Jah Warrior Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 This could get nasty very quickly. Do you think guns ought to be banned? (with the possible exception of Military use.) My view is that anything that is designed to take another persons life should be taken out of the hands of the masses. Example of what happens when guns are illegal:- Less murders, by way of it being a damn site harder to kill people. For instance look at the murder rate in the u.s.a versus the U.K. shocking!!! come on, whats your call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 LOL! God damn...I thought I was in the JA-section and voted a big fat NAY, eager to explain why especially MP games need guns, not just sabers. Oh well. I voted no before I knew what this was about. Ban guns from the public, yes. Ban guns altogehter, no. We (like most civilized countries, I assume) regulate guns pretty extensively. Only for collecting or hunting purposes can you get a license, I think. Otherwise you need really good reasons. The military, the police etc. The NRA-thing you got going in the US is scary. "Freedom"...yeah right; freedom to kill and get shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 I don't think they should be banned, but I do feel strongly that the privilage of owning one should be more difficult to accomplish than an automobile. Automobiles, in the hands of the inept and careless, are every bit as deadly as firearms. But at least there's a licensing process and a license can be revoked, suspended or refused for someone who shows a propensity to ignore common sense and established traffic laws. Guns should have a similar process, only more stringent. One should have to prove that they are capable of operating a firearm in a safe and appropriate manner. They should also prove that they understand proper handling and storage, and they should be licensed according to class of firearm. A handgun, for instance, should be much more difficult to obtain a license for than a small bore shotgun for hunting. These measures won't eliminate guns from the streets that are in the hands of criminals, but it should begin to help decline the statistics of gun violence in the long run. Most gun related deaths in the U.S. occur among those that are considered "non-criminal" elements. It's suburban kids shooting each other while playing with daddy's pistol found in his desk drawer that cause the big problems. Criminals steal cars and drive without licenses, but when discovered, they face stiffer penalties. The same could apply with illegal gun ownership. No license, stiffer penalty. Also, the manufacturers need to be more involved in the justice process. They could easily keep records of firearm sales to to dealers so that when a firearm is committed in a crime and traced, the responsibility can be placed upon the dealers to reveal the hows and whys of the end sale. As it is, the manufacturers try very hard right now to stay out of the loop and bury their collective heads in the sand. They don't want to know what becomes of the guns they sell. They only want to sell. Like the ciggarette companies, these big corporations are the true enemies of the people. Not the people, who are merely following predictable patterns of behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 If you take away guns from honest law-abiding citizens then you are taking away there god-given right to protect themselves. For Instance, a man is at home, a robber comes in the house possesing a gun that he received illegally, the man hears the robber but cant do anything to stop him, except call the police which will come in oh say 15 minutes, during this time the man has no way to protect himself or his family from the robber. So the robber could easily just shoot them all. Now if the man had had a gun he could have shot the robber and stopped this all. By taking away guns you just take them out of the hands of people who use them the right way. Criminals get most guns illegally anyway, so it doesnt matter. And BTW, if you ban guns completely then people will just use knives and swords, etc. Its are human nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daring dueler Posted May 24, 2003 Share Posted May 24, 2003 ok....lets look at the 2nd amendment here, we(the public) have a rite to bear arms, and i think it is our rite. although laws on sfety should be set and better enforced, banning guns!? you want another cival war?-(thats sarcastic) on the street, dont carry guns, but hunting, and collecting, i collect knives, should those be banned too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luc Solar Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 First of all: what the hell is "rite"?! Second: Let's just give guns to EVERYONE so that EVERYONE can shoot EVERYONE to protect themselves or like, make a point or something... What is this stuff about "a burglar coming into your house"!? How often does that happen? How often does it happen that you would actually be able to go get your gun? How often does it happen that you would actually be able to go get your gun and shoot at the burglar? How often does it happen that that you would actually be able to get your gun and shoot at the burglar without getting killed yourself or killing anyone in your family? How often does it happen that that you would actually be able to get your gun and shoot at the burglar without getting killed yourself or killing anyone in you family and it would be for the greater good of mankind that you killed the burglar who might have just been too drunk and bashed through the wrong door? Does that happen often enough that it justifies the fact that anyone in the USA can get a gun for 5$ and shoot whatever he wants? Does that happen often enough that it makes the "gunz for everyone" policy grant a more peaceful enviroment than the "no guns for no-one" policy we got in the civilized world? Wanna trade homicide-figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker A handgun, for instance, should be much more difficult to obtain a license for than a small bore shotgun for hunting. I'm not exactly sure on state laws for hand gun permits, but it is more difficult to purchase a handgun then a shotgun. Originally posted by SkinWalker The same could apply with illegal gun ownership. No license, stiffer penalty. There are laws for illegal possession of a firearm. Originally posted by SkinWalker They could easily keep records of firearm sales to to dealers so that when a firearm is committed in a crime and traced, the responsibility can be placed upon the dealers to reveal the hows and whys of the end sale. This too also happens, as records are kept. But I disagree with the last person to sell the weapon being held responsible. I don't see how it would be my fault if I sold you a weapon and you commited a crime with it. I don't think that guns should be banned outright. There are already numerous laws regulating firearms as it is. Yes, people get killed by guns. I don't think it's an outrageous amount, though. The home invasion scenario described in an earlier post is a touchy one. Luc Solar, if someone knew how to properly use a firearm, then he would be capable of properly using it against an intruder. But, should he? That's what makes the "shoot the burgler" scenario a sketchy argument for guns. Guns are a tool for killing, and should only be used if you want to kill someone, or you need to kill someone before they kill you. In the far-fetched case of someone breaking into your home to kill you, I believe you are justified in using a firearm to kill him. But, if you have people breaking into your home to kill you, you have much greater problems in your life already. Because stuff like that doesn't happen, or rarely happens if it does. You are not justified in killing a burglar, regardless of the trespass committed. Also, the hunting aspect must also be taken into consideration. While some people do it for sport, others do it out of necessity. While I don't believe any of you would know of the latter, people really do hunt to put food on the table. I've seen it, I've done it. Sport hunting also keeps the deer population in check. It helps protect crops from deer. Even in the northern parts of the States, where harsh winters kill off many deer, there are still plenty more that need to be killed. With man came the decline of natural predators, and the increase in deer population. If you purchase a $5 handgun, you might as well just foul the barrel before your first shot, if it isn't already. If I'm gonna trust my life to something, I am definitely not gonna skimp on the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted May 25, 2003 Author Share Posted May 25, 2003 where america went wrong is when they wrote their constitution. The right to bare arms? Its the whole reason they have hundreds of thousands if not millions of handguns floating around. In the UK, handguns have never been legal, we simply didnt need them, while burglary rates are most likeley very similar from country to country, the likelihood of having a burglar break into your house with a gun is between slim and none. Most burglars will nevert have even seen a gun and i would hazard a guess that virtually none own one. Another point for you here:- In the u.s.a you seem to constantly have shootings at school, i suspect its kids that have taken daddies "weapon of self defence" and run amok killing fellow students and teachers. This don't happen in the civilised world, there are simply no guns to be had. Hunting? well, while i see hunting as a barbaric activity it is certainly human nature to hunt for food, and as such i think that shotguns could be permitted to farmers and pest control people. Simply going out into the countryside to have "fun" shooting the wildlife is pathetic though really, its ultimately destructive. Hunt to survive not to amuse yourself. hell, if you wanna have fun get a PC and a copy of ravenshield, yuo can tehn shoot things to your hearts content safe in the knoweldge that no creatures will be dieing at your whim. Munik you say that "not an outrageous ammount of people are killed by guns," OK could you share with us what an outrageous figure would be. I believe i speak for most Europeans when i say that ONE death from a shooting is wholly un-acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Originally posted by munik I'm not exactly sure on state laws for hand gun permits, but it is more difficult to purchase a handgun then a shotgun. There are laws for illegal possession of a firearm. Yes, but neither are licensed. Therefore, anyone can own one. In fact, in most states of the U.S., it is legal to own a firearm, even if it was purchased illegally. As long as the firearm itself hasn't been involved in a crime (i.e. stolen, homicide, etc.) Originally posted by munik This too also happens, as records are kept. Not sufficiently. In fact, the gun manufacturers have intentionally positioned themselves to be ignorant of "who, what, where, & when." Originally posted by munik But I disagree with the last person to sell the weapon being held responsible. I don't see how it would be my fault if I sold you a weapon and you commited a crime with it. Because if one is required to have certain qualifications (i.e. age, licensing, training - all similar to owning a motor vehicle), then it would be incombant upon the seller to check my qualifications prior to the transaction. The type of gun-show sales that allowed Kleibold, et al to get their hands on firearms still exist today. They advertise on HUGE billboards in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex. Originally posted by munik I don't think that guns should be banned outright. There are already numerous laws regulating firearms as it is. Yes, people get killed by guns. I don't think it's an outrageous amount, though. Between 1968 and 1991, there were 38, 000 firearm related deaths in the United States. This compares to 43, 000 motor vehicle related deaths and does not include injuries by either. I'd say that both of those numbers are outrageous. Motor vehicle restrictions need to be tightened. However, I think that if there were the same restricitons imposed upon firearm ownership/operatorship as with motor vehicles, this number would be significantly lower. Originally posted by munik The home invasion scenario described in an earlier post is a touchy one. Luc Solar, if someone knew how to properly use a firearm, then he would be capable of properly using it against an intruder. The main problem is, MOST people do not know how to properly use a firearm. I used to train soldiers and officers in both the M16 and the 9mm pistol. I saw guys whose JOB it was to know how to operate them fail. Your other comments about home break-in and hunting were very good. I shall ponder them further. Sources Deaths Resulting from Firearm- and Motor-Vehicle-Related Injuries - - United States, 1968-1991. (January 28, 1994). MMWR 43(03);37-42. Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/m0023655/m0023655.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 the likelihood of having a burglar break into your house with a gun is between slim and none. Can You give me some evidence of this. Does that happen often enough that it justifies the fact that anyone in the USA can get a gun for 5$ and shoot whatever he wants? What the hell are you talking about? Guns dont cost $5 buddy. And we cant shoot whatever we want. USA isnt uncivilized, we cant run around shooting anything we want. Dont let your clouded view of America get in the way of the facts. We dont walk around with M-16's slung on our shoulders and grenades hanging off our belts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Originally posted by Jah Warrior Munik you say that "not an outrageous ammount of people are killed by guns," You know, I thought on that sentence a bit before I wrote, as I was going to make it declaritive. Then I thought, "Hey, someone will jump my case if I do that, maybe even call for fact sources". So, I changed it to properly indicate that it was my personal opinion. And what happens? You twist it back into a declaritive sentence, with cute little quotation marks around it to make it appear that it's what I actually said. I think that an outrageous amount would be a whole helluva lot more then it actually is. We also do not constantly have school shootings here in the States. I'm just guessing here, as I'm no news junkie, but I would say maybe around 10. Ever. Hardly anything to get worked up about, only a big deal because the news makes it a big deal. As for hunting, if you don't like, you don't like it. But I have sharp teeth, and god made meat taste so good, I just can't deny myself the pleasure. If you eat meat, how else are you going to get it? Animals don't just walk up to my dinner table and die. As for Skin, you are probaly right about the licensing thing. The laws concerning firearms vary greatly from state to state, so I thing it's useless arguing what you can and can't do. But I concede that you do not need a license for purchase, just some other minor restrictions like age, felony status, etc. Your comparisions to motor vehicles is good, but you don't have to have a license, or even know how to operate a car to own one. But I get you drift. I also know that most people have no fricken clue as to how to properly use a firearm, or have any knowledge of firearm safety. That's why I added the part about the proper use. Too many people believe that all you need to do is point and pull, when in fact there is much, much more to it then that. Safety is overlooked, which should be the main priority when using a tool that kills. Thrackan Solo, you made that first quote up. No one said that, except for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 I didnt make it up look By Jah Warrior In the UK, handguns have never been legal, we simply didnt need them, while burglary rates are most likeley very similar from country to country,the likelihood of having a burglar break into your house with a gun is between slim and none. . Most burglars will nevert have even seen a gun and i would hazard a guess that virtually none own one. Dont accuse me until your sure;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 I thought it was in reference to my bit about burglery, sorry. While Jah Warrior may not know everyone who has broke into a house with the intent to steal, he can make that assumption on the almost non-existant (when compared to the States) charges of illegal possession of a firearm. Now, those who burgled and never got caught could possible be in possession of a firearm, but if you compared the B&E arrest numbers to those who never got caught, and then reference them with those arrest that also found a firearm, you can safely assume that his statement is true. But if you really want numbers, he could provide them if so inclined. I'm willing to bet that they don't break 1,000, I'm guessing on the high side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 I'm willing to bet that they don't break 1,000, I'm guessing on the high side. I'm willing to bet its more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted May 25, 2003 Author Share Posted May 25, 2003 lol, this thread is comedy. We need to find a site that has global crime stats. Would it be sensible to assume that a country without firearms for sale has less gun-crime? I reckon so. anyways 3.30am must sleep now havent been to bed since thursday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Good Night, Jah. Sleep well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Jah did precede that paragraph with the words, "in the UK..." if memory serves correct. I would think that, in the UK, burglars very rarely possess firearms. That would go along with the number of guns present in the UK, which, when compared to the U.S., is extremely negligible. So Jah's comment was accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted May 25, 2003 Author Share Posted May 25, 2003 Originally posted by SkinWalker Jah did precede that paragraph with the words, "in the UK..." if memory serves correct. I would think that, in the UK, burglars very rarely possess firearms. That would go along with the number of guns present in the UK, which, when compared to the U.S., is extremely negligible. So Jah's comment was accurate. my point exactly cheers skin, good night for real now. zzzzZZZZzzzzz. *starts sleep spamming* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted May 25, 2003 Share Posted May 25, 2003 Ok, I was looking at http://www.statistics.gov.uk which I guess I can assume is a reliable source. Now, I had a hard time reading the spreadsheets, and couldn't find a statistic directly addressing burglary and firearms, but I believe I was a little off with the assumption of 1,000. I did find that during 1999-2000 there were about 20,000 offences with reported use of firearms. In about that same time frame there were around 900,000 instances of burglary. I would have used a year closer to the current one, but that was the latest year I was able to compare those two statistics. Now, out of those 20,000 offences how many were involved in a burglary? I don't know, but I reckon I was wrong and it was more then 1,000. If we assumed all 20,000 were related to burglary, then reference the 900,000 burglaries, we can say that the chance for a burglar to have a firearm is very small. Probaly more times then my guess of 1,000, but not many more I don't think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted May 25, 2003 Author Share Posted May 25, 2003 had a lil look at that site munik and you are right it is hard to gleen any good info from it. There are no overall figures and it doesnt make the distinction between armed robberies (banks etc) and armed burglaries (residential). the percentages are all well and good but without an overall figure they are prety pointless... good find though mate! I seriously doubt that there are a thousand armed burglaries in the UK in a year. Most gun offences are armed robberies of post offices and banks or drug related killings. very rare to find people going into someones house with a gun, it really is unheard of over here and if it did happen it would be frontpage news (for months on end no doubt) Strangely, there is a news topic over here about this farmer called Tony Martin, he shot two unarmed burglars in his house (one died) and he got sent to jail for it. It was a licensed gun being as he was a farmer and he is actually getting sued by the burglar that survived for loss of earnings. oh what a great judicial system we have. The surviving burglar is a career criminal and convicted heroin dealer (he is in jail for that right now) I dont fancy his chances of compensation, after all heroin dealing is far from being a legitimate trade. FYI he shot the burglar up the arse, great shot!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrackan Solo Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 Actually here in the U. S of A, a burglar was robbing a family's house while they were on a week long vacation. He was snooping around the house when he went into the garage to see what he could steal. He walked in and shut the door. It locked. So he was stuck in the garage for 3 days. He then sued the family for maltreatment and won! I was thinking we should make duplicate keys or the code to our garages to robbers so they dont get locked in our houses:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted May 26, 2003 Share Posted May 26, 2003 No country that I know about has banned guns, although there probably are quite a few that have. The problem with the States is not that you can legally possess a firearm. You can in Norway too. The problem is that you can get them so easily, so many have them, law doesn't seem to require you to conceal them, and you can use them for self-defense so easily. Scenario: A burglar comes into your house. He's got a gun. You shoot him and he dies. In the States you'd probably get away with that. In Norway you'd get away with it only if you could prove there was no other option than to shoot the burglar. If the burglar's gun was not loaded, but on safety, for example, you're in for murder. If you fired the first shot, you're probably in for murder too:). And after that, you'd be going trough the whole round of questions and bugging for keeping a gun so ready in your home that you could prepare it in time to confront the burglar with it. Strict, yup. But we have a REALLY low crime rate:). When they "banned" guns in the UK, crime rates soared, but then they went really far down. Same thing will happen in the States, if only those Constitution fanatics can admit that although something's in the Constitution, it could be wrong (too many consider the constitution the Word of God or something). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted May 26, 2003 Author Share Posted May 26, 2003 (too many consider the constitution the Word of God or something). show me an american that will admit their constitution is bullsh!t and i will show you a lochness monster- to quote Flavour Flav - Don't belive the hype... barinwashed beyond belief.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
munik Posted May 27, 2003 Share Posted May 27, 2003 If one constitutional right is undermined, then that leaves the others open as well. We don't see it as the word of god, but it is part of the foundation of our country. If you can revoke one ammendment, why not others? Some of those ammendments we as americans feel are unalienable rights, things we never want to give up. The 2nd ammendment was put there to help prevent the government from going bad, so to speak. Revolting against a corrupt government is much easier when you posses the firepower to do so. Also, the 2nd ammendment helps in defense of this country, as every citizen has the opportunity to be armed and partake in repelling any invasion. Now, you can say that the ammendment is outdated, not relevant, or harmful. But, how many times has the government turned on it's citizens? How many times has the country been invaded (disregard the crazy canucks)? So, wouldn't it appear that the ammendment is doing what it was put there for? Yes, we can play the "what if" game, and talk for endless hours about how invasion or government corruption could be prevented without the 2nd, but if we were to revoke that ammendment and then things did turn bad, we'd be up sh*t creek without a paddle. That's not a chance some americans want to take. A seatbelt is uncomfortable and restricting, but I wear it all the time because when and if I do get in an accident, having it save my life will be worth the years of wearing it. For me, the negative aspect is worth it, even if the chance of me getting in an accident is slim to none. I believe the same goes for the 2nd. It sucks that people use firearms on each other, but when and if a crisis happens and we are invaded, we will be well equiped to defend the nation. Failing in that regard because we revoked the 2nd would be terrible, because once you lose to an invader, that's it. Game over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Warrior Posted May 27, 2003 Author Share Posted May 27, 2003 Originally posted by munik It sucks that people use firearms on each other, but when and if a crisis happens and we are invaded, we will be well equiped to defend the nation. I'm glad you are coming round to the fact that guns r bad mmmkay!!! j/k how many countries have a large enough navy to transport enough troops to invade the states?!?!!? errr none. If however China and america bordered one another we would see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.