.

(http://www.clash-of-steel.co.uk/gallery/pages/full/YCM_mil_display.jpg)
Its hard to use this kind of weapons to do the damage we do to day moodier arms is fare more deadly than the weapons of the 1900s could do Why do we need a gun with 12 or even 6 bullets in it? This kind of weapon is for war If you like to see guns enlist in the army not go to your local elementary school where gun can tern up.

Violent maybe but not murders and the kind of damage of take instead of having there head blown off they have a cut or a stab wound or 2.

What good do GUNS DO WHY DO WE NEED THEM so badly?

I find myself internally divded on the issue of gun onwership, but did you know that after the massive gun hand-in campaign that was instigated here in Australia after the Port Aruthur massacre, that violent gun crime actually increased?

I guess what they say is true... If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will carry guns...

Didn't one of the actors from Harry Potter get stabbed to death a week or 2 ago in the UK? You can kill someone with a fork, you can kill someone with a car, you can kill someone with a box cutter (How do you think 9/11 went down?). If one person had been allowed to carry a gun on each of those planes, 9/11 could have easily been averted.

You would rather us depend completely upon the government and police for protection? You feel comfortable waiting a few minutes for a police response if someone is breaking into your residence? By all means, you don't have to own a weapon, that is your decision. I just don't appreciate people like you telling people like me I have to live by your rules.

not necassaerly if guns were allowed on planes then the terrorists wud have guns also if a bullet had pireced the planed then all hell wud brake loose and the planes may have crashed somwere else

Obviously people can't just run out and buy guns anyway, there's still background checks.

But that stops mentally ill and dumb criminals. As long as guns are available they will be used.

You can kill someone with a fork, Yes but it take much more hate/work to will some one with a fork than a gun. Thats a silly argument.

Agin What benefit do having large guns have to a personal laval other then hunting in the gunnel pop. You could use a fork to protect you self.

You need guns life you need a 3ed leg.

Yes, we could use forks to protect ourselves, but guns are much more lethal. That's a silly argument.

You DO realize DC was the murder capital of the world, WITH a gun ban lol. It just proves the ban didn't do diddly. Nearly the entire country allows firearms, and it's not like people are just running around shooting randomly in the air.

Not realy if guns arnot alowed the amout of gun asolts will fall dermaticly and the amound of damge that is done is much less per capita.

It stated be for the band and thean aftter guns where taken off the streets the rating fell.

Well no, violence in DC either stayed the same or escalated when the ban went into effect.

The Harry Potter actor, Rob Knox. Was stabbed outside the Metro nightclub on Station Road in Sidcup by a young man called Karl Bishop. It was an altercation with Rob's younger brother Jamie, which led Bishop to go home, get high and come back with 2 knives, 6 people were wounded trying to stop him, Rob was stabbed fatally.

His funeral was 2 days ago, my family attented, along with my brothers best friend (Rob's cousin). I gotta say that my home town (Sidcup, where I still live) has been totally shocked and shaken by his murder.

Gangs killing other Gang Members is fine, but you couldn't have met a nicer guy than Rob Knox. His brother was in my brothers year at school, his murderer was in the year above me in primary school, when murder hits close to home you realise how useless the law is, and that actually carrying a gun would have atleast meant that Karl Bishop would never hurt anyone again.

I am real sorry to hear that, makes me feel bad for using that as an example now.

Fail... They tested that on Mythbusters... A bullet piercing a plane's fuselage (even through the windows) does not, in actualality, result in an explosive decompression...

Gun bans do not prevent illegal weapons from falling into the hands of those who wish to use them illegally.

"Though officers can expect to draw their guns from time to time, few even in big-city departments will actually fire a shot (except in target practice) in the course of a year. This observation points to an important truth: people who are armed make comparatively unattractive victims.".

An excellent quoete.

I did not say violence in  my last post I said damage....

What good do guns do for the world?? You still have not answered this question. How is the world made a better place with guns?

Can't help myself, gotta nose in...



ewm, you're arguing from an untenable position that is, to take a page from Scalia, "...frivolous". The net effect in terms of good or bad that guns have had on society is irrelevant and an nonsensical position for two big reasons.

1. Its unknowable. We say that the development of projectile weapons is generally negative, because they kill people, but we can't know that for certain. Its very possible that without the development of projectile weapons, society would be drastically different in a negative way. They may help to inspire ingenuity and industrialization. Wars in general are the periods of greatest societal and technological advancement and firearms may act as a catalyst in that process. Plus, as our ability to hurt ourselves increases, so does our ability to heal ourselves. I will submit to you that there is a very compelling argument to be made that, while the net effect of firearms and other projectile weapons is unknowable for certain, its probably positive.

2. A world without guns is inconceivable. It doesn't matter in the end whether they're good or bad, because we can't take them away. Its the genie being let out of the bottle phenomenon. Guns are simply a fact of life and that's not going to change no matter what kind of legislation you want to pass or moral arguments you want to make.



Really, sensible regulation is the only logical response to the pervasiveness of firearms in modern society. Banning them is impractical and ineffectual because only people who are going to acquire them legally and who are unlikely to misuse them in the first place are going to be affected by such legislation. That's exactly why gun free zones are hideously dangerous and foolish. They're the only places guaranteed to not have people who are unable to defend themselves and so become prime targets for psychotics bent on killing a lot of people.

Not to steal Tiberius's thunder, as he hit the nail on the head in his post, but I'll go ahead and just throw in the short version for funziez.

If I could take back buying my rifles, and not have a single gun in the world exist, you can bet your left wing butt I would do so. The sheer destruction and harm they have brought upon us is absolutely despicable.

But here is the ugly truth, they already exist. There is nothing we can do to fix that fact now. We can however limit their destructive potential in what I guess could be described as a personal brinkmanship.

1) guns do one thing kill. Yes they have ispired industry for one reson people buy them people all so buy Computer games. What is it about guns its where the deths of so menny? We dont need to hunt to servive eny more.

 a. Guns are no difrent a product than eny thing ell but unlike other things people have made a huge problome out of have a product that has no need in our worl.

 b. Actioly I am not taking a good or bad look at them I am looking at theam as a product and looking at things as is not as my openon says they are.

2) Guns are only a fact of life becouse people wont them to be and I can see a good reson why whould wont killing tools whare they live of such ferocity.

 a. A fact of life is tat we die or that we are born, guns are not a Fact of life they are a chose.

 b. More guns = more guns/ more gun discharges. Less guns = less guns/ less gun discharges. People how kill outher are not of the mind set of thows how work for a living so even if citasins how work a full time job have a gun its just for show.






PD,

Yes the world whould still be thare with less guns.

Yes they are here but we made them we can distoy menny of them  mabey not all but evry gun that is ditroyed makes the world a safer place to live.

I think with your belief that guns can actually be removed from world society indicates that there is no dialog to be reached here.


Maybe it will help if we rephrase it a bit. Guns are not just physical things. They're technology, which is basically information. Information cannot be destroyed, it cannot be unlearned, it cannot be suppressed indefinitely. If we were to have a way to magically destroy all firearms everywhere, the problem would still not go away because people still know how to make them and will inevitably do so. If nothing else, you'd have home made fire arms. Hell, making a simple muzzle loader is child's play.


The debate about moral worth is over in the real world as it was never a debate in the first place, as I explained earlier. If you wish to engage in a theory debate, please do, but in another thread.


The burden of proof here is really on the anti-gun crowd and by extension you. That burden is to provide a realistic way of removing guns from Global society without use of Orwellian societal controls.

well you could kill everyone who has knowledge about guns and raise a new mankind without them...

A couple more things that nobody seems to mention. Anybody here want to admit who buys guns vs who NEEDS them? Guns and licenses cost money. When one claims protection through the use of the gun, not everyone can buy a gun to afford protection. Odds are, that if I live in a slum (aka cheap housing) I don't have the money to afford this protection. On the other hand, those living in wealthier neighborhoods can buy a weapon to protect themselves. Thus we are talking about the protection of a few. Secondly, even if everyone has the right to buy these weapons, what makes you think that people won't abuse this right? I am not surprised that whenever I hear about school shootings that they involve a kid STEALING his parents rightfully-bought firearms. Also, where do you think criminals are able to get guns anyway? I believe that the majority of these firearms are originally purchased legally... but their serial numbers are then scratched off! Of course criminals will always have access to these weapons, but fighting fire with fire is no way to deal with it. (Didn't we learn anything from the Cold War? ... or our standoff with Iran currently?)

Another danger no one seems to have mentioned is the reaction time involved when a gun is pointed at you. With a knife, I have the time to scream, run away, fight back etc. With a gun *bang* you're dead. Period. Regardless of whether people claim that guns rarely discharge by themselves, or that triggers are rarely pulled by accident... the very fact that it happens speaks volumes. I cannot accidently throw a katana at you, likewise, I cannot accidently stab you 30 times with my pocket knife. Sure you can kill anyone with anything at all, but firearms offer a way to kill that is much more different that other weapons: I don't have to even see your face to pull the trigger as the DC snipers proved.

Thirdly, escalation. Who needs an ASSAULT RIFLE in their home? Seriously. These weapons are not made for personal protection, they are for war. I hate to bring in examples from home, but my uncle (a real gung-ho gunsrights advocate, who makes his own weapons) bought a Chinese assault rifle (SKS) . Why? My guess is that he likes it. He can't hunt with it. He can't protect himself with it (unless he's expecting a militant group to advance on his remote little falling apart hut on a mountain in California), so what's the point exactly?

The usual argument goes, when the crooks buy heavier weapons, we must do the same. So when a tank becomes inexpensive enough for the elite to buy it, you are telling me that they will??
I still believe that even IF criminals can afford better weapons, let the people who are trained to deal with it, do so. The more firearms, the more chance for accidents and misunderstandings (anybody seen pulp fiction by the way?) and the more wary people become of eachother, imo of course. As it stands now, I do not trust civilians to carry firearms around me, even if they have had the proper training. Even though cops may abuse power etc, I still trust someone whose job it is to keep the peace, rather than some guy next door who thinks he sees someone pull a gun on someone else.

Although PD, you mention that you don't want to live in a country dictated by these rules, are you saying that everyone who wants these rules should just get out? In the end I think that the freedom to buy firearms just propagates itself, and soon everyone who can afford it NEEDS one just to stay on equal terf. I think that the truth is, no matter if everyone legally can afford the littlest handgun, there will always be someone buying bigger and bigger calibers, leading to an unequal footing. I'm not gonna be the first in line to buy my SAM site when someone threatens to fly a plane into my house.

First off, you can get a handgun for 100 bucks pretty easy, Every single person in the US can afford a firearm if they can save up a very small amount of money.

If you don't want a firearm, then don't get a firearm, you can wait the 4 minute average response time for the police. If you want to defend yourself, you have the right to defend yourself, be it a handgun, shotgun, or AK-47 like I have :D Not everyone has to be on equal footing, because most situations are already lopsided. Someone who breaks into your home already has the element of surprise, and sometimes there is more then one.

any thing is posable. Because I say it is how am I to say such a thing I am a person how dose not take can't and the end of the game.

But how information is used is what keeps things running. The information for how to make a A-bomb is out there I don't see people making one is your back yard for self defiance. Why would we need any weapon round especially weapons that can cause mass distraction (GUNS).

Yes but it can be illegal and enforced.

@Dominus: tl;dr :P Seriously, basically I can sum your post up to a slippery slope argument. It does not logically follow that allowing people the right to buy firearms is going to lead to an arms race that only the elite and rich will be able to keep up with. We have that right now and it doesn't happen. You're arguing like we currently don't have the right. The truth of the matter is, a .22 can be just as deadly as a .50AE. Granted, the bigger gun is more likely to inflict a fatal wound with each hit, but if someone points any gun at you, even if its a rinky dink derringer, you're going to do what they say unless you're phenomenally stupid. I really don't understand your alarmist stance as there's no reason it can't happen right now and its very clearly not. Plus, nobody except a few radicals argues seriously for no regulation of guns. Very clearly, there has to be some reasonable, common sense regulation.


@ewm: Sorry you're writing is a little hard to follow but I think you're arguing that information can be suppressed or controlled or something because pepole aren't making A-Bombs. Well they're certainly trying, but while the design is relatively simple in concept, it takes a lot of resources to actually construct one. That's why nuclear terrorism is a fairly low threat. Its just too difficult to make one.

No my point its, that guns are just a product like any other but unlike other product these are killing mushiness. For some resign people are so sold on the idea that to not have guns legal some how hurts the democracy.

How dose it benefit to have guns on the streets?

a. citizens.. No

b. Low informant.. No

c. Democracy.. No

e. Companies.. Yes

Its all about selling some thing at the expense of human life.

Ohhh I see, thank you.

Well most of the people who believe in gun ownership are hesitant to put a blanket high worth on human life so are untouched by the cost of human life, so long as its not them, their family, their neighbors or other good people. Which I happen to think is a fairly reasonable outlook on life, even if most people wouldn't articulate it quite like that.


I think that the actual net effect is not so important as the perceived effect. A lot of people feel safer in their homes and their government if guns are acknowledged as a basic right, as was clearly intended in our most sacrosanct of legal documents. It is very clearly indisputable though that allowing citizens to carry hand guns has had at worst no impact on crime rates and there's a considerable body of research to indicate that its actually had a positive effect, especially in regards to gun related violent crime.

Just so I understand what you are saying is that people how have guns don't care about others? Thats not what I think or have thought even throw I pocked at people in the fast witch accusing them of this with was not what I thought and the out come of that was people thought that I thought they did not care..

Feelings can be misleading and in this case they are. "as a basic right" defined by our government that represents the people, A norther way to put that is people wont guns.

The research I read has a clearly different store Therese some thing missing here.

We have 2 people that are clamming that the eveandents points in both directions...

D.C Gun Ban Decision: Poll and Comment - D.C. Wire -  (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/06/dc_gun_ban_decision_poll_and_c.html?hpid=topnews)

Guns for home use - Law Enforcement Forum - Local and International Law Enforcement Community (http://www.lawenforcementforum.com/law-enforcement-general-police-officer-discussion/10018-guns-home-use.html)

New Yorkers Against Gun Violence (http://www.nyagv.org/events.htm)

Moms Against Guns: Laws, Changes Needed, and Legislative Positions (http://www.momsagainstguns.org/laws/)


 By the way DC was anti gun why would some one from out side DC wont them to do some thing they don't wont?

--

Future lawsuits

The justices also barely touched on a threshold issue for future lawsuits.

The decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller did not say the 2nd Amendment applies to states and localities. Washington, D.C., is not a state.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Sorry, that is hardly clear. We DO NOT HAVE a militia. We have a standing army, which we did not have when the document was written. The founders made sure that their words could be interpreted in a myriad of ways, so that progress could be made. In fact, if you carefully read the explanations that our so-called "fore-fathers" wrote about the freedom to carry weapons; it was to protect against the tyranny of the government... and no one ever mentioned defense against other people.

The "arms race", as you put it, is already occuring. Police units in the US are commonly equipped with assault rifles and the ilk, to deal with the bigger calibre weapons the crooks carry. I find it hard to believe that civilians aren't doing the same, as seems likely given the amount of recent rulings on buying assault rifles in the states. What I was saying earlier with weapons and cost, is the fact that the bigger the calibre/gun/damage-to-be-inflicted, the greater the price. If you can agree with that, than you realize their must be a hierachy in what weapons people can buy, and thus who has access to "greater" protection value. That was my point from that other post. PD himself states that he has an AK-47 for self defense. Why on earth do you need a military-grade weapon to protect yourself?

"Granted, the bigger gun is more likely to inflict a fatal wound with each hit, but if someone points any gun at you, even if its a rinky dink derringer, you're going to do what they say unless you're phenomenally stupid. I really don't understand your alarmist stance as there's no reason it can't happen right now and its very clearly not. Plus, nobody except a few radicals argues seriously for no regulation of guns. Very clearly, there has to be some reasonable, common sense regulation."

Hear in lies the problem Tiberius. You yourself acknowledge that the bigger gun causes more damage and that a larger calibre more likely causes a fatal wound. Why do you need to kill for self protection; isn't it enough to wound? Why do you need an AK-47 that shoots through people and the walls behind them when a small pistol will do just fine to stop your intruder? This is the type of escalation I am talking about. If it was just about self protection, I would expect you to buy a taser or a pellet gun that just wound, not a shotgun aimed at the head to blast their brains on the floor. That is just merely brutality. We aren't talking about self defense when we discuss buying high-calibre weapons, we are discussing revenge; making the other guy pay for entering your castle. Likewise you argue that you are going to do what someone says if they point a gun at you. So if you get pissed off at me, you are going to point your gun at me and tell me what to do? Hardly sounds like your self-protection... more like tyranny. I am not sure though what you mean when you say "it can't happen right now" ; do you mean people doing the above example or...? Sorry for the misunderstanding  ^-^ Even though people will not necessarily point guns at eachother when they are mad, the possibility exists, which is why I am an alarmist. The United States is the most civilian heavily armed out of any nation in the world:
    U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
| Reuters

 (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828)
...and I know I cannot link the two, because that would be a causality issue... but we are also "In terms of number of murders worldwide, India is followed by Russia (28,904), Colombia (26,539), South Africa (21,995), Mexico (13,829) and the United States (12,658)" I know that we aren't the murder capital of the world... and now, even though we cannot link the two explicity, wouldn't you expect much less violence if guns helped as you say they do? (rediff.com: India is the murder capital of the world (http://specials.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/18sd1.htm))

The other issue lies with what is considered "common sense" regulation. What regulations would you personally agree with Tiberius? I am actually interested in seeing other viewpoints, for mine is constantly changing based on the evidence.

Well we can do some thing about the "common sense" Because common sense is so rare people how have it can do big things in life whirr people how don't have it run around telling the people with common sense what to do.

Landmark education is the key to being able make your family, for work place you nabber hood, the work work.. If you take this your view of what is will not not be the same. The work that Landmark Education dose is about empowering people. With the training from the Landmark forum you will never have to worry about what is out of your control because nothing will be. If you take the Landmark forum you could change the the way people relate to weapons like guns.

Well played, DN.  Reading this debate has been like watching the footwork of expert duelists.

However, as Tiberius pointed out, the burden of proof is on you. 

How, exactly, can a gun ban be expected to fix the amount of violent crimes in America?

How many of these crimes actually involved guns?

How many of these guns were obtained legally, or at least in ways where a gun ban could have helped?

Most of all, how can you prove that guns used in self-defense (or the possession of guns in general) haven't already reduced the occurrence of violent crimes?

All of these questions remain unanswered, and must be addressed before your comment becomes anything more than supposition.

I agree with Red.

DN, we do have a militia.

It's called the National Guard.

Oh, and they are very well regulated

National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States)

Sorry, just saw the Hulk. Tony Starks' august presence frazzled my brain.


Anyway, RedShirt makes a most excellent response to DN, who's post, while well written and based at least in part on something besides the usual anti-gun hysterics is just supposition until proof arises. Which I'm relatively certain it won't.



I do believe however, that it is not unrealistic to expect that we can all agree that everyone has a basic right to self defense and in the modern, real world, guns are an inseparable part of that right.

Guns will always be a part of modern life.  Even if private use is heavily restricted or banned, they will still find their way into the hands of determined criminals and citizens.  Moreover, I doubt you'll see the police disarming themselves anytime soon.

I, for one, have no wish to live in a society where guns are the privilege of only the government and social elite.

This is a side point only vaguely applicable, but I have several friends who own and operate handguns and rifles.  They own their weapons not to take lives, but to shoot for sport.  They are professional marksmen.

Therese no way to know that Red unless you time travail I Sherrie people living in the dark ages thought that about church controlled governments. The resin you can see that in your mind id because you relationship to what is, is so strong it blocks out possibility.

Nether do I but I would like to see guns only used for official resins.

But there are outer ways to get food now killing in that way has no use than to give one the thrill of have the ability chose if some thing lives or dies.

Well, if you look at that same Wikipedia article, the federally-controlled National Guard as we know it was officially created in 1916: note that the militia that the founding fathers were talking about is NOT at all associated with the government--as in fact that militia was designed to protect against the tyranny of the government as I had previously stated. So no, we do not have a militia per say.   :D

"However, as Tiberius pointed out, the burden of proof is on you.  
How, exactly, can a gun ban be expected to fix the amount of violent crimes in America?
How many of these crimes actually involved guns?
How many of these guns were obtained legally, or at least in ways where a gun ban could have helped?
Most of all, how can you prove that guns used in self-defense (or the possession of guns in general) haven't already reduced the occurrence of violent crimes?
All of these questions remain unanswered, and must be addressed before your comment becomes anything more than supposition."

Complements aside, saying that the burden of proof lies on proving that firearms are dangerous is taking the easy way out (as the opposite argument would be supposition as well then). In this case I strongly believe that the burden of proof lies on both sides as all the things that are used to justify owning firearms have not been proven either. No one ever answered the questions I postulated in either post, or attempted to retrace their steps about "what the founding fathers thought". My points have obviously been just merely ignored. All of those questions that I quoted can be turned around, yet no proof was given for those possibilities either. However for some of those questions I have facts: (DEATH BY MURDER (http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html)): The majority of all violent deaths (by far) in the US are caused by firearms. I am NOT linking firearms related deaths to law on purpose, as for as long as firearms regulations differ among states, firearm usage cannot be easily regulated. All I am stating is that firearms are the main contributers to violence in this country, probably due to how easy it is to obtain them, and their lethality. This is the cause for concern. I can prove that "that guns used in self-defense (or the possession of guns in general) haven't already reduced the occurrence of violent crimes" because of their very nature, as well as what I and Tiberius stated. Tiberius says that "Granted, the bigger gun is more likely to inflict a fatal wound with each hit", and thus we conclude that guns cause violence/death, even if it is self-protection. Secondly we know that possession of guns in general has not reduced violent crimes, as firearms contribute the most to violent crime! In case you do read the entire artical, you will also find statistics for murder based on intimates, revenge, arguments and the ilk. Hardly self-protection yet again.

"Anyway, RedShirt makes a most excellent response to DN, who's post, while well written and based at least in part on something besides the usual anti-gun hysterics is just supposition until proof arises. Which I'm relatively certain it won't."

Yet again, it can just as easily be said about the "pro-gun hysterics": it is all just supposition. That doesn't make the anti-gun stance correct, it just makes the pro-gun stance equally unteniable. Proof needs to be given that guns in civilian use bring down violent crime rates and lead to less murder. From the article above however, it is clear that the presence (not the numerical increase) of firearms leads to more murder. The former statement of course invalidates itself as if one assumes NO civilians had firearms, NO deaths could be attributed to these people using firearm ... however, because civilians do have firearms, they can and do kill.  Perhaps this killing is due to self-protection, but it is still killing nonetheless, and thus proves the point that murder goes up due to firearms. Likewise we assume, as PD stated, that firearms are notoriously easy to get. Why steal them then to commit murder? Obviously then, legal guns are the most likely cause of violent crime, not illegal ones. Does that answer those questions adequately?

By the way, I never advocated a gun ban; and in fact I never stated my position on firearms other than to state that they are dangerous, they do contribute the most to violence, and that it is due to how readily accesible they are. Of course, I could then proceed logically from that point to state that I believe that heavy military grade weapons should be banned and the sale of handguts given UNIFORM regulation throughout the states. Again, no one ever answered why you need an AK-47 or an assault rifle or a nuke ( :shifty:) for self protection. Thus I reiterate that while you may claim that I need to prove (what exactly am I proving?) that firearms need better regulation to the point of being much harder to buy and use, you likewise need to prove the converse, and to tell me what their benefit is (with proof please).

Posted on: June 30, 2008, 12:42:27 AM

---

Ewm, he wasn't necessarily talking about killing animals; he might have meant marksmanship on a good 'ol target.  :D

Less guns = less guns If there are less guns there will be less for good AND bad people to use. If Less "bad people" have guns there will be less bullets fired = less death.

You need to know if guns are dangerous you kidding me right?  :lol:lol

But all fun aside, Guns are made for one purposes to think if three are more guns they wont be used to kill more is more then recluse. If people have guns they will se them many time on humans.

So basically its denied that guns have a positive effect on violent crime rates and enacting legislation to remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens will make murder/rape/violent crime in general go down?

1. The gun ban in DC was ineffective in reducing violent crime and a severe wave of violent crime occurred after the ban which was only stopped by intense law enforcement activities. Not only that, it provides a handy contrast with the states of Maryland and Virginia. Both states have easy access to firearms and neither experienced a wave of crime at the same time, despite being in the same area. The conclusion then is that he mere presence of firearms does not lead to violence.

2. John Lott's analysis in his book More Guns, Less Crime demonstrates a clear correlation between the enactment of concealed carry laws and a decrease in violent crime.

3. Laws allowing more prolific ownership of guns have appeared in numerous states since 1987 with no ill effects in any of the states and the strong suggestion of a positive effect on crime rates. Florida and Texas are both prime examples of reduced violent crime following the enactment of concealed carry laws that has been largely consistent over time.

4. Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates. At worst, the prevalence of deadly weapons is irrelevant to violent crime rates, having no discernable effect on murder, rape, suicide and violent crime. (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso)


We should draw from this the following:

A. Humans are going to kill each other and the presence of firearms will not effect this tendency in any meaningful way and may actually help prevent deaths.

B. Guns being "good" or "bad" is a meaningless debate since attempts to ban them have proven ineffective. We can't do anything about it so the moral worth becomes a non-issue.

C. We should accept that guns are not to blame for society's violent ills whereas our energy would be much better spent on rebuilding destroyed social capital caused in large part by the break down of the traditional family unit.


DN, your own article (http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#guns) points out that guns in all probability do not cause high murder or violent crime rates.

Your assertion that is completely unproven and unsupported by evidence you have presented and your suppositions aren't strong enough to support claiming that as a theory, much less hard fact. The only part of that sentence that is true is that they are dangerous. And since they're dangerous by design, its a completely pointless statement.





I will submit to you that there is sufficient evidence to stand behind the position that guns are not a negative force in society and good cause to believe that they're a positive force, though the later position is debatable. I stand firm in my conviction that they are not a negative force.


And the militia debate is pointless. The supreme court has explained in iron clad terms that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not a collective one, meaning that whether or not we have a militia, who is in it and similar arguments are pointless.

in making money producing them ... thats your economy all basing on, producing weapons, for some bad-brained peaple thinking that they have to protect themself against thiefs with a 12mm, and those bigger ones starting whole wars, because they don't know better to do with those weapons, than killing people.

thats the ecoonomy of the great good-willing west, cool isn't it?
and if we don't start a war, we make 2 other countries fight each other and sell them our weapons ...
were the peaceful, were the democratic, were the land of the free.

free? free of freedom at best.

Well a big problem is that people in this country is that people have bean sold that happiness comes from things, people, places, or time, so they buy all this useless stuff to make them saves feel good but they are disappointed at the end and resined and senacol about possibilities. 

Its relay sad and may be the undoing of all that we hold dear.

Isn't Washington DC the political capital of america? Surely its a bit risky allowing guns in that kind of environment!?

this is a very interesting debate and part of me wishes this was happening over here - the UK. There has been so many deaths lately, gang killings and the like. Its really awful but i can't help but think - is this what america was like so many years ago? Please don't think i've being racist here but before all the immigrants and such i don't think crime of this sort in the UK was so often and so brutal! I may be wrong.

I truly believe if Guns were a bigger presence in the UK the crooks wouldn't be so tough. Yeah sure they themselves would probably be armed but so would the police and the fear the crooks would have of being shot dead would be greater then the fear of going without a widescreen Hi Def tv in our cushy jails. I think Guns can be much more powerful psychologically then physically.

Whats needed is a well regulated gun society. America has this and to my knowledge has good control as well. Surely no-one can deny illegal guns are far more dangerous then legal guns.

I cannot deny Guns kill. Guns hold little bits of metal that leave the barrel at high speed and at 1 point or another will take the life of someone. But another someone pulls the trigger.


Guns don't kill people. People do.

And in the end we all must remember what we can learn from history. The great Alfred Nobel known as "the merchant of death" after his invention of dynamite (and later related military hardware) began being used for purposes of violence, in 1891 told the peace campaigner Bertha von Suttner:
"Perhaps my factories will put an end to war sooner than your congresses: on the day that two army corps can mutually annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will surely recoil with horror and disband their troops". 23 years later WWI had begun, the most disastrous and deadly war, on an unimaginable scale, to have ever been fought in human history up to that point ... and yet gun-advocates make the same essential claim - that having guns will bring down violence, be used for self defense... etc. Like it or not, guns are designed to kill, and will never promote good will to fellow man.

Your example has one very serious flaw: World War One, while brutal enough, surely, was a military activity.  We are discussing civil matters.

Surely you'll agree that a handgun has a much bigger psychological affect against a criminal than it does against an opposing army.

You'd also have to agree that the term 'home invasion' does NOT mean that any party involved is behaving in a military fashion.

But the criminal is the only one how has the mind set o use it to hart of kill. Know this one of the people how get shout will be quotes good people.

Bullshit.

This "criminal" is not a specific "type" of person in the first place.  A "criminal" is a person who is driven by any number of factors to violate the law.

This person could be motivated by cold greed, or fiery passion.  You just can't slap them all together and say that "only they" have the "mind set" to kill.

Criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY KILL, not the other way around.

Yes some what how is not aware or dose not caare about the impact they have people how fit this mold are more likly to be in crime and morlikly to hert some one.

But People how live a life or caring or live by morality are less likly to pull the triger.

I try to live my life the best i can, with consideration for others, humans and animals alike but i would still use a gun in self defence in my own home if i was being robbed or if a peadophile tried to snatch my kid. In lots of scenerios i would employ a gun purely as a way of protecting myself and those i care for. Does that give me the mindset of a criminal? Surely not. Guns in my opinion are a natural evolution of the caveman's club. Would you Ewm like to go back to the stone age and reason with a caveman about why a club is not a good idea?

but guns are helping to make it much easier to kill someone. for example its more difficult to kill someone with your fists. it would take much more agression AND things like wars would be impossible between two countries that are miles away from eaxh other.

the problem in amerikan thinking is: yeah someone could have a weapon and shoot me, so i need one to to kill him before he does me ..." its just the wrong direction to think ...
think about that. if weapons are legal, they are legal for ALL people so everyone shoots everyone as soon as he thinks the other one could shoot me.

that is not good i think.
Posted on: July 01, 2008, 01:25:46 PM

---

thx ewm for this. you made the point. guns are a product we get told we neeeeeeed them as hell.

i just wait 4 the day the companys make us think we need hell  to sell it to us. or has it even happened?
think.

stop "knowing" somethink, start to think about that you believe to know.
think about god, hell, good and bad. about what mony is/were.
think about what you really need and what should be pursuited for happynes.
is money a measure of happines? the size of a car? the size of boobs (concerning these shit ops on young girls bodys) size or amount of something they sell you?

just start thinking: who are you? let me help you a bit:
youre NOT the clothes you wear, Youre not the furniture in your flat, Youre not your flat. youre not the monay you earn,youre even not what you see in the mirror. (quotet free from fight club, havent found the english quote yet ...)

"Worker bees can leave
                Even drones can fly away
                               The queen is their slave"

ever thought about this sentence? who is who in society?

think people think. think about all thats just told you from everywhere, church state, teacher,televisopon, newspapers, you have to question even those things that make you say " yes that could be right ..."
just try it.
perhaps whe have to go back to earlier forms of beeing to find ourselves.
but

"going to gound zero is not just a weekend trip for holyday"

i dont agree to all thing sid or shown in fight club, but the direction of thinking is another one.

Yes if it meant no guns. But could ashaly end some ones life the anser you may come up with now may not be the same annser you would come up with if fased with that quection.

I have never seen a gun fly thow spase and kill some one.. This is scary if guns kill people on thare own.

Yes, guns are all business, they have nothing to do with our constitutional rights nor our right to protect ourselves from aggressors. Gee, I had it wrong the whole time, thank you for helping me see the right. I should get rid of mine immediately...

If only you where ethnic.

Excuse me? Was that a racist remark?

Here's something for you to chew on: guns are not bad by nature.  They have any number of uses, all of which involve shooting an object at high velocity.  It could be used as a tranquilizing device at your local zoo, or perhaps as a paintball gun for your enjoyment. 

Some of these uses involve killing people.  This is true.  However, sadly, sometimes this becomes a necessity, but only in extreme circumstances.  I prefer the use of rubber bullets if possible.

Still, a gun does not make a person evil.  IT IS A TOOL.  The use of a tool depends completely upon the person wielding it.  The tool doesn't make the man.

Would a mechanic suddenly stop being a mechanic if you took away his wrench?

--
Respectfully, DM, the burden of proof sits wholly on the party making the contention.  In this case, the contention is that a gun ban is the best way to reduce violence.  If I have mistaken the point of this thread, I appologize; however, I am quite certain that this is what it boils down to.

--


While philosophically true, this is still a generalization, lacking any hard evidence.  You will certainly agree that a man is far too often guided by events unfolding around him, and unrelated to the man himself.  Therefore, this isn't the subject in which to base decisions on your best guess-tamant of how a man's moral fiber effects his actions.


What the hell are you saying, ewm?  This can be interpreted in many ways, and none of them speak well of themselves.

Because you referred to me specifically, I guess I should respond (DM= DN I guess, I mean no offense  :D )
"This person could be motivated by cold greed, or fiery passion.  You just can't slap them all together and say that "only they" have the "mind set" to kill. Criminals are criminals BECAUSE THEY KILL, not the other way around."
I particularly like this quote, Redshirt, because it illustrates the cost of arming every civilian.  If every civilian is potentially a violent criminal, why would you seek to arm everyone, rather than limit potential liability?

Every time a criminal/offender is mentioned, it is assumed that that person armed themselves illegally. I would have you think about this: an honest citizen, armed to the teeth motivated by “fiery passion” pulls out his revolver, and whether it fires accidently or on purpose, kills. In any case, you yourself state that criminals are not their own special breed, and thus I postulate to you that a so-called “criminal” may just as likely purchase a gun legally as a so-called “civilian” (even if the criminal was not an offender until after committing the crime with that gun)

The lack of restraint was more what I was arguing against, than anything else Red (I am sorry I did not make that clear enough in my response, but that is what I stated my ideas to be for. Also, I am sure all of us were discussing firearms in the sense of those that are designed to kill or wound). The contention was also, started by PD, that the allowance of arms anywhere and everywhere is permissible. I think this is foolhardy. Without set limits on these so-called freedoms, anyone has the ability to oppress another’s freedoms. I personally like using firearms… but I believe they belong at the range (or hunting park if you so choose), or at home (when not in use) when they are completely inert. I think it would be foolish to arm everyone regardless of weapon type or the ilk given the above and below reasons. I still believe that even the most highly experienced and calm citizen, given good training with a firearm, is still liable to act selfishly with that weapon. Our police and military are not perfect and have many accidents, and I thus think it would be unwise to expect otherwise from a civilian (and in fact we can expect much worse). Likewise, it is not our (a civilian’s) job description, and we are not trained in our life’s work to wield a weapon and protect the peace, so what gives a civilian the same right as a police officer to discharge a weapon against another individual?

What you must ask yourself Redshirt, as well as any well-intentioned gun-advocate or anybody in general, is how much you truly value your life. Are you more important than your parents, your child, your wife/husband, your girlfriend/boyfriend, your children, your nephew, your neighbor, or the guy in the country next to yours? You surely agree that these firearms, more often than not, kill or maim. Are you willing to kill another human being?  …and what are you willing to kill that fellow human for? Is his/her life worth it to protect your chair or your computer or your car or your life or the life of someone you know? This is no gray line fallacy. When you carry a weapon and are prepared to use it to give yourself so-called self-protection, you probably have already thought about what you would do when confronted by a criminal, with or without a weapon. You may claim you won’t shoot to kill, or that you only will do so when your life is threatened, but you can never be sure what will happen, how you will react when someone waves something in a seemingly threatening manner. Again, Red, you seem to concur on this point as you state “You will certainly agree that a man is far too often guided by events unfolding around him, and unrelated to the man himself”. You can never know what your confronter’s intentions are: if he/she pulls a gun/weapon/mistake on you, you will shoot to kill (or put him/her out of the way), regardless of whether there was honest murderous intention. Your attacker may just as well be your child, your friend, your girlfriend … or someone you don’t know. Who will you chose to murder?

I will not pretend that I can change any of your minds. But I can at least, perhaps, let you think about what the actions you would have done, can and WILL cause. Even if there is only possibility to murder, or to cause bloodshed, that is reason enough to consider ones course of action unthinkably inhuman and horrendous.

I will be afk until late Sunday.

I mint othinic not ethic

Guns are a tool there use is to kill thing that kind of tool has no use on our streets.

 when John Moses Browning invented the gun it rase the level of damage inflicted on persons / groups. When guns came on the seen the ability for people to kill people jumped in a short people of time. For me life is a rare and valuable state that should be exsperested not destroyed.

The 1st gun: Hand cannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_cannon) .

coool i want one of them!  :guns:

Why do I even bother...

That's the most intelligent response I have seen you make on this thread.

Guns aren't bad, because guns don't decide to be built, guns don't decide to shoot at Civilians, guns don't decide to fire armor piercing rounds, guns aren't tried by a jury if they shoot the wrong people.

People make these decisions, and people must be made responsible for them. Blaming a gun for people's mistakes is as ludicrous as the idea of a rifle sitting on the witness stand at a trial.

Apologies for the typo.


Glad you appreciate it.

Your question seems rather rhetorical, so I will answer with a query: do you believe that guns possess an aspect of deterrence as well?

I fail to see, however, this direct connection between the categorization of people and what effects arming everyone [??] would have on the state of peace in our nation.

You do, however, raise a question afterwards.  This statement does have a fundamental flaw, however.  Rather then simply rebuffing one faulty categorization, it rests on a foundation of absolute generalization.  Indeed, it makes room for no gun control whatsoever.  I don't recall anyone over the course of this debate actually advocating a suspension of all gun control, or, more alarmingly,  arming f*cking everyone.  These would be properly classified as 'strawmen'.



If you confine this conclusion to acts of passion, then you are correct.  If, however, you include premeditated violation of the law, then I must disagree.  Anyone who bothers to properly plan out a crime would be foolish to use a licensed firearm.



Intriguing.  I agree with much of what you say (though I admit the urge to tl;dr it), though I find it interesting that you would abridge "so-called" freedoms in accordance to how they infringe upon the freedoms of others.

That's the trouble with freedom, though; when everyone acts according to their own will, you get anarchy.

Yet we protect this freedom with our lives.  This is probably a symptom of our addiction; we indulge ourselves in ways that could be deemed 'excessive'.

Anyway, back on topic.  I'm curious to see where you would draw the line between freedom and "so-called freedom" in this case.  It seems that you don't actually suggest a gun ban at all: indeed, you speak well of both shooting for sport and self-defense.

So where, exactly, would you 'line' differ from those that are already in place?


You raise valid questions.

To answer one of them, I would not shoot to kill if I could avoid it.  If it was someone else's life on the line, however, I would be less lenient.  If your children were threatened, DN, I'd image you'd do anything to ensure their safety.

You seem to claim, though, that we lose control of our actions if we wield guns.  You ask me my plans for dealing with criminals, and then turn around and say those plans don't really matter.

If you read my quote, it says "all to often guided by", not "always morphed into a mindless killer by".  You claim that there is no "moral grey line" fallacy represented in your remarks, yet every sentence is aimed at casting doubt as to what moral choice you would make.  If there was ever a line there, you smudged it.



Can't change our minds?  With proper evidence documenting consistent reduction in crime following gun bans, you very well could.  Granted, this information probably doesn't exist, and may be difficult to obtain if it does, but it would force me to seriously reconsider my position.



Enjoy your time away from the brain-rotting computer!

I think this is a step in the right direction in America. It is quite coincidental that the two cities with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest crime rates. What is necessary is not to ban guns, but to have state required classes that teach firearm safety and proper handling of firearms starting around 8th grade or so, make it MANDATORY, and having to take it every year.

May you should see a Ophthalmologists.

I just said in a nether post I don't believe in morality PD see a Ophthalmologists relay.

Bob keep thinking..

When you tern opinion in to fact you have a big problem....

Ewm, every law started as an opinion.  Then, it became a fact.

Honestly, there's no way anyone is turning opinions into facts on this forum.

He gave his opinion about what is. I think that is funny people make thing up about what is right in front of them.

Its like saying this forum is relay about pink pigeons even know there is nothing on this site about pink pigeons before I posted this if some one said this to me I would give them the same response.

Its loony the hole Idea that guns save people, there killing mushiness how can a killing mushiness make people not get killed if they every one has one? If every one had a A-bomb maybe no one would set one off?????

Guns aren't nukes, and so far not people haven't taken to the streets gunning each other down over gas prices. I mean it's not like this is a new idea, we've HAD guns for hundreds of years. Why is it a problem now?

It's the same idea as if "you" (the hypothetical you) considered attacking the guy next to him at a martial arts tournament.  Sure, you may have  mad judo skills, but this isn't like a bar fight where you're the only one with training; you'll be beaten to a bloody pulp.

Yeah I know, why are we even trying to prove guns aren't a menace. We know they aren't. The burden is on you anti gun lobbyists to make me believe they are a evil scourge that serve no purpose.

Just because is has not become WW3 yet dose not mean is not a problem.... I Sherrie some have by now. Gas Station Shooting Caught On Tape - Videos - WMAQ (http://video.nbc5.com/player/?id=233668) <-- here

Guns have done nothing but kill living creator including humans its not needed in to days world. why would you wont people to die?

Yes, because I enjoy the benefit of having weapons, I must want people to die. You don't know me, alright, so don't think you do. I feel everything I wanted to say has been said on this subject, so accuse other people of enjoying fictitious genocide.

What is the benefit to have the power to end a noters life. God like hu....

Of all the things you could have a fetish for guns relay.... What about collecting stamps?

ewm, the benefit of having the power to end another's life is simple.  If you are attacked, violently, would you not want some way to defend yourself?  If your house is broken into, would you not want a way to ensure the safety of yourself, your family, and your property? 

Back in the olden days, the strong were able to push around the weak, with practically no consequences, because there was no way to stop them.  Firearms equalize the balance of power in situations, so even the least people can defend themselves effectively against a possible aggressor. 

Plus, guns have a deterrence effect on criminals. In 1986, sociologists James Wright and Peter Rossi interviewed 19,000 incarcerated felons, and found that upwards of 40% of them had aborted a crime, due to the fear that their intended victim was armed.  And, in 1994, a professor of criminology at Florida State University, Gary D. Kleck, after researching, had come up with an estimate that guns were used upwards of 2.4 million times for protection purposes.



oh and for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Assured_Destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_Assured_Destruction)
During the Cold War, even though many Nato countries and the USSR did have nukes, thousands of them, ready to fire, nothing came of it, as both sides knew that they would be completely annihilated,.

Yes of cores I would bob but most home robberies are not meant to kill and leave them are meant to steel and levee.

A gun dose not insure any thing it just ads a another variable to the situation..


O the strong never push the week any more with practically no consequences... hummmm you need to lean more about the world my ilinformed friend. Having a gun just ads a variable to a already daggers situation. Having a gun and using a gun to take an others life are two very different things. The demographic that would most like be the one to take a another life is not the law biting citizen.

yes is dose if the person they are robing has a gun but if they have a gun too for some that leaves the playing felling and having guns around even if ones best efforts are to keep them from criminals criminals will get them. Many times guns go-ten for legal prepossess and up working there way in to the criminal elements of a group of people.

And how many for non protective resins hu?


---

Both sides had some level of common scents and many times it got close like the Cuban missal crises.

True 90% of crooks will flee if the know the home owner is home . But what about the other 10% who   relish  confrontration. and those who  will commit a violent bodily grime just to cause pain and suffering? I would rather teach my  girlfreind or wife to be able to  defend herself aginst an attacker  and have her use the firearm   and have a chance to defend herself.  Than have her totally depdenant  on the" good" graces of he crooks tring  to break in and attack her.

I agree, I intend to own one firearm for hunting and a pistol for home defense and I think think that that is a totally reasonable position to take. I'd rather have me with the lethal advantage, then them.

Hunting is not needed.

Nore is home defiance.

Guns crate deth nor pervent them.

Ewm, you are making your opinion into a fact.  You have no data or sources to back up those claims, only bullshit rhetoric.  Be quiet or go home.

How so?

For most food we have is kept in cages you can kill them with electrocution instead of shooting them or hit them with a hammer.

Yes I do. I never had a gun and never needed one. No one I know need a gun to perfect them selves. Not even salubrity and world leaders need a gun for home defense.

I have never seen a gun keep some one from dyeing.

How is this a opinion do you know the different between a fact and a opinion. 1.st there is no such thing as a fact. and a opinion is merry one point of view on a topic.

Neither of those fit what I was just saying.

Just FYI, while I'm still halfway reading this ongoing farce, I've stopped responding because its become depressingly clear to me that the points in debate are completely irreconcilable. The anti-gun crowd is operating in a fundamentally different world and with a different set of values and are completely incapable of recognizing any validity to the other side's arguments so its really kind of a pointless endeavor to talk with them.

We who value our right to bear arms and their right not to are better off hoping that some event that isn't fatal to too many people changes their minds sooner rather than later.

Tiberius Is that some resignation and cenasisam?

Its beater they have the way it is shown over and over to them in the hope even one will stop collecting weapons of war. One less gun could mean one life saved.

A gun is around longer then a persons life time so the gun gets past from person to person some people the gun goes to use them to end the life of people like me and you.

That's exactly my point. Its like fighting a religious cult. There is no possibility of reasoning because the other side is absolutely sure of the divinity of its own position and will tolerate no ideas to the contrary lest they contaminate their holy thinking.

You (and I use that word in the general sense) cannot ever recognize that a weapon can in any way benefit society, even in one instance, and for damn sure refuse to even entertain the idea that said weapons might have a net positive influence. Not only that, also like a religious crusader, you refuse to recognize that others have a right to live their own way and insist they would be better off living according to your world view.


I'm sorry, but there really is no point to discussing things with you ewm, as you're blinded by faith and any facts, arguments or foul language I may use falls on deaf ears. You're convinced to a feverish degree in your own ideals and I seriously doubt that even having yourself or family members being on the receiving end of a situation in which a fire arm could make the difference between life and death would convince you otherwise.


I recognize the points you make as being worthy of consideration, but I reject them on the grounds that the higher ideal and thus the one we must value is the individual's right to self defense which, in this day and age, must include fire arms. IF we were to be possessed of some means to remove all guns everywhere from existence (and it must be existence as the government should be second to last for organizations we allow to have such power), then you would have a valid case and I would happily concede that the anti-gun people are absolutely right. That is flatly not possible so therefor the anti-gun point of view MUST be considered naive at best, guilty of willful, criminal intent at worst.

Damn straight.

Ewm, you can just not get a gun.

I really don't care; that's your business.

However, you damn sure aren't taking mine from me.  You don't have the damn right to do that, and nor does anyone else. 

It's my choice, and one that our constitution guarantees.  I have no plans to take any lives with a gun.  The only shots I'll by firing will be on the range.  However, if I'm ever threatened in my home, I won't be taking chances.

This, I suppose, is where it ends.  You know where I stand, and you honestly have neither the authority nor the intelligence nor sufficient rhetorical skills to convince me that I'm wrong, and you sure as hell don't have the facts.

?? Have you read any thing I just posted???????? I am so tired of talking to toaster like person "What do you think about guns" Toaster "your toast is ready" what?.

As long as your not sending letter bombs out I think I am ok.

our constitution guarantees - for now. Most guns are gotten for peaceful prepossess be for they end up in killers hands.

And where it began how surprising.

Landmark Education did nothing for you Ewm. You're still an opinionated bastard who insists his view is correct and neither ackowledges nor listens to anyone elses opinion. You can't debate. You just force your damn opinion on someone else and when someone comes up with their opinion you argue with it whereas most people go "Yes while that may be the case..." YOU go "NO! YOU'RE WRONG! I'M RIGHT!"

If i'm allowed I am having a gun. I won't kill anyone. Promise.

What is it that you are calming is my opinion?

You are right they did nothing to me, Landmark Education let me see what I could not to let me be what I was not.

There only one world we live in ether you see it as it id or you make stuff up about it and clam that thats the world you live in.


Its not you I am worried about when it come to guns.

That is kind of what your doing mate


From what i know about Landmark Education they would have at least made you a lot more sociable when talking/debating an issue. But you're not. Which is a shame as I'm sure you're very intelligent but just cannot embrace another person's opinion

Actually, I think that the pro and anti gun arguments are equally incapable of recognising each others arguments.

Taking the UK for instance.  This picture creates the impression that gun crime is so rampant in the UK that every officer has to walk around prepared to fight a small war.

(http://i32.tinypic.com/oabqli.jpg)

The authorised number of police in the UK is 140,000.  The number of officers authorised to carry firearms is 6,584.  That's under 5% by my quick back of the envelope calculation, so I think you could say that bobbies seldom carry weapons today.  Especially if you consider that not everybody authorised to carry a weapon does so at every point in time.

Given that only a tiny percentage of officers are actually armed, it makes sense to arm the officers in armed response units and on guard duty with overwhelming firepower rather than sidearms.

If somebody produces a weapon (which is more likely to be a BB gun that something actually able to fire a round) the police turn up with an armed response team with a dozen people armed with assault rifles, SMG's and a sniper.  They can do that, because carrying a firearm has a 5 year sentence attached and anybody carrying a weapon is automatically committing a crime.

However, we then hear from the other side of the pond that gun control dosen't work etc, and the only way to have a safe society is to have it awash in weapons and ammunition.

I am about as pro firearms as anybody in the UK you are likely to meet, with the possible exception of street robbers, who I am sure would love to be able to carry a weapon without either automatically being done for five years, or shot on sight.  However I would respectfully submit that their opinion should be discounted as they want the weapons for committing crimes, not preventing them.

I am a member of the local shooting club, I currently hold two medals for small bore rifle shooting, and two gold medals from Suffolk county for pistol shooting.  You can still do target shooting and hunting.  I do not support firearms being used or carried for "defence", (which personally I think is a completely meritless argument in this country) and given the chance I would not carry one.  I know the majority of people in the Suffolk shooting clubs, and I think I am fairly safe in saying that roughly 100% of them wouldn't carry a weapon either if it were legal.  Nobody wants to carry weapons for "defence" over here.

Gun control does work in the UK, and there is no support for changing the law to allow people to carry pistols or rifles on the streets.  The most radical changes to the law that people would really like are comparatively minor changes, like being allowed to own semi automatic weapons in addition to single action weapons.  Simple facts, however foreign pro gun groups won't ever accept that and will misrepresent the facts for their own purposes.  I don't really care that much, its not going to alter anything here.

However I think the US anti gun groups are wrong to suggest that implementing the same laws in the US as we have in the UK would have the same result.  I wouldn't expect it to work because disarming a country with a huge number of weapons in circulation would be near impossible.

Landmark education did nothing to me. Nothing.. noda zipo zilth.

What part have I made up?

That guns kill people?

That guns are only pushed to make money.

What is it that I have "made up"?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm)

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp)

For the mentally astute (read: not stupid), what I said is very clear: IF you don't like guns, don't get one.  However, you have no right to take ours away.

Well if I dont like narcodics dose not meen that it should be okfor every one alsse to have them.

What you are saying dose not speak to the point I was trying to make.

I absolutely LOVE narcotics! I also absolutely respect and honour the next person's RIGHT to CHOOSE to take or shun narcotics!

that make sense? Its all down to YOUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE. Guns were here way before you and me were born and they're hear to stay unless in some distant future we all manage to achieve "Star Trek Peace" but then even in star trek phasers were present - now would you say Picard & Co should not have been allowed a phaser when they were confronted by the Borg? Hmm? Don't get all "Star Trek is a TV show" on me - I am using it as an example and a blindingly good one considering the forum  :lol: :woot: :thumbsup:

If we changed this from guns to abortion the right to chose would disappear. To me thats hipacidacule and weird. (flip flop)

Well if we had the right to choose on avery think that we wonted we would have anarchy.

Murder would be legal, rape, theft, drugs, racism, and much more thats not a world witch most people would like to see let alone live in.

If I wonted to argue that guns was a good thing I could dose that make is so "NO" threes what people wont and then there is what so. When you are able to make the difference you will have freedom from companies that tell you by buying guns you will find happiness and peace of mind.

The argument about guns is the same debate as the "smoking debate". Do smokers have the right to smoke? Likewise, do non-smokers have the right to live without smoke in the air from smokers? Inevitably it is not who is right or wrong, but which right (entitlement) takes presidence.

There is no Wrong or right.....

The question if put under morality can never be answered because what is right and wrong is a matter of opinion, one just has to do what is best for ones self and ones world and guns have never has a positive impact.

No I disagree, some things are simply wrong ewm. I've never bought the argument that the assessment is subjective, or that somehow a person can conclude that evil is not evil just because it is his "opinion". When two opposing views are expressed, it does not immediately follow that the truth is inbetween. One side can simply be wrong. I think the question of morality is much simpler than you make out. Most people, religious and atheist alike, are horrified when they hear a report of another senseless murder.

This may be a surprise, but I don't think the possession of guns is the problem - although it can make the problem worse. The problem is people's attitude, the problem is anger. To illustrate, we all possess many many instruments in our homes which are capable of causing serious injury to others (believe it or not). Take a look in the kitchen drawer, some of those instruments are lethal. Of course, they're designed for slicing bread or tightening screws, not for snuffing out another person's life, but as with any tool, they can be either used or misused. I accept that guns were in fact designed for combat, but I cannot avoid this overpowering sense that it is not possession of the weapon itself that leads a person to commit murder.

You may have heard the expression that if you take away guns, people will kill each other with knives, and if you take away their knives, they will kill each other with sticks, etc. Look around your home, if you think about it you can kill a person with almost anything. With enough anger and the right (wrong) frame of mind, you could kill someone with a chair. Here in Britain, guns aren't as common as in the US, so the local teens attack each other with knives, and if they don't have a knife, they beat the hell out of their victim. I heard of a guy dying because someone punched him once. Unlike in the movies, where this is kinda cool and warms you up a bit ready to fight back, this guys head hit the pavement and he died instantly.

This is why comparisons with the past are unhelpful. Guns may have been legal in the past, but if they were legal now in England, the situation would more closely resemble the modern US. If you don't tackle the root cause, this sinister anger people harbour, the lack of self control, the poor attitude towards life in general, then you can't solve the problem. This is also why I don't buy the argument that the cause of binge drinking in the UK is cheap alcohol. Sure, it makes the underlying problem worse, but it is not the problem any more than the wind was the problem when the first pig's straw house fell down. As a British citizen, I am (allegedly) surrounded by cheap alcohol but I don't have the slightest desire to go out and buy it. It tastes like crap, damages your health and people tend to do it only to impress their friends. Toilet paper is even cheaper but I am not overcome with the urge to stockpile it (not unless Israel attacks Iran  :sweatdrop:).

People always discuss this as though people don't have a choice. We assume that alcohol being cheap means ---> binge drinking. Guns widely available and legal? Then -----> booom! Trigger pulled, person killed. It's a tempting conclusion, and on first glance it looks that way, but no, the problem is people's attitude, and similarly it is also anger which is the problem. At the beginning of The Minority Report, the guys kid is cutting bits of paper with scissors. When his wife later cheats on him, that benign and (rather useful) instrument became a deadly weapon (in one possible outcome, anyway!). Here's a couple of scenarios of my own:

Scenario 1) Ban all guns. This will probably reduce shootings, but like in the UK, we may end up with crime displacement (those angry frustrated young people become burglars or car jackers, or just use knives instead). Also, a black market may result. A bitter sweet solution.

Scenario 2) Somehow, eliminate the anger of the potential criminals, and/or eliminate any potential causes of frustration, e.g. family breakdown, unemployment, mental illness etc. By eliminating the root cause, it would not matter whether we were surrounded by guns, bat'leths, scissors, bread knifes or screwdrivers. They would not be used except for clay pigeon and holodeck exercises.

I also don't get why young people say they are bored, in an age of ever increasing knowledge and things to do. But that's another matter altogether. Maybe it's all to do with some sort of brain abnormality...  :ermm: