Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
America`s murder rate is three times that of Britain`s murder rate. Sure, I agree then; people kill, not guns.
So let`s conclude from your murder rate that America`s population are too violent to be trusted with lethal weapons. Sure, we can`t ban snow, but it`s probably a good idea to make restrictions where we can.
Otherwise, why don`t you just let everyone have atomic bombs in their garages and depleted-uranium munitions in SUV-mounted machine guns? I mean, if people are the cause of murders, you might as well shrug your shoulders, say you can`t do anything about it, and sell them some weapons, eh?
don`t cars kill and hurt more people than guns? don`t stupid people hurt people regardless of whey use to do it? what`s next? are they going to take cars, knives, baseball bats, sticks, chairs, computers, laptops, or any of the other hundreds of everyday things that can hurt someone? on i-a-b a few days ago, there was a post about teens using a snowball to rob someplace. are we going to make SNOW illegal? when will these idiots realize that we need MORE guns rather than less?
We have a culture difference then. Britain`s law does not support you defending your property with lethal force.
I agree; it`ll be very hard to have a successful ban in the US as things stand, as you already have too many guns out there.
Provide a source. Saying "do your research" is not a good enough reason to not show that you have done yours.
And you`re right, the source of the violence is humanity, not the guns. But the guns make it easier for that violence to occur. How about we all carry nuclear bombs?
The gap between farmers with rifles and rifle-armed troops was not as great as Joe Public with a handgun against jets and bombs. If you want to keep your government`s military from oppressing you, make sure your soldiers are educated, standup citizens, and not high-school dropouts trained to mindlessly obey any order, no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional that order may be. Are you doing that, America?
ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. In every single case where personal ownership of handguns was banned, crime skyrocketed because the black market continued to pump guns into the hands of criminals who knew that they faced little defence from law abiding citizens who couldn`t own them. England and Australia are perfect examples. They made guns illegal and violent crime statistics went through the roof. Australia is pondering lifting the ban now as a result because they have realized how bad of a decision it was. Just within 2 years of that ban, armed robberies alone went up over 70%. Banning guns is just idiotic on so many levels.
"if the evil powers have got the military on side, your gun won`t do squat anyway; they have machine guns and tanks."
When America fought for its independence, they faced an overwhelming force especially in the naval department. But a bunch of farmers (you might call them rednecks nowadays) banded together and managed to fight them off (with some help from the French Navy), so your case is weak.
"Best save your liberty with education and proper voting well before that point."
I absolutely agree with you there. It should never have to come to a revolution, and I hope America never faces anything like that again. But suppose somewhere down the line, it comes to that. If the lawmakers have taken away regular folks` access to weapons, they`re screwed!
i cant wait to buy my dessert eagle
Well...if 99% of these black market guns are being appropriated from honest citizens by theft, sale, etc. , then making guns illegal will remove 99% of the guns from the streets. It only makes sense that the 1% of guns being imported will literally jump 1000X in price making them unattainable to the average criminal.
What small time crook is going to be able to pay upwards of $10,000 for a .38? As for the big timers that can afford it...well that`s why we have cops.
Preserve liberty. As a citizen of the United States, the Constitution grants me the right to self-preservation. I`m not sure how it`s done in other countries, but here in America, we are allowed to defend ourselves against any hostile threats to our person or property. Whether it be our own .gov or another one.
Defend property. It is absolutely fine to defend ones property with deadly force. However, once the threat to your property or person has gone (i.e. - he is running away) it is NOT okay to engage the aggressor with force. Which was the case with your motorcycle, I`m sorry to hear. Though I`m glad you`ve taken measures to avoid a repeat. If I had caught the perp on the way in, I would have ventilated him, no doubt.
Defend your life. As you said, the firearm is a tool and if used properly, can save lives. If a madman confronts me with the intent to do harm, I can feel safer knowing I have this particular tool in my possession to help me end the threat to my life.
And how does banning guns take illegal black market weapons out of circulation?
My roommate has a bipolar boyfriend who has tried to buy a gun a couple times now and can`t because he`s bipolar.
Thank god for regulations >_>
Try the closets and drawers of law abiding citizens.
The old theory that only the criminals will have the guns doesn`t hold water.
Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.
Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.`
Taken from the U.S bureau of justice statistics.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm
- taken from http://www.gun-control-network.org/CO15....
- taken from
...give up you gun loving redneck fks. Its about time you evolve to enjoy things that don`t go `BOOM`.
-taken from http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/docum...
After all if you`re protecting yourself from Tyranny, as Crakrjak suggests, you`d need alot more than a Glock when the government has tanks.
Every argument made in this thread still applies, the only difference is, nobody is stupid enough to suggest they`re still right when the damage goes up a notch.
The difference is, with nukes you`re fairly sure it`d affect you. Guns are something you expect to happen to "somebody else", so it`s fine.
Except, of course, it`s not.
I mean, if my idea of fun and sport was to detonate explosives, you`d want me to do it under controlled conditions and not be carrying the explosives around with me or keeping it in my home next door to you, right?
That argument is old, and nobody who states it ever questions it. If the ban is properly implemented, criminals will start finding it near impossible to get guns too.
Britain has strict gun laws, and it`s illegal to own a gun for personal defence. And yes, some of our criminals have guns...but here`s the kicker; only SOME. Our average criminals, the ones you`ll meet throughout your life, are not carrying guns. Only the hardcore criminals with money and means will get them, and then usually only to fight with other criminals.
Only the scum resort to carrying lethal force for personal protection. Anyone with intelligence should be spending their time and money supporting a functioning police force and system of law.
I think that it is important to have background checks for people interested in buying guns and a waiting period between when you decide to purchase and when you can actually take the weapon home. As far as the rest of it goes, I`m not sure. Before this video I`d have said that there needs to be relatively strict gun control laws, but this made a lot of good points (I watched parts 2 and 3 as well). Plus, the US is one of the most violent countries, but we don`t have the most guns so you can`t equate more guns to more violence.
The first three are only good for one thing, taking human life. A handgun is garbage for hunting, and you don`t need a rapid succession of bullets to take down a deer, considering you can get the job done with a bow and arrow.
Now ask yourself...How many drive-by`s would there be if all the gangbangers could get were winchester rifles?
Speak for yourself, slowpoke.
You can`t "shank" someone from ten metres away.
You can outrun a man with a blade. You can`t outrun a bullet.
Exactly. So let`s break down the reasons why someone would want to own a gun:
Preserve liberty; well, if you`ve been crap enough at maintaining your democracy that it`s got to that point, you deserve to lose it. Besides, if the evil powers have got the military on side, your gun won`t do squat anyway; they have machine guns and tanks. Best save your liberty with education and proper voting well before that point.
Defend your property; As you`ve said, useless here.
Defend your life; How often does a madman threaten your life? It`s never happened to me, or anyone I know. What about you? Is it worth keeping a dangerous tool around to defend against a very rare and unlikely occurance?
For sport/hunting; That`s fine, I support gun use for sporting purposes. So why can`t the guns stay secured at the shooting range and sporting guns be carefully regulated to stop them being used for other purposes?
To feel macho; Ah, well there it is; a safety blanket. A penis.
"None of us are as dumb as all of us."
"IMO, guns prevent crime because, who would rob a house of a gun owner?"
Then why is there still crime in your country?
How about you find me some figures that show that households with guns are less often victims of crime than households without guns?
I had my motorcycle stolen from right outside my house in the middle of the night last year (annoyingly, one of the few times I didn`t have it safely locked away). I heard nothing and didn`t even wake up. Even if that bike were alarmed (my current one is, of course) and they`d set it off, by the time I`ve woken and leant out the window, they`d have had plenty of time to run/drive around the corner and out of sight.
Tell me how a gun would have helped in this situation.
Yes, it`s true, criminals will always get guns if they want them; but the number of criminals who succeed in getting guns will always be lower when they aren`t readily available and easily stolen.
In a country like Britain, the only way to get a gun is through incredibly illegal means, involving smuggling and dealings usually far beyond the reach of your average petty thug.
We simply don`t need guns because our criminals have a hard time getting them. And we don`t need guns to preserve our freedom because, shock horror, we have a functioning democracy.
We have a murder rate that`s 1/3 of America`s per capita (which means it is adjusted for population difference between the countries, before some idiot tries that argument), so we must be doing something right, don`t you think?
Sorry Pabasa, but the LAST thing I want you talking to me about is "swallowing".
No offense though. :-D
That`s not at all what he meant. To answer your question StefanM, seankerr001 meant that Anti Religion and Pro Gun are generally on two COMPLETELY opposite sides of politics.
The right loves jesus and guns, the left usually hates guns and the majority of anti-religion people do usually polarize towards the left.
People who swallow what P&T said whole without processing the information and thinking about it, is no better off than the people who swallow what the government/media/etc said whole without processing the information and thinking about it.
Um... because Christianity forbids violence, tells one to turn the other cheek and accept more attack rather than fighting back? "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Pleeease don`t quote Old Testament genocide commandments at me, I`m just answering the question.
lol, if that comment helped you then I would like to welcome you to your first day on the internet. :P
Don`t be so quick to judge. I buy it all the time because it`s cold as drat and there are more vending machines than super cold water fountains when I`m driving around.
I could give a crap if its tap or not, I just want quick cold water. (though if I`m gonna pay that damn much for it it better at least be filtered lol)
THe wise would understand and learn both sides of the coin and pick which one would benefit them better.
Unfortunately not everyone is wise.
They ARE, man.
Who do you think they have remote piloting all those Predator drones over the middle east right now?
How do religion and the right to bear arms have anything to do with one another?
Why doesnt the government just hire a buncha gamers to kill people in the middle east?
I`m not too into Penn and Teller, though. They strike me as... dicks.
I honestly think expensive bottled water is one of the most pretentious things you can buy.