Conquer Club

Koesen wrote:

freezie wrote:

Wisse wrote: (well if you look at canada where everyone also has weapons, they don't have as much kills as the us,)

...What?

Guns are not allowed, beside hunting. BArely anyone has guns, those who do got them illegally.

At least, many miles around where I live. And I expect the same in other regions.

I live in the Canadian countryside north of Toronto, and guns are fairly common here. I can't be bothered to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the average Canadian is as likely to possess a gun as the average American.

I guess Quebec is different than ontario, then..

bloknayrb wrote:I think that the majority of killing is done with stolen guns, so I don't think making permits to get harder would be easier. I think instead there should be a national training program for everyone who has a gun license so that they all actually know how to use and store them. If we can't legally own guns, how will we protect ourselves against the people who have them illegally?

Or y'know, if there are no guns people can't steal them.

Koesen wrote:

heavycola wrote: If everyone in the world had a gun, there would be far fewer gun deaths. I cannot see how anyone can dispute this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Quote:

Crime in the United States is characterized by relatively high levels of gun violence and homicide, compared to other developed countries although this is explained by the fact that criminals in America are more likely to use firearms.

You cannot see how anyone can dispute this, because you choose to ignore the facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

Compare the homicide rate of the US to the relatively gun free countries of the European Union. They're twice as high as the European average.[/i]

*coughcoughheavycola was jokingcoughcough*

Doesn't matter, though. There are people who say what he said and mean it. I was talking to them all along.

Honest

Koesen wrote::oops:

Doesn't matter, though. There are people who say what he said and mean it. I was talking to them all along.

Honest

Im afraid I was joking as well

The second amendment was written for a reason. The attitudes displayed here are all exemplary of a socialist/fascist mindset :The state controls for the sake of the "community", at the expense of the individual, and this will always inevitably lead us to problems for liberties and an ultimately healthy society. The state, in short, has no business stopping you from keeping your right to self defence. Limits naturally impose themselves, but unfortunatly, when you outlaw guns, only genuine gangsters will get their hands on them, as we see for example amongst the gangs in London. America happens to have a gun and gang culture, but banning guns, wherever ir is, quite apart from an affront to recognised civil liberties, is equally damaging for honest folk and communities. Let's take Switzerland as a counter-example, where every male having completed mandatory military service is required by law to possess an automatic assault rifle, and where the homicide rate is amongst the lowest in Europe (the PKS reported 34 attempted or actual homicides as total gun crime in 2006). Israel is another example. Given the US has high gun crime, but a single country as an example is not enough. And lets remember swimming pool deaths are higher than gun crime rates on an annual basis.

Snorri1234 wrote:

bloknayrb wrote:I think that the majority of killing is done with stolen guns, so I don't think making permits to get harder would be easier. I think instead there should be a national training program for everyone who has a gun license so that they all actually know how to use and store them. If we can't legally own guns, how will we protect ourselves against the people who have them illegally?

Or y'know, if there are no guns people can't steal them.

I don't necessarily just mean stolen, I mean procured illegally in general. Anything that is illegal is still accessible illegally. Drugs are illegal in the US, but millions of people manage to buy them all the time. If guns were made illegal then only criminals would have them... seems like backwards logic to me.

bloknayrb wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

bloknayrb wrote:I think that the majority of killing is done with stolen guns, so I don't think making permits to get harder would be easier. I think instead there should be a national training program for everyone who has a gun license so that they all actually know how to use and store them. If we can't legally own guns, how will we protect ourselves against the people who have them illegally?

Or y'know, if there are no guns people can't steal them.

I don't necessarily just mean stolen, I mean procured illegally in general. Anything that is illegal is still accessible illegally. Drugs are illegal in the US, but millions of people manage to buy them all the time. If guns were made illegal then only criminals would have them... seems like backwards logic to me.

There are 2 things about that though.
1.) A lot of criminals would think twice about taking a gun with them, as it only adds to the sentence without them actually needing it to protect themselves. There will be less of an urge to use them simply because it's unlikely they will meet armed resistance.
2.) It will be harder to get guns. Sure big criminals will always find a way of getting them, but for the lowlifes who just steal stuff or rob people it will be way more difficult. Not too mention more expensive. And couple that with number 2 they will generally decide not to get one.

And it's not comparable to drugs simply because drugs are in huge demand. Drugs aren't used solely by criminals or used as protection.

whitelighting wrote:everyone should have the right to carry a gun

word.

whitelighting wrote:everyone should have the right to carry a gun

Why?

whitelighting wrote:everyone should have the right to carry a gun

The fact that you made this big makes it very hard to argue with. Anything I can write just seems small and feeble, which makes sense given that I am a small, feeble semi-supporter of gun control. That said..
should the bad guys be allowed to carry guns? Terrorists? Rapists? Should we arm our prisons? We'll take your belt as you go in, but give you a 9mm. I guess they're safer with a gun than without, so that sounds fair to me.

spurgistan wrote:

whitelighting wrote:everyone should have the right to carry a gun

The fact that you made this big makes it very hard to argue with. Anything I can write just seems small and feeble, which makes sense given that I am a small, feeble semi-supporter of gun control. That said..
should the bad guys be allowed to carry guns? Terrorists? Rapists? Should we arm our prisons? We'll take your belt as you go in, but give you a 9mm. I guess they're safer with a gun than without, so that sounds fair to me.

Let me clarify, felons and other such criminals should only get guns if they are closely watched or restricted. Law-abiding civilians have every right to own a gun, to protect and arm themselves if the need should arise.

As for that law about being rid of guns with the punishment, good luck finding them. Once the "It's only illegal if I get caught" idea sets in, they are ready and rarin' to go. Those kind of laws are not quite that effective.

the bad guys will always have a way of gaining access to weapons. it's the good guys that go purchase a weapon, register it and obey the law the ones i'm talking about.

i'm just saying that not everyone is bad but bad stuff happens.

say you are in the mall and some idiot comes in and starts shooting people.
you have no gun but, someone does. they take aim and kill the assailant.

I'm not saying the people that have been killed are going to be safer. i am saying that less people will die because someone was able to stop the bad guy.

now, you're at the mall are you going to thankful that that guy had a way of stopping him or are you gonna be mad cause he was carrying a gun?

muy_thaiguy wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

whitelighting wrote:everyone should have the right to carry a gun

The fact that you made this big makes it very hard to argue with. Anything I can write just seems small and feeble, which makes sense given that I am a small, feeble semi-supporter of gun control. That said..
should the bad guys be allowed to carry guns? Terrorists? Rapists? Should we arm our prisons? We'll take your belt as you go in, but give you a 9mm. I guess they're safer with a gun than without, so that sounds fair to me.

Let me clarify, felons and other such criminals should only get guns if they are closely watched or restricted. Law-abiding civilians have every right to own a gun, to protect and arm themselves if the need should arise.

As for that law about being rid of guns with the punishment, good luck finding them. Once the "It's only illegal if I get caught" idea sets in, they are ready and rarin' to go. Those kind of laws are not quite that effective.

You could always make the punishment very high. 25 years in prison minimum. Declare owning a gun equivalent to attempted murder. You'd have to think quite a while before carrying.

Frigidus wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

whitelighting wrote:everyone should have the right to carry a gun

The fact that you made this big makes it very hard to argue with. Anything I can write just seems small and feeble, which makes sense given that I am a small, feeble semi-supporter of gun control. That said..
should the bad guys be allowed to carry guns? Terrorists? Rapists? Should we arm our prisons? We'll take your belt as you go in, but give you a 9mm. I guess they're safer with a gun than without, so that sounds fair to me.

Let me clarify, felons and other such criminals should only get guns if they are closely watched or restricted. Law-abiding civilians have every right to own a gun, to protect and arm themselves if the need should arise.

As for that law about being rid of guns with the punishment, good luck finding them. Once the "It's only illegal if I get caught" idea sets in, they are ready and rarin' to go. Those kind of laws are not quite that effective.

You could always make the punishment very high. 25 years in prison minimum. Declare owning a gun equivalent to attempted murder. You'd have to think quite a while before carrying.

And yet, there are still many murders done with that sentence, and in some states, with death as the penalty as an alternative. Yet it still happens. The higher the punishment, the more people that will try to resist it. Trust me, it happens.

Man 1 buys bullet-proof vest.
Man 1 goes up to Man 2 and brags that he cannot be killed by being shot.
Man 2 shoots him in the head.

The moral is that guns are cowardly weapons designed purely to make you look cool. But you have to wear sunglasses.

they don't even give sentences to drug dealers or repeat sex offenders who really deserve that kind of sentence.

they just took the death penalty off the table in New York so, folks are paying taxes to house all these criminals.

I don't know about you but, i think my tax dollars can go to better use like bettering education or creating places for kids to play and keep them off the streets.

you know ? I really am tired of supporting people that are not related to me.

minister,

columbine, the churches, malls, other schools.

how many of these people wore bulletproof vests?

really?

Roger Dodger wrote:they don't even give sentences to drug dealers or repeat sex offenders who really deserve that kind of sentence.

they just took the death penalty off the table in New York so, folks are paying taxes to house all these criminals.

I don't know about you but, i think my tax dollars can go to better use like bettering education or creating places for kids to play and keep them off the streets.

you know ? I really am tired of supporting people that are not related to me.

how dare you?

these criminals are just misunderstood by society and need healing! Under no circumstances can you kill [except children in the womb]!

I was just pointing out that they don't actually protect you if your shooter is a dab hand at accuracy.

Nappy,

your sarcasm is duly noted.

i don't know about anywhere else but, in my state you have to take a class and you have to pass a knowledge test and a practical test before you can even get a town permit.

then, you have to send all that paperwork to the police in your town to get that permit where a background check is done. after all that you take what the town gives you and you go to the state to get your carry permit.

takes almost 6 months

I suppose some checks and regulations are indeed necessary.

I think the question of intent as to owning guns is often misunderstood or not addressed properly. Guns make many people feel safe, so in that way, yes individuals should have the right to own a gun. No matter the wisdom or practical applicability of the 2nd amendment, its there, so theres no legal reason to keep guns away from people.

However i think its an interesting discussion when you talk about a safer society and personal safety. Now i guess im being naive in a way, but i simply dont see giving everyone a gun who wants one reducing gun deaths. Yes its possible that everyone may have a gun, but there is no guarantee a single person would have a gun. Likewise, in the event of a columbine incident, theres no guarantee any in that situation would be carrying a gun. After all, are we going to allow people to conceal weapons in public, specifically teachers in that case? probably not. Therefore allowing people to have guns doesnt necessarily make everyone safer....it only makes the person who has a gun with them at all times probably more safe.

If you want your gun and it makes you feel safer, better about yourself, whatever, you should be able to get it i guess. Clearly as a society we cant protect ourselves from every little thing, and if it ultimatly means we cant be as secure on guns as we could be, then thats the price we pay i guess. I dont know that i understand why more powerful weapons are needed, seemingly any bullet would do the trick.

Still in any society that allows guns, responsible ownership should be paramount, and therefore testing and control to some extent have to be involved.