Jeff Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 lol, the poll is 33-0 I think it's pretty obvious which I would prefer to be rid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC-1162 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 well, they might as well have made only one choice which would be no racism. anyone against it would be named a freak or racist himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Many of the gun related homicides are gang related, gang bangers are often felons, felons can't own firearms. Take guns away from gang bangers and the number of homicides will drop. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/circumst.htm#circumgun Hmm. It looks like gang slayings are actually way down there in terms of overall causes. Scrolling down, we see that gang-related killing almost always feature guns, but as a percentage of overal homicide numbers, well, read the chart. Here's a thought--where are the criminals and felons getting guns from? If the poor little peewee gangbangers in South Central LA leave their clubs and switchblades under their pillows, does the machine-pistol fairy come during the night and leave them uzis? Every society, culture and country on the planet deals with racism to some extent. You guys know any racism-free areas on planet Earth? Let me know, because I never heard of them. Unless the US is VASTLY more racist than Canada, the UK, Australia and every other developed country in the world (which I don't believe) then racism isn't causing all the carnage that's so far out of proportion to everywhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Every society, culture and country on the planet deals with racism to some extent. You guys know any racism-free areas on planet Earth? Let me know, because I never heard of them. Unless the US is VASTLY more racist than Canada, the UK, Australia and every other developed country in the world (which I don't believe) then racism isn't causing all the carnage that's so far out of proportion to everywhere else. Racism isn't causing carnage? What the hell happened between 1939 and 1945? What the hell happened in Rwanda? What happened in China during the second world war? What about Armenia? A little picknick between friends? Poland served punch? Racism has always caused carnage. Remove guns and those carnages would have still happened. Yes, there's lots of homicide by gun every year. So what? Replace gun with any other weapon and homicides would still happen. Romans didn't need guns to stab each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I don't know how stupid you have to be to find this complicated... JUST SHOOT THE RACISTS!!! Racism will be decreased, as will the relating number of crimes which involve guns. Racism is just a state of mind which I've never found a point in. I have no clue where my jeans are from (dockers or fubu? ) but my dad came from a german town, and my mom's side provided the hair that makes most people assume I'm Irish at first glance... so who knows? You're human, isn't that bad enough:lol: Votes guns just to be "that idiot" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace MacLeod Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Okay. One last post on this topic, then I'll shut up about it. luke, I'm talking about now, not WWII. Go back and hit the links in my previous posts. And the last time I checked, the Wehrmacht didn't invade Europe with knives and cricket bats. No, replacing guns with other weapons does NOT result in the same level of death. Once again, if that really were true, you'd see homicide rates holding steady despite different levels of gun ownership across countries. Instead, here's what you see when you actually bother to look at the numbers--more guns mean more people being shot dead. Less guns mean less people being shot dead. Duuuuhhhh! Sure, racism has motivated people to horrific violence. Happens all over the world. What guns do is make it very, very easy for any violent or volatile situation to turn deadly. Stabbing someone or clubbing them is a lot different than shooting them. With a gun, you can kill someone with no more thought or feeling than changing channels on tv with your remote. Sticking someone close up with a knife takes real intent. In much younger and much stupider days, I was in the gang scene for a while, and I was in gang fights with knives, machetes, nunchucks, bats, but believe me if someone pulls out a gun...whole different story. Beatings become deaths. Okay, here's why I'm really so passionate about this issue. My cousin blew his brains out with a shotgun. If it wasn't in the house, maybe he'd still be here. Maybe if he'd tried sleeping pills or cutting his wrists, someone could have found him in time and given him the help he needed. Maybe he would've changed his mind. Sure, they're just maybes, but the shotgun made it certain there were no maybes. A friend of mine was killed in a drive-by shooting. It was a case of mistaken identity. Had whoever shot him had a knife or a bat, they would have had to get close to kill him, and maybe would have realized my friend wasn't who they thought he was. Instead, they greased him down dead from across the street. Oopsie. This stuff happens all the time. This isn't about genocidal foreign wars. This is about here and now. Racism can't be directly controlled. You can't round up racism and melt it down for scrap. Guns are physical objects, and they can be controlled directly. 3000 people died in 911 and it got Americans so pissed off they invaded two foreign countries. Yet more than ten times that die every year in the same country from gunshots and it's no big deal. *shrug* Finally, it's worth noting that the lonely anti-gun debater is the only one who's actually supporting his position with stuff like data and statistics. Okay, that's it for me. /rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Obi-Wan Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Let me just say on behalf of some nations, such as Canada. Since Canada's population is primarily based on immigration on the past and future, the racism incidents have been scarce, but severe. Have you ever heard of the Allan Littlewood case? So, if there was no racism, that would sure help with the peacefulness in some countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimic666 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Racism isn't causing carnage? What the hell happened between 1939 and 1945? What the hell happened in Rwanda? What happened in China during the second world war? What about Armenia? A little picknick between friends? Poland served punch? Racism has always caused carnage. Remove guns and those carnages would have still happened. Yes, there's lots of homicide by gun every year. So what? Replace gun with any other weapon and homicides would still happen. Romans didn't need guns to stab each other. Agreed... We could always send them to Pluto or Planet X err... whaterver they call it now. PS: I'm glad that if you dislike someone because of their sexuality isn't being racist otherwise I'd have to stock up on giant winter coats... I'm not talking about gay people I'm talking about other Sexual Deviants *couch*Pedos*couch*... Maybe they should be bannished as well. bye bye then. PPS: I hope there will be peace in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Finally, it's worth noting that the lonely anti-gun debater is the only one who's actually supporting his position with stuff like data and statistics. It's a hypothetical question. Data and statistics are of no importance, nor are realistic goals. Enjoy your fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Data and statistics are of no importance, nor are realistic goals. Add to that the fact that simple data and statistics show not the full picture. Violence in itself, won't go away if guns are taken away. There are plenty of maybes and perhaps in Mace's arguments. I'm sorry about what you had to go through, but those are suppositions only. To the US' gun crime rate, that's something that won't change if guns go away. There's much more to their violence then simple guns. The strange climate of fear, the media who has only one goal (scaring the **** out of you for nothing) and the paranoia often created by politicians just to get some fear votes. Equating a decrease in homicides with a decrease in gun ownership is simply forgetting many social factors. I'm pretty sure that if gun ownership was less restricting where I live, homicide rate would be the same. And the last time I checked, the Wehrmacht didn't invade Europe with knives and cricket bats. Weapons of war change. This has nothing to do with anything. Jews were gassed. The nazis didn't want to waste bullets on anyone. Last I heard, the Romans didn't conquer Europe with guns. Last I heard, the Mongols didn't create the largest land empire in history with AK-47 rifles. If it was 800 years ago, you'd debate on how we should ban swords and spears. What guns do is make it very, very easy for any violent or volatile situation to turn deadly. Stabbing someone or clubbing them is a lot different than shooting them. With a gun, you can kill someone with no more thought or feeling than changing channels on tv with your remote. Sticking someone close up with a knife takes real intent. I don't think so. Guns make it more deadly, yes, but if somebody pulled out a gun, it was with the intent of killing. He could've used another weapon to do it. I remember seeing a documentary on the BBC that even soldiers in WWII had a hard time pulling the trigger on another human being and that some "voice" triggered in them trying to stop them from doing it. It isn't as easy as it sounds. As a last comment for this post, if my memory is correct, I believe most of the deaths in the Rwandan genocide were by machetes and not guns, but I could be wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediMaster12 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 I know that. My cousin described that to me when he came back from his tour in Iraq. He got ambushed a few times and well, it was hard to communicate with him during that time. I'm jus glad that he's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Here we go again... First: No racism. It's bad, and it CANNOT be used for a good purpose. Second: Define "guns". Personally, I can't see many racists causing mass slaughter with bolt action rifles... Third: Haven't we gone over the whole "guns are bad" thing before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Third: Haven't we gone over the whole "guns are bad" thing before? A gun is only bad when there is a hateful person holding it, racists are always bad. People can go on and on about how "guns are bad", and this is to the person who voted no guns. "Guns are bad", fair enough, but racists are worse. I suppose it's fair to assume that there is at least one racist on this forum, seeing as there are thousands of members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 It's kind of rare when a racist sees themself as a racist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MachineCult Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 It's kind of rare when a racist sees themself as a racist Except when they join a gang of skinheads or start beating people up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Second: Define "guns". Personally, I can't see many racists causing mass slaughter with bolt action rifles... In WWII, the german Wehrmacht's "main" rifle was the Mauser K98, a bolt action rifle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 It's kind of rare when a racist sees themself as a racist The ones that do realize they're racist but don't care are the scary ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted May 25, 2006 Share Posted May 25, 2006 Except when they join a gang of skinheads or start beating people up. Well they've got a twisted idea in their mind, that they are doing the right thing, or they don't and are just dead inside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted May 27, 2006 Share Posted May 27, 2006 @Mace, Sorry all that happened to you, but if your friend's murderers didn't have guns they would've used a molotov cocktail, or jumped out of some dark corner and stabbed him in the back. Or your cousin could've hung himself, taking about as much time to break his neck as a shotgun does to destroy his mind. I don't think bleeding out your wrists would be a more pleasurable death then an instant shot to the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediKnight707 Posted May 28, 2006 Author Share Posted May 28, 2006 I really thought that this thread wouldn't have been so lopsided. And while I did vote for no racism, I think that the 3 who have voted for no guns have valid points. But, I still remain with my first opinion. Regardless of no guns or not, racisits that have no guns will still finds way to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 In WWII, the german Wehrmacht's "main" rifle was the Mauser K98, a bolt action rifle... Okay, fair enough, you got me. What I meant was the large, slow type used for shooting targets from up to a thousand yards... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediKnight707 Posted May 28, 2006 Author Share Posted May 28, 2006 What I meant was the large, slow type used for shooting targets from up to a thousand yards... The best for popping off a zombie's head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted May 28, 2006 Share Posted May 28, 2006 Not when they weigh so much...Unless you mean beating them to um... termination? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 @JK, One of those gun votes was just to be, as my brother so eloquently puts it "contrary";) @DI, Terrorizing a town from a mile away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 It's pretty stupid when somebody votes for something just to provide contrast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.