Having guns PROTECTS YOU. It REDUCES CRIME. In states where gun control is tight, crime is highest, because an old woman can't just whip out a handgun from her bag and protect herself.
And now they're trying to bring in gun bans, probably using the school shootings as a reason.
People need to understand that the right to own a firearm is one of the first things outlined in the constitution of the United States.
Peace. DO NOT let people take your guns.
cogspin
At 3/17/08 08:46 AM, Mr-Money wrote: Having guns PROTECTS YOU. It REDUCES CRIME.
Not neccessary. Crime is done with guns too. When somebody can buy a gun legaly, scrape off the marking, and then sell it black, it's easier for criminals to get guns.
Also, even though they might offer you better protection, it also creates the risks of accidents.
In states where gun control is tight, crime is highest,
Correlation does not imply causation
because an old woman can't just whip out a handgun from her bag and protect herself.
She could also use pepper spray, or a stun gun, which can disable the robber just like a normal gun.
To be honest though, I don't know how much a normal handgun stops the robber if hit in a non-vital area complared to pepper spray and stun guns.
And now they're trying to bring in gun bans, probably using the school shootings as a reason.
Is it that unreasonable to want less guns around when somebody just went berserk with a gun?
People need to understand that the right to own a firearm is one of the first things outlined in the constitution of the United States.
One could argue that a firearm isn't the same today as it was back when the costitution was written. There is already bans on some of the heavier weapons. But lighter weapons have become a lot more effective too.
Peace. DO NOT let people take your guns.
The combination of words made me lol.
I just want to point out that I'm for guns. Don't be an idiot and assume that just because I'm arguing for something, giving the topic more fill, means that I personally stand for that opinion.
http://drakim.net - My exploits for those interested
Don't try to justify banning guns. People can easily kill people in other ways, or even get a hold of guns if they're that desperate, just like with drugs.
You need to understand the implications of a gun ban. It gives the police a lot of power.
cogspin
At 3/17/08 10:00 AM, Mr-Money wrote: It gives the police a lot of power.
Isnt that a good thing?
At 3/17/08 09:02 AM, Drakim wrote: Not neccessary. Crime is done with guns too. When somebody can buy a gun legaly, scrape off the marking, and then sell it black, it's easier for criminals to get guns.
When you have a a gun and a criminal has a gun it doesn't matter where he got because you still have a gun
Also, even though they might offer you better protection, it also creates the risks of accidents.
I used to shoot on a rifle team, saftey was always the highest priority. If you were stupid enough to be fooling around with gun and you fired it accidently.... well you had it coming. And if the concern was the saftey ofthe little ones... Like a local DJ here said "Use your brain, it's what it's there for. If you can child proof a house, you can child proof a gun. Also tell little Jack or Jill what exactly happen when a bullet hits some one... you know you've done a good job when the kid has nightmares about it".
Correlation does not imply causation
To be honest though, I don't know how much a normal handgun stops the robber if hit in a non-vital area complared to pepper spray and stun guns.
Bullets hurt like hell. In today's millitary you aren't taught to shoot to kill anymore. You're taught shoot to disable. Now apply that to the old lady and the mugger. Granny whips out a 9mm Sig-sauer P239, and if that doesn't scare the mugger off she pulls the trigger... 9mm rounds even if they hit a non-vital area like the shoulder is going to the mugger running, screaming, and bleeding. Now Granny reports this to the police, and the cops are now watching local emergency rooms for a man with a 9mm shoulder wound.
Is it that unreasonable to want less guns around when somebody just went berserk with a gun?
I think Granny has the solution to that scenario too.
One could argue that a firearm isn't the same today as it was back when the costitution was written. There is already bans on some of the heavier weapons. But lighter weapons have become a lot more effective too.
Actually guns were starting to go through some incredible changes during the constitutional era. Rifling would be invented a few years later, and the comman man could get his hands on a good Kentucky Long Rifle. Plus all you need to do is look through history to see how devistating a mark gun powder had already made on history. Cannons in europe had a hundred plus years earlier dractically changed the battlefield. All you need is the knowledge that the technology of death will always ecalate.
At 3/17/08 10:14 AM, DingoTheDog wrote:At 3/17/08 10:00 AM, Mr-Money wrote: It gives the police a lot of power.Isnt that a good thing?
Yeah that police state in Myanmar sure is great.
We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.
At 3/17/08 10:50 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:At 3/17/08 10:14 AM, DingoTheDog wrote:Yeah that police state in Myanmar sure is great.At 3/17/08 10:00 AM, Mr-Money wrote: It gives the police a lot of power.Isnt that a good thing?
Yeah, shame that police state in Singapore is so corrupt and evil.
Its not unheard of for Amendments to be revoked. Look at prohibition. That was an Amendment that got revoked by another amendment. They aren't set in stone.
Bellum omnium contra omnes
At 3/17/08 10:33 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote:At 3/17/08 09:02 AM, Drakim wrote: Not neccessary. Crime is done with guns too. When somebody can buy a gun legaly, scrape off the marking, and then sell it black, it's easier for criminals to get guns.When you have a a gun and a criminal has a gun it doesn't matter where he got because you still have a gun
No, I wasn't arguing that, but the availability of guns. All things aside, it's pretty easy to see that in a country where guns are sold legally, it's easier to get an illegal gun. If you have a country where guns are completely banned for civilian use, you have to import illegal guns from out of country.
Also, not every robbery is planned. There are cases where perfectly legal bought guns are used in crimes of passion. If somebody was reduced to using a blunt object instead of a gun, a life might not have been lost (as it is easier to run, or fight against, somebody with a blunt object than a gun).
I used to shoot on a rifle team, saftey was always the highest priority. If you were stupid enough to be fooling around with gun and you fired it accidently.... well you had it coming. And if the concern was the saftey ofthe little ones... Like a local DJ here said "Use your brain, it's what it's there for. If you can child proof a house, you can child proof a gun.
Also, even though they might offer you better protection, it also creates the risks of accidents.
Of course, but not everybody will be so smart. If society is going to have lots of guns, you'll have to expect that some accidents happens. Just like how a society using cars WILL have accidents.
Also tell little Jack or Jill what exactly happen when a bullet hits some one... you know you've done a good job when the kid has nightmares about it".
That....doesn't sound so positive.
Correlation does not imply causationExcept in Kennesaw
No, seriously, Correlation does not imply causation. We never have such sterile testing environments so that NOTHING else but the gun or lack of guns affects the testing grounds. Thus, you can never use only correlation to prove your case.
I could just equally argue, in Noway, we have almost no crime at all, and we don't have guns! While, this may in fact be for other reasons, and if we had guns, crime would be reduced even more. See what I mean?
To be honest though, I don't know how much a normal handgun stops the robber if hit in a non-vital area complared to pepper spray and stun guns.Bullets hurt like hell. In today's millitary you aren't taught to shoot to kill anymore. You're taught shoot to disable.
Civilians don't train in the military when they get a gun. I know that you aren't required to take any teaching other than a basic course when you get a gun.
Now apply that to the old lady and the mugger. Granny whips out a 9mm Sig-sauer P239, and if that doesn't scare the mugger off she pulls the trigger... 9mm rounds even if they hit a non-vital area like the shoulder is going to the mugger running, screaming, and bleeding. Now Granny reports this to the police, and the cops are now watching local emergency rooms for a man with a 9mm shoulder wound.
And now, the robbers are afraid. Very afraid. They know they can get wounded by any civilian on the streets, so they won't take any chances anymore. They shoot first and takes the money later. No risking letting them see you coming anymore, since they might shoot you.
One could argue that a firearm isn't the same today as it was back when the costitution was written. There is already bans on some of the heavier weapons. But lighter weapons have become a lot more effective too.Actually guns were starting to go through some incredible changes during the constitutional era. Rifling would be invented a few years later, and the comman man could get his hands on a good Kentucky Long Rifle. Plus all you need to do is look through history to see how devistating a mark gun powder had already made on history. Cannons in europe had a hundred plus years earlier dractically changed the battlefield. All you need is the knowledge that the technology of death will always ecalate.
Such a thinking cannot continue forever. What happens when we get the portable nuke handguns? Do we allow them in the name of the constitution too?
http://drakim.net - My exploits for those interested
Gun control is pure evil
You don't need to tell us.
At 3/17/08 01:19 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:Gun control is pure evilYou don't need to tell us.
From the clueless responses in this thread, I clearly do.
cogspin
At 3/17/08 04:54 PM, Mr-Money wrote:At 3/17/08 01:19 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote:From the clueless responses in this thread, I clearly do.Gun control is pure evilYou don't need to tell us.
Well, it would seem that you are correct.
Let's get started, shall we?
Gun control is pointless. Criminals and the like are still able to easily obtain firearms while your bog standard civilian has no way to properly defend themselves. Sure, if gun control was completely abolished, criminals would be able to get their hands on guns easier, but one could say that the increased quality of self-defence would cancel that out. Yes? No? Maybe so?
Well, then we could establish some restrictions. For example, the person gets a thorough background check. If they have shown any whatsoever sign of using the firearm for ill intent, they can't have it. I know these regulations are already in place, but they are simply not thorough enough.
To paraphrase, crazy people, drug users, drunks and people with criminal histories can't have guns. Regular joes can.
At 3/17/08 09:02 AM, Drakim wrote: Not neccessary. Crime is done with guns too. When somebody can buy a gun legaly, scrape off the marking, and then sell it black, it's easier for criminals to get guns.
Also, even though they might offer you better protection, it also creates the risks of accidents.
That is true, but that doesn't lower the fact that it offers better protection so it's really a null point, you and your loved ones can still get shot by a criminal who got the gun criminally.
At 3/17/08 09:02 AM, Drakim wrote: Correlation does not imply causation
No, but there has actually been studies that says states with more gun control have a higher chance of criminal activity. This comes from the fact that criminals are scared of people with guns.
At 3/17/08 09:02 AM, Drakim wrote: She could also use pepper spray, or a stun gun, which can disable the robber just like a normal gun.
To be honest though, I don't know how much a normal handgun stops the robber if hit in a non-vital area complared to pepper spray and stun guns.
The thing is with those two is that you have to stand close to the criminal to actually get to use both, if you have a gun a quick pop in the knee cap or the gun-wielding hand if you're a really good shot, then perhaps calling 911 or let him rot in his own sweat. You couldn't stop several gun-wielding criminals with just a pepper spray or a stun gun. Just to take a harsh example, V-Tech High Massacre. You couldn't even get close enough to Cho before he would pop your head off.
At 3/17/08 09:02 AM, Drakim wrote: Is it that unreasonable to want less guns around when somebody just went berserk with a gun?
Yes, as it is gun control that was the actual cause of the massacre. Schools are gun-free zones, which means every time there has been a school shooting it's been at a gun-free zone. You can't stop insane people from doing insane things but you can at least limit the damages.
At 3/17/08 09:02 AM, Drakim wrote: One could argue that a firearm isn't the same today as it was back when the costitution was written. There is already bans on some of the heavier weapons. But lighter weapons have become a lot more effective too.
And bans work since when? Criminals don't generally follow the law so why would they obey gun laws?
Conversations like this amuse me. The absolute defeatism implied on both sides provides me with a whole day's worth of laughs.
Guns are 100% useless. Anyone talking about using them for self defense is completely full of shit; defensive weaponry minimizes permanent damage to the offending party. Tranq cartridges, stunner weapons, even sensory offensives can all debilitate a perpetrator in the short term without any permanent damage in a vast majority of cases.
The simple fact is, if the majority of Americans weren't soft, evil little cowards, they wouldn't even WANT the guns. If you're scared someone is gonna shoot you, it's because you know you deserve to be shot. Or you've BEEN shot... but then you'd be against guns.
Final thought; that sense of entitlement you're airing when you proclaim your right to a gun is precisely the same as the robber's sense of entitlement when he breaks down your door. You're looking at victims of leprosy and yelling "zombies!". I hope you all choke, just a little bit.
At 3/17/08 07:06 PM, Doomsauce wrote: Conversations like this amuse me. The absolute defeatism implied on both sides provides me with a whole day's worth of laughs.
Yeah, defeatism. I'm wondering if defeatism means accepting the fact criminals commit criminal acts. Is that defeatism?
defensive weaponry minimizes permanent damage to the offending party.
..Why?
Tranq cartridges, stunner weapons, even sensory offensives can all debilitate a perpetrator in the short term without any permanent damage in a vast majority of cases.
What about being a part of the militia? Have you ever seen a posse armed with tranquilizer darts? Why not?
Guns are the most effective tool of incapacitation. The need to incapacitate another human being is not a light matter. Along with superior effectiveness compared to any of the alternatives you've mentioned, a gun provides it's owner a simple, dependable weapon whose longevity and durability renders other options obsolete.
The simple fact is, if the majority of Americans weren't soft, evil little cowards, they wouldn't even WANT the guns.
Our nation was founded on the concept that an armed populace ensures the rights of the people, even in the face of domestic tyranny; England wasn't our only enemy, government was and still is today. To say that it's cowardly to want to protect your family is ludicrous and asinine, don't you think?
If you're scared someone is gonna shoot you, it's because you know you deserve to be shot. Or you've BEEN shot... but then you'd be against guns.
You've never seen a cold-blooded killing, or even heard of one? How sheltered are you? Gas station clerks get killed in cold blood all the time, and when the perp runs away with $50 from the register, you can't say that innocent employee "deserved to be shot"
Again, pathetic.
Final thought; that sense of entitlement you're airing when you proclaim your right to a gun is precisely the same as the robber's sense of entitlement when he breaks down your door.
...and gets a 3 inch slug through his chest cavity. The cops take one look at the scene, note the perp is lying dead in a house other than his own at 2am, and tell the homeowner "great work".
We don't need scum believing that theft wiff gunz is somehow the same as the right to keep and bear arms, and there really isn't any reason for you to equivocate the two, either.
The entitlement you see is merely an exercise of one's rights, like gathering peacefully in public or refusing to testify against yourself.
You're looking at victims of leprosy and yelling "zombies!". I hope you all choke, just a little bit.
Tell your mom hi for me.
We gladly feast upon those who would subdue us.
At 3/17/08 10:14 AM, DingoTheDog wrote:At 3/17/08 10:00 AM, Mr-Money wrote: It gives the police a lot of power.Isnt that a good thing?
certain skateboarders, minorities, and wheel chair bound folk would disagree...
you may find these sites useful/insightful:
Owning a gun was something that was necessary for the founding fathers because they were rebels. They forcibly took land from the British. They needed guns to protect the country.
It is obvious to me that they meant it like that. A Militia to protect against invading armies. Now, we have the biggest army in the world. Do you really need a gun?
The vast majority of countries have outlawed firearms. They seem to be ok.
Sorry. No EDIT button. :(
-Rommel
Congradulations you've managed to take a valid point and make it sound like your sister and your mother are the same person
lol redneck stereotype.
At 3/17/08 10:00 AM, Mr-Money wrote: Don't try to justify banning guns. People can easily kill people in other ways, or even get a hold of guns if they're that desperate, just like with drugs.
I don't necessarily disagree with what your first post asserted, but GOD DAMN you're a fucking moron.
This post demonstrates blatant fingers-in-your-ears "lalalalala I cant hear you"-ing.
Respond to his actual points you fucking dolt.
You're whole point is gun control is wrong and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong, I don't care what they say.
The only good mike brown is a dead mike brown.
My main concern is that with the US going into financial crisis, people are going to take to the streets, there will be police resistance, and if we as citizens do not have guns, things could get very dangerous.
Think ahead.
cogspin
At 3/18/08 12:37 AM, RommelTJ wrote: Owning a gun was something that was necessary for the founding fathers because they were rebels. They forcibly took land from the British. They needed guns to protect the country.
Way to flaunt your ignorance once more, Rommel.
Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime].
George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."
Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in
almost every country in Europe."
George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed."
Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of
other countries, whose people are afraid to trust them with arms."
It is obvious to me that they meant it like that. A Militia to protect against invading armies. Now, we have the biggest army in the world. Do you really need a gun?
Woah, when I disbelieve you can top your lack of knowledge you seem to prove me wrong. Here's what the Founding Fathers meant when they put "militia" in the Second Amendment.
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."
Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and
include all men capable of bearing arms."
Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms."
Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties
of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms."
The vast majority of countries have outlawed firearms. They seem to be ok.
Except for the gun-violence increase in the UK after they outlawed firearms.
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/25 /politics.ukguns
Be kind enough to leave your hippie delusions on your way into the political forum.
Youtube - Where members of the 101st Keyboard Battalion lodge misinformed political opinions and engage in e-firefights with those they disagree.
At 3/18/08 12:37 AM, RommelTJ wrote: The vast majority of countries have outlawed firearms. They seem to be ok.
Incorrect, you just have no knowledge of what's going on locally. Crime has exploded in Denmark, we have several casualties from gun shots and criminals attacking people in their own homes, some even rape them before walking out, and compared to how small a country Denmark is...
Just last tuesday the place I worked at was robbed. A pop in the kneecap could've stopped the guy but noooo, we have "gun control".
I love the sheer idiocy of people who believe in Zero gun control.
"OMFG, LIBERALS HATE AMERICA". Yet they then go off about how they want this zero gun control world where Osama Bin Laden could legally purchase military grade weapons from a store.
No one can possibly claim they want NO gun control, yet somehow say they are tough on crime.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 3/17/08 11:34 AM, JoS wrote: Its not unheard of for Amendments to be revoked. Look at prohibition. That was an Amendment that got revoked by another amendment. They aren't set in stone.
We have never before had a piece of the Bill Of Rights revoked. The day the second amendment is repealed is the second the first amendment gets repealed.
Which means, in a nutshell, the day that the second amendment is repealed is the day I purchase as many guns as I can, and shoot anyone who tries to strip me of them.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
At 3/18/08 07:04 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 3/17/08 11:34 AM, JoS wrote: Its not unheard of for Amendments to be revoked. Look at prohibition. That was an Amendment that got revoked by another amendment. They aren't set in stone.We have never before had a piece of the Bill Of Rights revoked. The day the second amendment is repealed is the second the first amendment gets repealed.
In my opinion, the day the second amendment gets officially and permanently revoked, is the day that the American experiment officially dies.
An revocation of any of the foundational rights in our country means that any other right can be taken away, and it would be a spiral development. That would mean the constitution no longer means shit. Any possible future tyrant or oppressive movement could get away with just about anything; using both previous the nullification of rights as a pretext for continuing to take away rights, as well as having a population that can no longer defend itself.
Which means, in a nutshell, the day that the second amendment is repealed is the day I purchase as many guns as I can, and shoot anyone who tries to strip me of them.
Lol.
The day the second amendment is repealed, is the day I will wholeheartedly support an assassination spree that takes out the government figures that supported it.
Yay, Obama won. Let's thank his supporters:
-The compliant mainstream media for their pro-Obama propaganda.
-Black Panthers for their intimidation of voters.
Zeistro i think you're forgetting something (my favorite quote).
Jefferson: What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
Oh and I know that someone here will argue that the second amendment is outdated which is somehow a justifiable reason to get rid of it. To them I say this.
By any defintion that includes the 2nd amendment as outdated, the 3rd amendment is also outdated. Shall we get rid of that and start quartering troops in private homes?
At 3/18/08 07:04 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: We have never before had a piece of the Bill Of Rights revoked. The day the second amendment is repealed is the second the first amendment gets repealed.
Which means, in a nutshell, the day that the second amendment is repealed is the day I purchase as many guns as I can, and shoot anyone who tries to strip me of them.
I agree wholeheartedly it reminds me of something someone else said (forgive for potentially de-railing the topic).
The day they ban flag burning is the day I burn one for then it no longer represents the freedoms I hold dear.
This is why we need guns, why we really need guns, self-defense is the icing on the cake we really need them to protect ourselves in case our government goes corrupt and tries to take away our liberties (anyone who thinks that will never happen needs to take a refresher in history).
Oh and gun control is not evil, it's just stupid and very misguided. Their motives are good but you know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
At 3/18/08 07:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
In my opinion, the day the second amendment gets officially and permanently revoked, is the day that the American experiment officially dies.
It's only going to die if the people except it. After all: "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". We just need to make sure we don't consent.
An revocation of any of the foundational rights in our country means that any other right can be taken away, and it would be a spiral development. That would mean the constitution no longer means shit. Any possible future tyrant or oppressive movement could get away with just about anything; using both previous the nullification of rights as a pretext for continuing to take away rights, as well as having a population that can no longer defend itself.
I agree whole heartedly. As someone who lives in a crime-free neighborhood (hence requiring no protection on my part), has the ability to purchase meat instead of hunting it, and doesn't plan on murdering anyone soon, I can say without a doubt that guns are very unimportant to me, as immensely fun as they may be. However, the RIGHT to bear arms is incredibly important. The actual repealing on the second amendment, by itself, without examining any effects OTHER then the removal of guns, wouldn't be HORRIBLE. Not a pretty sight, but we'd survive. However, the fact that once it's out the window, my freedom of speech and right to due process are on the line, and that can't ever be allowed.
It's a bit like deploying soldiers in Vietnam to prevent communism from getting to the rest of Asia; domino effect.
Lol.
The day the second amendment is repealed, is the day I will wholeheartedly support an assassination spree that takes out the government figures that supported it.
Eh... I don't much like the idea of assassination, the whole killing someone without warning thing =/
Not quite sure what I'd do in the situation to be honest, other then forcibly refuse to give up the guns. Let's just hope to god we never see that day of wide scale political suppression in America, so we can just sit here and keep laughing at it happening in England.
Hahahahahaha, LiveCorpse is dead. Good Riddance.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
