JigaboosPigaboos Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 States where people carry guns by choice are safer, even the people not carrying guns are safer because dudes dont know who has one. If Im walking around a city Id rather it be Tucson than newyork or LA or chicago. Ive never been to any of those cities but I know which one I would be safer in. And acting stupid I dont think we should necessarily have cars, I rode 15 miles yesterday and was probably safer than anyone with a gun or with a car the whole time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 all the statistics that point to gun control producing good effects on crime can easily be refuted with statistics proving that gun control laws cause more crime. guns dont cause crime. people cause crime. drugs dont cause crime, people cause crime. more properly, drug prohibition causes most of the problems associated with drugs. what it boils down to is criminals using guns against victims and gun control laws are only really followed by victims, you essentially get criminals and police with guns and citizens with no legal means of defense. as for the crazy people shouldnt own guns argument or that people shouldnt be allowed access to hard drugs... everything that someone can do with a gun or while on drugs is already illegal. killing, rape, theft, etc. all illegal. what more do people want? re-ban these things? there should be no 'background' check to see if you are 'sane' to own a gun any more than there should be a background check or permit to freely assemble or practice religion of your choosing. if you are crazy and you shoot someone, then you get the chair. if you are on drugs and you kill someone, then you get the chair. if prisons punished instead of 'rehabilitated' people, we would have less problems. and there would be no talk of 'crazy people' or 'felons' owning guns because the prison system would of killed or kept these violent criminals behind bars forever. i'd rather see the victims pull out a gun and shoot the person trying to kill them, than the innocent getting killed. im weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 all the statistics that point to gun control producing good effects on crime can easily be refuted with statistics proving that gun control laws cause more crime. My problem with this logic is that it only applies to places like the US or developing countries like Brazil where gun crime is already high. Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, England, Canada, etc., it doesn't apply. Your logic is true only for places AFTER they already have too many guns in society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigaboosPigaboos Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I dont think theres such a thing. There should be more guns and people should have the freedom and ability to use them well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActingStupid Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 i guess it comes down to "guns don't kill people, people kill people" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 "My problem with this logic is that it only applies to places like the US or developing countries like Brazil where gun crime is already high. Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Germany, England, Canada, etc., it doesn't apply. Your logic is true only for places AFTER they already have too many guns in society." its a complicated subject, but actingstupid is right. it boils down to people kill people, not guns kill people. for example the swiss use a militia type system. citizens are the soldiers and keep full auto weapons in their house w/ ammo. some have RPG's. some have tanks in the garage. they are trained in clandestine warfare techniques. they have bomb shelters throughout the country. they are ready to destroy property and do whatever it takes to keep the enemy from conquering them. they havent been attacked since...... forever. and with state of gun culture, they experience virtually no crime to speak of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I used to believe that about the Swiss too, as in the reserves (the whole country just about) keeping weapons at home. But each Swiss I've met tells me it's not the case. Some do, but very few. Secondly, that's by far not the main reason why they haven't been attacked. How many Western European countries have been attacked since WW2? Yep, people are killers, so why give them guns so they can do it more efficiently? As I've said, I'm glad I live in a country with tight gun laws and don't have people shooting up schools/churches/shopping/centers/etc. on what is becoming a regular basis. Our violent crime rates and gun ownership levels are low enough that we don't have to arm ourselves for protection and that's the way I'd prefer to keep my country. But, that's me, others have different opinions and it's all good. I just hope the crazies start shooting themselves and just leaving it at that! America is a great place and it doesn't need shit like that going down. By the way, I love guns. Am ex-army and absolutely love target shooting. Haven't done it since I got out, but I'm well aware of how enjoyable shooting is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 "How many Western European countries have been attacked since WW2? " the swiss WERE NOT attacked during world war 2. that is the whole point. you cannot subjegate a nation of riflemen fighting to the death on their own terrain. the debate goes way beyond crime for me. that is only a small part of the argument. the debate is not even about the great second amendment because the right to own whatever you want for self defense is a natural right and is not given to anyone by the second amendment. the second amendment just guarantees that the federal government would not interfere with private arms ownership. (so much for that) the debate boils down to the fact that i will not be a slave. all governments move toward despotism. all grow. all exceed their boundaries. i support the right of the people to defend themselves with whatever means necessary against any sort of criminal or the armies of foreign or domestic tyrants. i support the militia system. i support the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of their lives and liberty. disarming people does not reduce crime. the only reason to disarm them, is to control them and then march them off to the gulag. it boils down to... swiss jews didnt get boarded on box cars... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigaboosPigaboos Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dranx0 Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 ^ ^ I also agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 "How many Western European countries have been attacked since WW2? " the swiss WERE NOT attacked during world war 2. that is the whole point. you cannot subjegate a nation of riflemen fighting to the death on their own terrain. the debate goes way beyond crime for me. that is only a small part of the argument. the debate is not even about the great second amendment because the right to own whatever you want for self defense is a natural right and is not given to anyone by the second amendment. the second amendment just guarantees that the federal government would not interfere with private arms ownership. (so much for that) the debate boils down to the fact that i will not be a slave. all governments move toward despotism. all grow. all exceed their boundaries. i support the right of the people to defend themselves with whatever means necessary against any sort of criminal or the armies of foreign or domestic tyrants. i support the militia system. i support the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of their lives and liberty. disarming people does not reduce crime. the only reason to disarm them, is to control them and then march them off to the gulag. it boils down to... swiss jews didnt get boarded on box cars... My WW2 history isn't what it should be; what what the Swiss position in WW2? Were they neutral back then, with or against the Third Reich? As for governments moving towards despotism, I can't see that being an accurately generalisable theory. China, whilst still authoritarian (the new buzz phrase is neo-stalinist) is moving away from that position..., ever so slowely. Cuba will probably do the same, Czech republic, Poland and all other former USSR states are doing the same, etc. etc. I truly do not live in fear (for want of a better term) that I will ever have to defend myself against the governmens I've lived under and worked fort. Nor do I fear that I will have to defend myself against violent crime to the point that I will require a gun. This is true for the countries where I have spent significant time in; Australia, Malaysia, Sweden, China. All those countries have strict gun controls and significantly low crime rates and some of them are becoming less authoritarian in their systems of governance (australia does seem to have a bit of an increase in violent crime of late, but maybe I'm just looking abck at the good old days with rose coloured glasses...). As for defending against foreign invaders, the risk of interstate warfare drops year by year...., especially since Bush is now in his last term! Seriously though, if you're worried about foreign invasion, you'd be better off with SAM's and SSM's. As no nation will have the power to launch a ground invasion of the US for at least another 100 years. Only really Russia has the chance to attack your country from the air and sea (disregarding nukes which firearms mean little against) and only the US government has the power to defend against BAckfires, Bears and the type of aircraft that threaten the US. I think militia's are a waste of time when found in a democratic superpower which no country even comes close to threatening. Once again, I'm no tie die wearing, hippy pacifist by any shot. I'm an ex-parra ex-bouncer that now works as an East Asian security analyst. My career is conflict. I like to see myself as level headed and pragmatic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 the threat of foreign invasion is minimal compared to the threat posed by the US's own central government. check out some history... 170 million people killed in the 20th century by their own governments and they were all disarmed first. i'll hold on to my guns just a little longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackbookKWC Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 haah word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigaboosPigaboos Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Every single dictatorship in history has banned or very heavily regulated guns. I love what the united states was built on but unfortunately its turning to shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ActingStupid Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 STOLEN LAND? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Every single dictatorship in history has banned or very heavily regulated guns. I love what the united states was built on but unfortunately its turning to shit. In what way? Serious question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigaboosPigaboos Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 In what way is the united states turning to shit? Lets see, would the stupid war and the patriot act be enough to say that the united states is turning to shit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I really don't know as I'm not an American and I don't focus too much on the US domestic situation or policies. Don't forget though, the US has been bogged down in wars before and also ran with their tail between their legs (Vietnam and Somalia). However, after the Vietnam war the US went on to win the Cold War and be a sole super power. After Somalia no country questioned the US's supremacy nor their ability to fight wars an win them. Also, if the US eventually comes out on top in Iraq they can place bases there and pressure Iran denying them regional power status thus keeping the region divided and the US the predominant power on the other side of the world. That would be a pretty successful outcome for America. Patriot act, I can't tell the effect this has had on US citizens (as a whole, single stories of suffering don't mean too much unless they lead to a generalisable situation for the whole population. In other words, does the general public still lead their life as before the act was implemented?). What are your thoughts on the Act that identifies a slide into shit for America? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 I'd separate the country from the actions of its rulers in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigaboosPigaboos Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Im saying the rulers are turning the country to shit and there using the media to make people more and more comfortable with it. The patriot act made it so the cops can search you or your computer or listen to your phone calls in the name of fighting "terrorism". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pups Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 americans are morons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 americans are morons. According to "shitmouf". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 americans are morons. But you are Einstein, evidenced by your relevant point and ability to back it up with convincing argument and evidence. In other words, shut up dickhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Every single dictatorship in history has banned or very heavily regulated guns. I love what the united states was built on but unfortunately its turning to shit. yeah how bad was it when julius caesar banned/heavily regulated guns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ko SprueOne Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Elvis' own shooting shack Elvis owned guns and his own shooting range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigaboosPigaboos Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Yumone how old are you that you would consider that a relevant example? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Yumone how old are you that you would consider that a relevant example? it was an ironic comment to demonstrate how stupid what you said is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I disagreed with both comments. I rule! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shitting Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Def^ I hear people say, but would you allow nuclear weapons? What about chemical weapons? That doesnt really compare to firearms. Modern firearms don't compare to the muskets or whatever shit was in use when your constitution was written. guns dont cause crime. people cause crime. . the atom bomb didn't kill hundreds of thousands of japanese people, Einstein did. :rolleyes: he just probably couldn't have killed quite so many people without it. Humans use tools, some tools such as certain modern firearms shouldn't be available to any douchebag loser nerd, who can go kills tens of people in a flash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shitting Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 "How many Western European countries have been attacked since WW2? " the swiss WERE NOT attacked during world war 2. that is the whole point. you cannot subjegate a nation of riflemen fighting to the death on their own terrain. the debate goes way beyond crime for me. that is only a small part of the argument. the debate is not even about the great second amendment because the right to own whatever you want for self defense is a natural right and is not given to anyone by the second amendment. the second amendment just guarantees that the federal government would not interfere with private arms ownership. (so much for that) the debate boils down to the fact that i will not be a slave. all governments move toward despotism. all grow. all exceed their boundaries. i support the right of the people to defend themselves with whatever means necessary against any sort of criminal or the armies of foreign or domestic tyrants. i support the militia system. i support the right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of their lives and liberty. disarming people does not reduce crime. the only reason to disarm them, is to control them and then march them off to the gulag. it boils down to... swiss jews didnt get boarded on box cars... haha, the way you twist history is hilarious Germany invaded and occupied nation after nation. They crushed many large European armies. Did you know that at the onset of wwii France's army was roughly as large and impressive as the whermacht. And you think Germany didn't invade Switzerland because Hitler was worried about Swiss militia? lol. just lol. Had the whermacht invaded, occupation would have been inevitably swift. Switzerland and Germany were political (but not military) allies and also trading partners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.