Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:21 pm**

Iz Man wrote:The law in Kenesaw forbids criminals & the mentally ill from obtaining firearms; ergo criminals do not obtain them. Hence the dramatic decrease in violent crimes since the law's inception.

....
How is that a response to my point?

Also, correlation does not mean causation.

Not sure where you got your info there. I know I would not want to live there given the violent crime escalation since their ban on handguns started. Maybe you would like to move there?

Seeing as it's been about....25 years since the ban, that town must've been a fucking blast to live in in the past.

Really, seeing as both have the same violent crime rating (crimes that involve force), this shit is just ridiculous.
Link.

Exactly. You don't; and your only recourse at this point is to discount an article I referred to as "right-wing".

It's an article not mentioning any of it's sources!!!!!!! It just wildly proclaims that guns are good and not-guns are bad. I call it right-wing because all I've seen from that site is exactly that. Right wing articles not referencing sources.

Are you implying that Kenesaw, Georgia does not have a law on the books requiring firearm ownership, and since then there has not been a dramatic drop in violent crime, because I cited a Worldnetdaily article?

Not because it's from worldnetdaily, but because it doesn't give it's sources. I'm not denying anything, just want to see it.

Your rebuttal is quickly losing steam.

It is not losing steam as I don't know anything about what they used or precisely how the laws over there function.

Morton Grove, Ill bans firearm ownership, violent crime rate increases.
Kenesaw, GA mandates firearm ownership, violent crime decreases.

It doesn't even say that in the article! It just says crime-rates, which also includes non-violent crimes.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:30 pm**

Don't bother, Izman...Snorrarse will just get more and more excited about this, call anything you post right-wing (and hence, of course, wrong), then start swearing at you and saying that he's a rational person and that that somehow wins him the argument. It'sprobably not healthy to allow him to debat, he could start having uncontrollable angry spams and foam at the mouth as his cosy little magic pinko-lefty worldview is slowly dismantled by hard evidence and reasoning.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:34 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:Don't bother, Izman...Snorrarse will just get more and more excited about this, call anything you post right-wing

Napoleon Ier wrote:his cosy little magic pinko-lefty worldview

:/

Napoleon Ier wrote:then start swearing at you and saying that he's a rational person and that that somehow wins him the argument.

Napoleon Ier wrote:worldview is slowly dismantled by hard evidence and reasoning.

:\

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:35 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:Don't bother, Izman...Snorrarse will just get more and more excited about this, call anything you post right-wing (and hence, of course, wrong), then start swearing at you and saying that he's a rational person and that that somehow wins him the argument. It'sprobably not healthy to allow him to debat, he could start having uncontrollable angry spams and foam at the mouth as his cosy little magic pinko-lefty worldview is slowly dismantled by hard evidence and reasoning.

Your posts get more and more hilarious everytime.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:38 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:. Really. Look up homicide rates in Switzerland and Israel.

Israel does not exist~~

Wanna get into this?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:54 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:What's more, self-defence is a simple right, regardlessof what crime rates say.

This does not mean that self-defence with fucking guns is a right. Try harder next time.

However it is also true that if people were trained and able to defend themselves, I could guarantee that crime rates would be lower. Really. Look up homicide rates in Switzerland

I believe Switzerland has the benefit of not being a very violent country anyway. It is one of the richest countries in the world, and they have none of the issues generally associated with gun-violence like drugs and poverty nor urban depravity.
For example, look at this chart.
You see that Switzerland is very low on the list (#56), but when you look at number 51 it isn't a very big difference. However, The Netherlands has very strict gun laws.

So basically, citing other countries as examples why guns should be banned or not is silly. People should look at whether it's reasonable to have gun-control in the USA at this moment.

I tend to agree that guns don't cause violence, but when you have a violent society, as America undoubtley has, making guns easily available will not solve anything. If anything, I imagine it will increase it.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:01 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:
This does not mean that self-defence with fucking guns is a right. Try harder next time.

Oh yeah...The Constitution doesn't say, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:03 pm**

Dekloren wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:This does not mean that self-defence with fucking guns is a right. Try harder next time.

Oh yeah...The Constitution doesn't say, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

I thought nappy was talking about in general. I know what the american constitution says.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:13 pm**

The right to self defence without guns only existed until guns were created~

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:26 pm**

Dekloren wrote:The right to self defence without guns only existed until guns were created~

Self defense =/= shooting people. You can defend yourself without using guns, though I admit it's harder than without. (But it also means you are less likely to be shot yourself.)

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:33 pm**

Dekloren wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
This does not mean that self-defence with fucking guns is a right. Try harder next time.

Oh yeah...The Constitution doesn't say, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

That's a grotesque twisting of my words. I never said what's in that quote. I support gun rights.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 4:42 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:
So basically, citing other countries as examples why guns should be banned or not is silly. People should look at whether it's reasonable to have gun-control in the USA at this moment.

The exact opposites of what your magic liberal circus has been doing from the start of this debate!

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 5:14 pm**

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
So basically, citing other countries as examples why guns should be banned or not is silly. People should look at whether it's reasonable to have gun-control in the USA at this moment.

The exact opposites of what your magic liberal circus has been doing from the start of this debate!

Huh? I am not part of the circus saying "well we don't have guns and lower crimerate so you shouldn't have guns", I try to show that more guns does not mean less violence. I know that Americans aren't going to give up their guns any time soon, but I just object to the propaganda they spread.

The USA should do something about their gun-problems. Not by outright banning them, but firstly doing something about their huge black market. And that black market can only be reduced by being more strict on the producing of guns and making sure gun-selling and ownership is even more heavily watched. Stricter gun control is seen as something bad by the republicans, but I believe they would certainly agree with the notion of putting guns in the hands of only law-abiding citizens. If they don't want to take more time to obtain the guns, then really the country is going down the drain anyway.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:11 pm**

Snorri1234 wrote:Huh? I am not part of the circus saying "well we don't have guns and lower crimerate so you shouldn't have guns", I try to show that more guns does not mean less violence. I know that Americans aren't going to give up their guns any time soon, but I just object to the propaganda they spread.

The USA should do something about their gun-problems. Not by outright banning them, but firstly doing something about their huge black market. And that black market can only be reduced by being more strict on the producing of guns and making sure gun-selling and ownership is even more heavily watched. Stricter gun control is seen as something bad by the republicans, but I believe they would certainly agree with the notion of putting guns in the hands of only law-abiding citizens. If they don't want to take more time to obtain the guns, then really the country is going down the drain anyway.

There are already over 20,000 laws on the books from the federal down to the local level concerning the production, sale and possession of firearms.
The answer is not to add more laws, its to enforce the ones that already exist.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:18 pm**

Or....*Gasp*

Less Laws???

RON PAUL~~~

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:24 pm**

Dekloren wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
This does not mean that self-defence with fucking guns is a right. Try harder next time.

Oh yeah...The Constitution doesn't say, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

1. It took 15 seconds to load a gun when this law was written.

2.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:24 pm**

Okay, why is a Canadian hoping for Ron Paul?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 6:47 pm**

kalishnikov wrote:A common misconception is that the US has fairly loose gun laws which leads to a high crime rate. Thats not the case.

If guns were completely illegal for everyone but the cops and the military (f*ck that, tyranny anyone?) our crime rate would still remain high. Crime is a product of our society, the way we treat each other, and several other factors. The Emerikan Dream is nothing but a lust for material wealth, those who cannot satisfy their desire for things in a legal way turn to crime to get what they want.

Living in a pretty poor and predominantly black neighborhood (statistically the places with the highest crime rate) you can see it on a daily basis. A good friend of mine is a highschool dropout, can barely read or spell his own name, the reason for his dropping out of school was to devote more time to bangin/slingin (gang activities for you old folks), his dream in life is to own several nice cars, with big rims, and have money to feel secure. Our culture and society has pushed him to crave these things, things he knew he could never attain in a legal manner, so he took the way he knew he could accomplish.

If guns we're under a strict control, said friend-of-mine would just do stick-and-runs with a knife instead. Ease of access to guns does not directly translate to a higher crime rate, our culture pushing material significance onto the youth DOES. When you live in some places in this dump called Emerika, owning/carrying a firearm is almost a necessity to protect yourself against people like my nameless friend, who see their only way to happiness is to take what you have.

Guns do not cause violence, people just use them for that. Society breeds contempt, then disenfranchised youths seek out guns as tools to get what they want. By banning owning guns all you are doing is putting us who legally obtained weapons/legally carry them in a tough spot. I've got a Concealed Carry permit, if you walked the streets I do every night you would carry a weapon also, but never once have I needed it/drawn it in fear or anger, but someday I WILL need it. And when that day comes and I'm gettin mugged by 6 gangstas, what the f*ck do I do if I don't have a gun? Call the cops? Please, I'm a German/Russian white twenty-something in the ghetto with a bunch of bangers/thugs, by the time the cops show they won't even find the laces from my boots...

Banning guns puts the power in 3 groups' hands, none of which should be more powerful then the average citizen: cops, military, gangs. History has proven all these groups CAN become your enemy. And the illegal element will always have weapons as they and procured illegally, the local laws make no difference in how hard it is to obtain them, they WILL have them but then the average Joe has no means to protect themselves.

When you take away our guns you guarantee us becoming the victims of crime, be it a mugging or a military oppression, it will happen eventually. Ever self-respecting citizen should at least own and be familiar with the use of a weapon, if not carry and be proficient. Liberties like this that we take for granted yet could literally save our lives are the most important thing in the world. I'll end with a good, old quote:

You can take my guns, sure; when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Exactly.
Great post.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 7:48 pm**

unriggable wrote:
Dekloren wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
This does not mean that self-defence with fucking guns is a right. Try harder next time.

Oh yeah...The Constitution doesn't say, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

1. It took 15 seconds to load a gun when this law was written.

2.

You are amazing.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:51 pm**

unriggable wrote:
Dekloren wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
This does not mean that self-defence with fucking guns is a right. Try harder next time.

Oh yeah...The Constitution doesn't say, THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

1. It took 15 seconds to load a gun when this law was written.

2.

So original. :roll:

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 9:01 pm**

Ron Paul rEVOLution baby.

Our last hope before shit really hits the fan.

A Canadian is more involved with US politcs than 95% of your country.

Kinda tells you something??

(Yeah, I am fucking crazy

)

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:04 pm**

Dekloren wrote:Ron Paul rEVOLution baby.

Our last hope before shit really hits the fan.

A Canadian is more involved with US politcs than 95% of your country.

Kinda tells you something??

(Yeah, I am fucking crazy )

You'd be surprised how many people are into politics here.

It also tells me that you have grown bored with Canadian Politics and decided to move on to American Politics, and thus becoming entrenched in several conspiracy theories and slowly, but surely, becoming quite insane (in other words, not arguing with your last comment).

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:16 am**

Iz Man wrote:That's pretty weak.
How do you explain the results in Kenesaw, Georgia?

I'd love to see the violent/accidental death figures for that town before and after the law was passed...

Both flooding the population with firearms and banning them completely will never work. Supplying everyone and their dog with a firearm will decrease the crime rate, true, but massively boost the death rate from guns. Untrained fools will kill themselves left, right and centre and professional criminals will shoot first and demand later, if they know a building is likely to be full to bursting with guns. I'd say having your bank robbed bloodlessly more often is better than having you and everyone else in the room shot, don't you think?

Banning guns completely is little better. Criminals will still be armed, while the general population will be not. Not a good situation.

Neither extreme will work. What the US actually needs is to gradually phase out the huge numbers of weapons. If people want to defend their homes, fine. Give them rifles. You can't massacre with a rifle (easily, anyway). Ban automatic weaponry. Make it much harder for any crazy walking in off the street to get a gun. Install rather viscious fines for breaking these laws.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:03 am**

http://www.canadiansforronpaul.com/

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:39 am**

Neutrino wrote:Banning guns completely is little better. Criminals will still be armed, while the general population will be not. Not a good situation.

You're right, but only when you think in the short term. It is a failure that comes from the gun lobby in every debate on the subject. Yes. Crime may even rise immediately, and there may be no noticeable difference for quite a while, but it changes over time. It gradually erodes gun culture, and criminals are not in any way immune from that effect. In Britain your average bank robber may still have a gun, but most of the time that gun is fake or just a banana under a coat,, because your average lunatic who wants to hold up a bank (maybe a junkie, for example) simply cannot get his or her hands on a gun. You can't go to a gun shop and buy a gun to use illegally, nor can you buy one from every dodgy pawn shop or neighbourhood dealer. Your average kid in the estates might think robbing her peers is a good idea, but its hard for him to get a gun and, furthermore, those he's gonna mug won't have one. Guns just gradually reduce in impact and spread. When we find glocks in the UK we know that they've been imported illegally from abroad because we don't make them and they're illegal. We can work to stop that supply much more effectively than we could if the manufacture and importation of guns was legal. They just don't flood the streets to anything like the same degree after a period of time. The impact is gradually reduced.

Conquer Club

guns 101