Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 hmm, why don't we just convert the entire U.S. into a military, give everyone complete armor and complete arsenal... along with necessary training... i guarantee that would cut down on crime... i mean, lets say someone tries to hold up a bank orsomething... every bystander pulls out their weapon of choice and slaughters the poor bank robber and goes back to their businessnice visual now that sounds like a cool place to live Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Well people better not piss each other off. Imagine the horrible gunfight... I agree with Prime, I'll live nice and comfy in good ol' Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Luke, can I live with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Sure why not. I have an empty room that needs an occupant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 yeah, all you guys in canada will be sorry when the rest of the world is dead or dying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Ok...so the rest of the world dies and? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 thats it... then you will be all alone... who will be sorry then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Yeah, it's too bad we have violence of any sort. And that we have guns to help engage in violence. But those are the facts. We as a species are not able nor ready to lay down our arms. So we won't. It's that simple. With or without guns, people will engage in, and fall victim to violence. If you simply must have a big cause to champion and crusade against, try doing something about violence. Your chances of getting rid of that are as realistic as getting rid of guns. [/b] Then how do you explain that gun-free western countries have far less violence and murders than the US? If we in Europe can make a pretty much gun-free society with few murders, why shouldn't you guys in the States be able to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapNColostomy Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by Breton Then how do you explain that gun-free western countries have far less violence and murders than the US? If we in Europe can make a pretty much gun-free society with few murders, why shouldn't you guys in the States be able to? Excuse me? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the area marked as the former Soviet Union counted as Europe? Didn't you guys just have an assload of people die in a school taken over by armed gunmen? Yeah, it really sounds like you people have the whole gun ban and violence thing under wraps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by Breton Then how do you explain that gun-free western countries have far less violence and murders than the US? If we in Europe can make a pretty much gun-free society with few murders, why shouldn't you guys in the States be able to? actually, smart***, per capita, the US doesn't have that many more murders or violent crimes than those in gun-free or strict gun-control countries, we have a murder-per-capita og .035 per 1000 population, whereas, the uk has .015 per 1000 sure, we have more, but not significantly more, not enough to base a claim on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 actually, smart***, per capita, the US doesn't have that many more murders or violent crimes than those in gun-free or strict gun-control countries, we have a murder-per-capita og .035 per 1000 population, whereas, the uk has .015 per 1000Sorry Lieutenant, but even quoting your figures, over twice as many is quite a difference. Personally I believe that the excessive gun-violence in America stems not from gun ownership, but from American culture and the fear inherent in it. But whatever the cause you cannot deny that there is a huge amount of gun-violence in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breton Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by CapNColostomy Excuse me? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the area marked as the former Soviet Union counted as Europe? Didn't you guys just have an assload of people die in a school taken over by armed gunmen? Yeah, it really sounds like you people have the whole gun ban and violence thing under wraps. Those were foreign terrorists, who didn't get their guns in Russia... Besides, Russia isn't a western country. actually, smart***, per capita, the US doesn't have that many more murders or violent crimes than those in gun-free or strict gun-control countries, we have a murder-per-capita og .035 per 1000 population, whereas, the uk has .015 per 1000 As Spider said, more than twice as many murders is actually a quite enormous difference. Also, the murder-per-capita rate in Norway (where I live) is .0087... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 and i will freely admit i think norway is the coolest place in the world(no pun intended), but i don't think twice as many murders is a lot more, when you consider countries in the mid-east and north-eastern africe with murder rate, up to 30 times that of the us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider AL Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Sigh. Those middle-eastern countries don't claim to be the bastion of freedom, beacon of democracy and leader of the free world now, do they? You're sidestepping frantically. Compare the US with countries that are democratic, western, industrial, in short, LIKE THE US... except that gun ownership is more restricted. BANG! Less deaths. You CANNOT dispute this. We can dispute the reasons FOR the quantity of gun-deaths, but we can't ignore their EXISTENCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 and what about Japan(yes, I know, not western), Japan has a lot less gun deaths than America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Gun violence in a country is the result of several factors. General culture, psyche, media, gun control, etc. In the case of Japan, I suppose that it's in their psyche though we do know they are plagued with a suicide and depression problem, especially in teens due to the very demanding conditions of school, family, etc. Japan doesn't seem to like to watch "Japan's most wanted" or "Cops: In Japan". Those kind of shows are only there to scare people. Those shows DO affect people because they're non-fiction. Being in Canada, I've watched America's most wanted once to see what it looked like. After the show, I was wondering who the hell would want to live in such a country... Japan also has really violent media. There's no real proof but it's a good supposition to think they would relieve their violent urges by watching violent movies and playing gore-fest video games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 it may be true that the reason for less gun deaths in u.s. like countries is less than in the u.s. because of stricter gun laws. personally, i don't think we need stricter gun laws i think that if we are going to have gun laws, they need to be more strictly enforced, and that will cut back on gn-related crime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 ok, my turn. assault rifle bans: a very good thing. and i believe thats the general consensus around here. moving on... shotgun bans: would be a good thing, but i still sleep with a 12-gauge under my bed. not to mention they are used for hunting purposes. high-caliber rifles: another good thing(why would you need one of those things to begin with???) low-caliber/hunting rifles: needs limitations, but do not ban hunting rifles. high-caliber pistols/magnums: definately a good thing low-caliber pistols: needs limitations, but definately not a complete ban i believe that a gun is only as deadly as the person weilding it. therefore, if you can successfully limit who owns a gun, then you can limit gun-related deaths. i'm also a believer in making anyone that owns a gun have a license for it. if you're caught with a gun and no license, then you can lose the gun and pay a hefty (and i do mean hefty) fine. that has to be a serious crime, or no one will pay attention to it. this would also give lawmakers an opportunity to come up with restrictions on who can and cannot recieve a license to own a gun. would it stop all gun related deaths?? heck no, people are too incredibly stupid to stop that. but it would reduce the number of deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 alas my turn on bans : assault rifles: no shotguns: no high caliber rifles: no low-caliber rifles: no high caliber pistols: no low calbier pistols: no you see, the constitution gae us the right to bear arms, we should uphold that, sure, i think it is ok to restrict the use of firearms, but not the ownership of firearms, and that , my friend, is the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 so, its okay for someone to own an assault rifle, but not to use it??? then, what the heck is the point of owning it??? the only reason assault rifles exist is to kill people. just look at its history. the first assault rifles came into being in world war II whenever the germans began using mp40 and later the mp44. assault rifles are overkill for hunting(who is really gonna want to fill a deer with 20+ 7.62mm rounds), so what then is its purpose??? to kill people. banning the ownership of guns to those that do not have licenses makes sure that the government has tabs on exactly who has a gun and thus who can use a gun. of course people would try to find ways around it, but if you enforce it well enough, then it wouldn't be a major problem. and yes, the second amendment of the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. however, if the right to bear arms inflicts on someone's unalienable right to live, then someone's rights is going to be violated. by limiting the right to bear arms to those that can be trusted to uphold the right to live will limit the number of deaths caused by gun users. plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 the point is, anyone over 18 can currently legally own a gun(at least in my state), but you have to apply for a license to use it, or carry it, etc. so the thing is, there was a time when we drastically cut back on gun use permits, but we were still allowed to buy guns the point is, the constitution gives us the right to own the guns, and we need to uphold that constitution. the point is, assault rifles were actually created for defensive purposes, do a little more research. they were designed to allow a soldier to defend hisself against multiple attackers without lugging around a heavy-MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch the point is, assault rifles were actually created for defensive purposes, do a little more research. they were designed to allow a soldier to defend hisself against multiple attackers without lugging around a heavy-MG point granted, but you are forgetting that a gun's ultimate design purpose is to kill. defense and prevention of attack with a gun is based entirely on the situation. an assault rifle drastically improves the user's ability to kill, no matter what the situation is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by stingerhs point granted, but you are forgetting that a gun's ultimate design purpose is to kill. defense and prevention of attack with a gun is based entirely on the situation. an assault rifle drastically improves the user's ability to kill, no matter what the situation is. point taken, however, don't you think that if the constitution allows us to own something, we should be allowed to own them? i can understand limiting their use, but not banning them edit: not that i think we should limit their use, but i can understand why people say it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch point taken, however, don't you think that if the constitution allows us to own something, we should be allowed to own them? i can understand limiting their use, but not banning them Originally posted by stingerhs and yes, the second amendment of the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. however, if the right to bear arms inflicts on someone's unalienable right to live, then someone's rights is going to be violated. by limiting the right to bear arms to those that can be trusted to uphold the right to live will limit the number of deaths caused by gun users. plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lieutenant_kettch Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 i understand what you wrote to mean limit the purchase and ownership of arms, which is what bearing arms is. however, i don't think we should limit that, only those who use them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.