* 15,876 people murdered in US in 2006 with guns - FACT
* Only 192 of those murders was justifiable - FACT
* 73 people murdered in UK in 2006 with guns - FACT
* 34 US states have a higher number of gun murders than the UK - FACT
* Gun massacres since 1997 handgun ban in UK: 0 - FACT
* Gun murder halved in Australia in the decade since introduction of stricter gun control - FACT
* The US is the only First World nation in the top ten gun murder rates - FACT
* Gun murders increased 4000% since they became available to all in South Africa - FACT
* Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE: in South Africa, they commit the most gun murders (followed by whites), and Thailand has the third highest gun murder rate. Singapore also ranks at 32nd.
* Florida has the largest Puerto Rican and Cuban populations of the US - FACT
* New York has the largest Dominican populatiuon in the US - FACT
* Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Dominican Republicare not among the 32 countries with the highest gun murder rates - FACT
* To imply all Latinos turn into a homogeneous, murdering mass once they arrive in the US is incalcuably naive and/or racist - FACT
* Of the top 20 countries with the highest rate of gun murder, only South Africa, Zimbabwe and Ivory Coast have a predominantly black population - FACT
* Of the London boroughs with lthe largest black communities, only Hackney has a high (or notable) gun murder rate - FACT
* Of the top 20 countries with the highest rate of gun murder, only Columbia, Guatemala, Paraguay, Mexico, Uruguay and Portugal have a predominantly Hispanicpopulation - FACT
* That leave 11 of the top 20 with predominantly white populations - FACT
* Estonians, Latvians and Bulgarians can (and do) immigrate to the UK, yet there is no sharp increase in gun murder - FACT
* The UK gun murder statistics can be tied down to two cities, in areas of large gang cultures - FACT
* The US has a nationwide gun murder proplem - FACT
* If you want to use rates to say Arizona and New Mexico have gun problems to blame the Mexicans, you have to say there isn't so much of a problem in Texas and California, where the largest Mexican populations lie - FACT* Or, if you want to go by numbers, you can't blame Arizona and New Mexico - FACT
* Trying to use both in the same argument is pretty f'n stupid, cellar - FACT
* And, using that site, you notice that Hawaii and Massachussets have the lowest gun rates, and the strictest gun laws - FACT
* Wisconsin has strict gun laws, and is in the bottom half of total number of murders, and the rate of murder - FACT
* Those most likely to snap and shoot up the neighbourhood are predominatly white - FACT
* That going on a killing spree is now designated as a disorder indicates the level of the problem is higher than you want to admit - FACT
* Criminals are sold guns by licensed dealers through legal means, as the dealer isn't doing their job - FACT
* If those selling guns can't do their job, guns need better control for that reason alone - FACT
* Gun dealers in the UK converted guns to replicas to avoid handing over their merchandise in '97, and gangs are converting these to fire live ammunition - FACT

Don't you fucking dare to call anyone a liar, criticise their argument or call their credibility into question when you've been ducking and ignoring these valid, important points for the four months you've barely convinced yourself gun control doesn't work. Stil to flaming people's comments section, sounding like you've suffered a psychotic breakdown in the process - it's your level, and we all know it.

At 8/10/07 07:30 AM, Elfer wrote: Someone in a gun control debate examining the validity of statistics?

BLASPHEMY!

Hahah, that's goin in my record books!

At 8/9/07 01:39 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/8/07 10:59 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

The same people that were responsible for shooting their spouses, family members and friends in arguments

Urban legend. Next?

Nope not an urban legend, most victims were murdered by a relative, spouse or friend. Also, depending on which source you go by (fbi or federal bureau of justice stats.) 40% - 50%+ of murder victims were due to arguments or relationships. (cited previously - look last page top, me).

Except that with gun control many of these 'legitimate defensive uses' may
a.) be unnecessary or
b.) resolved with another form of self-defense i.e taser guns.

If someone breaks in my home and attacks me with the intent of harming me, I will kill them. Pure and simple. You have no right to tell me I can't defend myself or my family.

Doesn't answer my question at all.

prove that those laws are responsible for the lack of crime.

You're an idiot

Tsk tsk, cellar - going for the flamer's response. Are you acting pissy because I banned you from my comments page (which reminds me: what were you doing on there anyway, apart from looking for a reason to kick off?), and then remembering to try to state a fact...which, of course, didn't distort anything.

For example:
* China and India have larger populations than the US, yet do not have comparible gun murder rates.
* In 2005, about 68% of all murders, 42% of all robberies, and 21% of all aggravated assaults that were reported to the police were committed with a firearm, averaging 400,000 every year.
* he still doesn't accept what I have said many times that, of the largest black communities in the UK, only Hackney has any gun murder issue. As in, the other ones don't.
* He obviously seemed to miss thhe fact that Asians commit the most gun murders in South Africa, followed by blacks.
* Or that 55% of the countries with the highest gun murder rate have predominantly white populations.
*By the way: "1/13th (7.9%), the large majority of the minorities are are Asian, who commit violent crime at 1/4th the rate whites do in the US"? America Asians are mainly Chinese, in the UK it's Indio-Pakistani. And, once again, Thailand - which is in Asia - has a higher gun murder rate than most countries. Mainly drug related, coincidentally.
*Actually, there was an EIGHT year difference between gun massacres - and ELEVEN years since we had one. It was a six month gap between the last two in the US, and four months waiting for the next one.
* So, because Austalia is predominatly white and has a small ethnic population (6% Asia, 2% Aboriginal), a 50% decrease in gun murder since the ban isn't worth anything? How does your logic system work, cellar?
* Take the paranoias and prejudices of English Fundamentalist Christians, transport them to the other side of an ocean, and put them in contact with vastly different cultures. Throw in German, Irish and Scandanavian immigrants, simmer for 400 years - that's America. How is it so many attitudes and outlooks are similar between the US and UK, but crime statistics are not?
* You ignored, again, that blacks are the third most likely to commit gun murde rin South Africa - after Asians and Blacks. And, as for "tribal behaviour", remember Aparthaid turned Zulus and Xhosas against each other (rather than against the government). Who instigated Aparthaid? Whites.
* Despite whites coming out on top in strangulation and "Other"? And, looking at the overall murder rate, you may be disappointed to read that blacks aren't #1. Whites are.
* Once again, if Asians aren't responsible for gun murders, why does Thailand have a higher rate of gun murder than Mexico and ANY country of a predominatly black population?
* Guns obviously don't do good if they're discharged at bystanders at semi-regular intervals, pointed in the face of bank clerks and store owners - unless you happen to have the gun. And, frankly, anything you support is obviously a problem.
* So, the number or percentage of gun murders in the home passed you by, too? As did other ways to be killed by a gun, such as suicide or accidental gun death - there's more ot gun deaths than murder, cellar.
* Didn't I mention the UK gun criume rate being EXCLUSIVE to TWO CITIES which have HIGH RATES OF GANG VIOLENCE repeatedly for four months?
* By the way, if 53% of gun crimes in the UK involve air weapons, while there was a 46% increase using replica guns, it is quite stupid to quote thes ein context against uses of live weapons and ammunition. Which, coincidentally, is what you did.
* And, since we all know you'll ignore that site, it also states "Worldwide, the majority of recent shooting massacres have been committed with legally-held weapons." Whoops!
* You avoided the 50% DECREASE in Australia as they're white, yet talk about the increas ein the UK, which is mainly white. Errm...you ddefeated your own argument, there.

So, you graduated from "liar" to "you fucking moron" - and you were as poisonously ignorant as before.

At 8/10/07 10:25 AM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's also unconstitutional to ignore the parts about a well-regulated militia or the necessity to the free State.

At 8/11/07 08:30 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: * 15,876 people murdered in US in 2006 with guns - FACT

This is down from 2004. In which 16,528 were murdered, and 2005 in which 16,137 were murdered. Fact.

* Only 192 of those murders was justifiable

Not quite. Your own link states:
"Law enforcement reported 533 justifiable homicides. Of those, law enforcement officers justifiably killed 341 individuals, and private citizens justifiably killed 192 individuals. "
We'll delete "Fact" from your point there.

* 73 people murdered in UK in 2006 with guns

Again, from your own data:
"Firearms were used in 73 homicides in 2004/05 (under one in ten of all homicides), five more than the previous year."
Firearms murder has jumped 7%. Also from your link:
"In fact, the current number of firearms offences is almost twice that of 1997/98."
"This is a 6% increase from 2003/04 and continues the pattern of annual increases every year since 1997/98. "
Since you deliberately ignore the evidence in there that gun crime is rising...your "fact" is meant to mislead. We'll remove "Fact" from your point here.

* 34 US states have a higher number of gun murders than the UK - FACT

I'd like to see the per capita rates. This isn't terribly relevant to anything tho.

* Gun massacres since 1997 handgun ban in UK: 0

Gun massacres before 1997 in UK: 1. -Fact.
In fact, since you're using this to argue that the gun ban is the REASON for no more massacres, it's no longer a fact, but a propeganda tool...I'll fix that one for you too.

* Gun murder halved in Australia in the decade since introduction of stricter gun control

And the trend was started LONG before the gun buy back. Thus, the gun buy back is not the cause. Not a fact.

* The US is the only First World nation in the top ten gun murder rates - FACT

And?

* Gun murders increased 4000% since they became available to all in South Africa

OH, WOW! More people killed each other with guns than before they had guns? What the hell kind of stupid point is that? That's like saying "More people die of strangulation than before they made ROPE."
And there's an interesting little chunk of the table missing...1991-1998, when gun crime sky rocketed. What happened then? Oh, my...that's when Aprtheid ended. Hmmmm.

* Asians don't commit the most murders - FALSE: in South Africa, they commit the most gun murders (followed by whites), and Thailand has the third highest gun murder rate. Singapore also ranks at 32nd.

Well, I'm glad you didn't put "Fact", because you're dead wrong. Your chart shows, in fact, the opposite. "Coloureds" commit the most murders. Of those, Blacks beat out Asians. And White commit the least murders. That's what your own chart shows you dope.
Even in the breakdown...while Asians beat out blacks in shootings and strangulations, they commit less knife and other crimes...making it a tie (the one year where Asian and Black lines connect in the overall graph).
You're other two "facts" are completely irrelevant.

latino stuff edited for space
* To imply all Latinos turn into a homogeneous, murdering mass once they arrive in the US is incalcuably naive and/or racist

Nice try there, chuckles. Toss in some real facts then try to make a smear based on them and call them fact? I think not. When Carter allowed Castro to ship refugees to Florida, it's not exactly like the prick sent us his best and brightest. No, he sent us the trouble makers and emptied out his prisons. He flooded the boats of refugees with undesireables. Fact

* Of the top 20 countries with the highest rate of gun murder, only South Africa, Zimbabwe and Ivory Coast have a predominantly black population - FACT
black/mexican stuff removed for space.
* Estonians, Latvians and Bulgarians can (and do) immigrate to the UK, yet there is no sharp increase in gun murder - FACT

Yet there's STILL an increase of gun murder. -Fact.

* The UK gun murder statistics can be tied down to two cities, in areas of large gang cultures - FACT

Which it could be BEFORE the gun ban, hence, nothing really changing. However, gun crime is starting to become a problem EVERYWHERE in England.

* If you want to use rates to say Arizona and New Mexico have gun problems to blame the Mexicans, you have to say there isn't so much of a problem in Texas and California, where the largest Mexican populations lie Or, if you want to go by numbers, you can't blame Arizona and New Mexico -

Texas and California lead the nation in violent gun deaths. Arizona is #13, New Mexico is #29. Both are characterized by long stretches of desert, and low population areas. We could indeed use illegals as the crux of their problems.

* Trying to use both in the same argument is pretty f'n stupid, cellar

Ad hominim without supporting data.

* And, using that site, you notice that Hawaii and Massachussets have the lowest gun rates, and the strictest gun laws - FACT

They also have the smallest amounts of black and hispanic minorities. - Fact.

* Those most likely to snap and shoot up the neighbourhood are predominatly white

Is that why a majority of gan violence is in minority neighborhoods? You don't hear about some white kid snapping and going on a driveby. The only way you can even TRY to back up this stupidity is by pointing to school shootings (the last of which was perpetuated by a Korean), which are incredibly rare, and pale in comparison to gang violence perpetuated by minorities.

* That going on a killing spree is now designated as a disorder indicates the level of the problem is higher than you want to admit - FACT
* Criminals are sold guns by licensed dealers through legal means, as the dealer isn't doing their job

Criminals who are not legally allowed to have guns get them through straw man purchases through someone who IS legally allowed to buy a gun. (See: Columbine.) This is your source and you deliberately misquote it. No fact here.

* If those selling guns can't do their job, guns need better control for that reason alone

There's nothing to indicate they're not doing their jobs. In FACT, strawman purchases are proof they ARE doing their job.

* Gun dealers in the UK converted guns to replicas to avoid handing over their merchandise in '97, and gangs are converting these to fire live ammunition - FACT

Wow, so people found ways around the law, and the gun ban is circumventable? Thanks for admittingit...FINALLY.

Don't you fucking dare to call anyone a liar, criticise their argument or call their credibility into question when you've been ducking and ignoring these valid, important points for the four months you've barely convinced yourself gun control doesn't work. Stil to flaming people's comments section, sounding like you've suffered a psychotic breakdown in the process - it's your level, and we all know it.

You deliberately misquoted 6 of your sources, tried to use stats to deceive people, and offered up "facts" with no evidence to back them up. Seeing as how I directly debunked almost everyone of your claims with your own source, I will indeed feel free to call you a liar.

At 8/12/07 08:33 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Nope not an urban legend, most victims were murdered by a relative, spouse or friend. Also, depending on which source you go by (fbi or federal bureau of justice stats.) 40% - 50%+ of murder victims were due to arguments or relationships. (cited previously - look last page top, me).

First, when the FBI talks about someone you had a relationship with, it means someone you know. Preacher, mailman, classmate, teacher, etc. Knowing your attacker, or being aquainted to them, doesn't mean you're close, or even friends.

Doesn't answer my question at all.

You're demanding to know whether self defense is legitimate. Which is, in and of itself, an insanely stupid question. Then you demand to know if the violence could have been prevented with a lesser means, which is an IRRELEVANT question. If the woman had had a tazer, instead of a shotgun, she MIGHT have been able to overcome her three attackers. She also might have ended up raped and murdered. Putting the emphasis on victims to demand they resolve a conflict they didn't start with a lesser force is assinine. It has led to such retarded ideas as "the equal force requirement" which used to state that you couldn't use a gun if your attacker only had a knife. Anyone who brings a knife is looking to do harm (as opposed to guns which are primarily used to scare). And this requirement meant that a 5'4 90lb woman was supposed to knife fight a 6'7 300 lbs man. Your argument is stupid on it's face.

prove that those laws are responsible for the lack of crime.

You're an idiot

No, actually, I'm highly intelligent. As I've proven again and again on these forums, the laws regarding guns have little effect on actually reducing crime. England banned guns because of a SINGLE INCIDENT. Since then, crime has inched upwards. D2K is quick to point out that their crime rate is lower...but it always was. Gun laws are not the reason for the lower crime. At the least, we can say that the laws aren't working and gun crime is still rising.
Same with Australia. Oh my god, they got rid of guns and crime dropped! But crime had been plummeting anyways, and really didn't accelerate under the gun ban, but instead dropped at the same level.
In the movie with Richard Gere, about China, they completely attribute their lower crime to their willingness to use the death penalty.
And the vaunted Assault weapons ban did nothing to curb crime as rifles aren't used often in crimes, and the changes made to guns were superficial. As this gentleman demonstrates. And now that the AWB has lifted, crime is STILL falling.

In short, you look at the fact that England has gun laws and less crime, and go "aha, it's the guns." What I'm asking you to do is prove that the laws are responsible. You can't (and you know it), so you label me stupid for pointing out the basic flaw in your argument.

probably

At 8/12/07 09:24 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: D2kvirus just CONTINUES to spout out crap that he either doesn't prove, things that have already been disproved, or things that are entirely irrelevant.

It's like a mental retard reciting a story they heard, even when they are told it's wrong, they just keep saying it over and over again.

Can you prove that black people is crazy murder machines?

At 8/13/07 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Which shows that racial make-up, a large minority population with higher tendency to commit crime can cause higher gun murder, and murder rates in a country regardless of their gun control laws.

Meh...a lot of it is that whole gangster culture bull crap, which is basically
"look at me I wear my pants low enough so you can see half my ass, I can shoot a gun sideways without aiming and hit the little kid next to you, steal everything in a convenience store, talk like a complete retard, do drive by shootings where I'm not aiming at anyone in particular just so long as I hit someone, and I can rape people and get away with it, take every drug known to man and several known to elephants, cockroaches and small furry animals, and beat up random people for no reason."
My opinion? They're a bunch of dickweeds. Yeah we need Gun Control, in the form of background checks and registering guns, not in the form of banning them altogether, if we do that crime actually goes up simply because plenty of people aren't going to be willing to turn their guns in, hell most of the people who use guns to kill people and remotely have a brain buy them through illegal channels so they won't get traced back to them.

At 8/13/07 03:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Um, as I've already done... I proved that blacks commit violent crimes at 7 times the rate that whites do in the US, and are 3 times more likely to use a gun in these crimes. I can also prove, as I've done, that hispanics comit violent crimes at 3 times the rate that whites do.

Which shows that racial make-up, a large minority population with higher tendency to commit crime can cause higher gun murder, and murder rates in a country regardless of their gun control laws.

Have you shown this to be the case universally, or just in the US?

If you're going to apply the same logic to other countries, you have to show that minorities commit more crimes everywhere, not just in the US.

Again, you're playing fast and loose with the word "proof"

I'd be more inclined to say that the larger incidence of gangs and gang violence in the US is responsible for the higher crime rate and the higher crime rate among minorities, rather than simply racial distribution itself.

The UK is an island, with a low minority population, and the few minorities they do have belong to the racial group that commit violent crime at 1/4 the rate that whites do in the US.

Again, "in the US." You're saying that the US has unique variables that don't apply to any other first world nation, then you say that people who statistically commit less crime in the US must do the same everywhere.

This is a factor that makes gun murder comparisons across the board ridiculous when trying to prove gun control works or doesn't work. Not only because I've proved that guns are used more responsibly than irresponsibly in the US, not only because guns prevent more crimes they cause, but because the US would have a relatively high problem if there was gun control or not.

I think this is the key issue here. Making comparisons between countries is hideously complex business because there's no controlled variables. We can't experiment with it, and we can't draw meaningful conclusions.

And you're right, people will tend to kill each other, guns or no. That's why I think that while gun control might not be an inherently bad idea, it's ultimately not a solution, because it treats the symptom and not the cause. It's like covering skin cancer with makeup and saying "All better".

You need to have some regulation of selling guns if you were to use gun control (which I do not approve of)
If its just a ban, more people will do it just for spite. Like banning gum at an elementary school.

gun control doesnt work it makes things worse.

At 8/13/07 06:52 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: gun control doesnt work it makes things worse.

exactly! thats what I mean don't ban guns or there will be more problems like riots, angry hunters

i think i can sum up this entire thread in very few words: "once again (insert name here) has ignored what i said".

At 8/13/07 06:49 PM, machacker2000 wrote: You need to have some regulation of selling guns if you were to use gun control (which I do not approve of)
If its just a ban, more people will do it just for spite. Like banning gum at an elementary school.

There are significant differences between smuggling gum into an elementary school to chew it, and smuggling guns across a border into a country to sell them to violent criminals.

Seriously, people, what is there to argue? 2nd amendment, bitch, nothin' you can do about it.

At 8/13/07 09:45 PM, JugoDeMonstruo wrote: Seriously, people, what is there to argue? 2nd amendment, bitch, nothin' you can do about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do not thank me, brother, for I am only the messenger.

At 6/12/07 12:35 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

At 6/11/07 09:33 PM, ForkRobotik wrote: Guns aren't the problem, it's the culture that's the problem. Look what happened to that nice korean boy that tried to go to school in your country! You people made him crazy!!!

What do you mean by "you people"? Americans, I presume. Do you just go around looking for opportunities to attack people from the U.S.? School shootings aren't a problem unique to the U.S. It's highly ironic that you would say that, considering there was a school shooting in Toronto just this May. Relax and realize that the U.S. isn't the worst place on Earth.

I feel so sorry for you. You are so misguided. Onterio is right on the boarder pretty much, and Canada is basically a part of the US. If they have a problem it's because the guns were leaked over the boarder from the US. Guns are a problem because they have largely become an outdated personal possession. Our Forefathers left us the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Why? So that we could always keep control of our country, so that we would never be left without protections against the government. But in todays society we will never rise up against our government to inplement a brand new one. So the gun isn't as important as it once was, this makes it unneccessary, that's why it is so prevalent in todays society that gun crimes are in the news. We don't hear about guns at all unless we are talking about crime, so it sticks out because when we hear about them, no matter how often or infrequently they occur, we know a crime was committed. The gun is unneccessary in our society because it's not used for protection, and it's not used very much in hunting, because the number of people that hunt is so small. I don't believe however that hunting should be abandoned. It is a very good thing, it allows people to keep the art alive. But it can be done with bows and traps. If one wants to hunt with guns then they can go to a special hunting area, which they have to do already, and rent a gun, and shoot for the day like they would anyway.

But back to the US being the worst place in the world. I don't fully disagree that there aren't worse places in the world to live. But think about the countries that you would consider to be worse off. Did Africa come to mind? Maybe the North Pole? Maybe the Middle East? Africa comes to mind because there is war and drugs, and famine. If you look at that country do you see why they are the way they are? That there are problems in that country, and all of the other countries, that are bigger than crime, causing the crime, except the North Pole of course. Africa has little water, and even less clean water, there are wars because countries come in and try to take diamonds and other valuable things out of Africa, the US included. No one is really helping them, only taking what they want until there is nothing left and they have no money to start an economy or working government body. Drugs came in because they were a money making enterprise, an enterprise that the Western and Eastern Societies won't touch, because it is Uclean. So criminals make money, and lead the government and economy because they have the money to pay for it. So corruption has caused a lot of crime and drug usage, and there is still famine because they still aren't helping there people eat, because someone will have a baby to replace the dead drug addicts. Now to the Middle East. Again, crime, drugs, and now religion. Religion can always be used for evil, because everyone feels that they can justify everything. Most crimes that we hear occured because one fundamental religious sect didn't like another, or didn't like another country. Religion is a very powerful thing and can be used to do bad things because of corruption, the lust for power/superiority. The North Pole is just cold, there isn't anything else wrong with it so it's outside the scope of the discussion. The US is one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world. We have religious freedom and don't have drug lords in our government, I don't think. But we do we have unemployment. Yes they are going down as they all like to say, but there shouldn't be a rate at all. No one of working age should ever be without a job when he/she really needs one. The US is one of the worst countries in the world, because everyone is lazy. Why do people rob other people with guns? Because a gun is scary and it's easy to hold a gun and take someone elses money that they earned. Laziness is what is killing this country, we don't work hard at all, and that's why companies outsource to places like China, because they have so many people that need jobs that it's a hard working country. But the US is trying to change, as it always should, because that's what our forefathers wanted for us, to always be working toward a better society, one that can unite and reach for the future. We have a long way to go, and a lot of work to do, but we have the resources and liquid currency to make it happen, because it won't be cheap, and it will all have to be done on the political stage, because we can't just all buy guns and over run our government in this day and age. We have to work within the frame work we have and fix it over time. It just takes more conscious, intelligent, people working in government and staying with their platform all the way, not changing his/her mind so that they can get the vote. The message has to be out in the world before it is accepted, it might not happen in one lifetime even, but if someone is right then someday people will understand, because they will be able to look at the facts and decide what is right. But that is where we want to be, we have to get there, because we are still one of the worst countries to live in, only because we have no drive to succeed.

At 8/14/07 02:55 AM, JTWOOD wrote: I feel so sorry for you. You are so misguided. Onterio is right on the boarder pretty much, and Canada is basically a part of the US. If they have a problem it's because the guns were leaked over the boarder from the US. Guns are a problem because they have largely become an outdated personal possession. Our Forefathers left us the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. Why? So that we could always keep control of our country, so that we would never be left without protections against the government. But in todays society we will never rise up against our government to inplement a brand new one. So the gun isn't as important as it once was, this makes it unneccessary, that's why it is so prevalent in todays society that gun crimes are in the news. We don't hear about guns at all unless we are talking about crime, so it sticks out because when we hear about them, no matter how often or infrequently they occur, we know a crime was committed. The gun is unneccessary in our society because it's not used for protection, and it's not used very much in hunting, because the number of people that hunt is so small. I don't believe however that hunting should be abandoned. It is a very good thing, it allows people to keep the art alive. But it can be done with bows and traps. If one wants to hunt with guns then they can go to a special hunting area, which they have to do already, and rent a gun, and shoot for the day like they would anyway.

Well, ignoring the fact that guns are a much more humane way to kill animals than bow and arrows, sticks and rocks....
The gun has two uses:
1) To protect us from crime.
Jefferson himself acknowledged that the only result of a gun ban was to leave criminals armed while the law abiding are defenseless.
2) To protect us from the government.
The two major points EVERY gun advocate tries to make are:
1. You don't need a Bazooka to hunt.
2. A pistol won't help you fight off an army.
The Founding Fathers made it a REQUIREMENT for every eligable male to own a gun, because the states were fearful of the feds.
It is very telling that EVERY gun advocate, without exception is a socialist. They want the government (to some degree or other) to take control of our lives. And every socialist who has banned guns, and then taken total control, has been a disaster:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Chavez, Castro, Saddam, etc

We don't need any form of gun control whatsoever. Gun control only takes guns away from people who can only get them legally. This doesn't stop criminals. Nor does it even hinder them. Criminals want illegal guns. Illegal guns are difficult to trace.

If you really think that a civilian militia will take down a totalitarian government, shouldn't explosives be legal as well?

At 6/11/07 06:47 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: If you entered this thread because you read the title and want to unleash a rapid-fire barrage of insults, then leave now.

Haha, the classic line of the man who knows he's posting an overused, and usually heavily opposed topic.

I don't want to deal with you, just those that respect my opinion, whether they agree with it or not.

And why should I respect an opinion that wants to take my rights away?

Now, on to my point. Why do gun stores sell semiautomatic weaponry without having to fill out some kind of form or going through a screening process or something?

Do they? Damn, why don't you give me a source to confirm that... because I don't come across those stores very often.

If you're a deer hunter, or a duck hunter, or any kind of hunter, you don't need semiautomatic fire to kill one deer.

Okay, let me ask you a simple, simple question. Do you TRULY, TRULY believe that the reason people want to posess semi-automatic weaponry is for hunting? Think about that long and hard for a second. Find that source of extreme arrogance induced stupidity within yourself, and snuff it out.

If you collect guns, you should be willing to fill out a form of some kind to get a gun you probably won't use.

Uh... people usually have to. You know, I think I'm going to make an educated guess, judging from the brains dribbling out of your nostrils, that you've never even attempted to purchase a weapon anywhere, nor seen a legal purchase take place.

The fact that there is no control on these guns in most places leads to things like... oh, I don't know, the V-Tech rampage?

Actually, insane koreans with a taste for college blood lead to thinks like the V-Tech rampage. They just happen to use guns in the killing.

Don't you think?

Haha... no.

Hee...hee hee ha haa.................HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHEEHEEE!!!!!!...Funny!

At 8/14/07 03:09 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

Well, ignoring the fact that guns are a much more humane way to kill animals than bow and arrows, sticks and rocks....

Agreed.

The gun has two uses:
1) To protect us from crime.
Jefferson himself acknowledged that the only result of a gun ban was to leave criminals armed while the law abiding are defenseless.

Jefferson lived in an era in which there wasn't a heavily funded police force. Nowadays, if you see someone comitting theft and you shoot him with a musket, you go to jail. Murder is no longer considered an effective crime deterent. I find it funny that Jefferson also lived in a time in which duels were legal and people owned slaves (hell, Jefferson even raped his). Times change. And on a completely separate note, you can have gun laws that dictate which firearms are legal to who without outright banning them.

2) To protect us from the government.

Lol. Fine, next time the Tax Collector comes to your house, murder him. I'm sure you'll be seen as a civil liberty defender.

The two major points EVERY gun advocate tries to make are:
1. You don't need a Bazooka to hunt.

Agreed, hence why some forms of gun control are smart.

2. A pistol won't help you fight off an army.

Also agreed. However, a standing army, which has replaced the need of a civilian militia (we all know the U.S implemented a standing army after the founding fathers died, right?) does fight off a different army.

The Founding Fathers made it a REQUIREMENT for every eligable male to own a gun, because the states were fearful of the feds.

lolwha? I've never heard that one before. If you can find a link to that (I understand that some things just can't be linked to, so I'll understand if you heard that in a print media) would you give it? Secondly, we once again are brought to a standing army.

It is very telling that EVERY gun advocate, without exception is a socialist.

Lol. You're full of shit on that one. My gun clubs filled to the brim with gun advocates (obviously), and last time I checked we're all living in the good ol' U.S.

They want the government (to some degree or other) to take control of our lives.

Lolno. Cellardoor, for example, is a gun advocate (one needs not look far on the BBS), and a self-proclaimed libertarian, if I'm not mistaken. I seem to remember Pilot-Doofy being a libertarian, though I may be incorrect on that.

And every socialist who has banned guns, and then taken total control, has been a disaster:

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Chavez, Castro, Saddam, etc

Every socialist that HASN'T banned guns has been a disaster. Your point?

At 8/15/07 05:28 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Haha, the classic line of the man who knows he's posting an overused, and usually heavily opposed topic.

Or the classic line of someone who's not a troll.

And why should I respect an opinion that wants to take my rights away?

Because the right of the 15 year old child to purchase a semi-automatic firearm without filling out a background check is as moronic as my "right" to shoot the president.

Do they? Damn, why don't you give me a source to confirm that... because I don't come across those stores very often.

My friends mother purchased a rather beautiful Mosin-Nagant in Georgia for about 200 USD without filling out any forms.

Okay, let me ask you a simple, simple question. Do you TRULY, TRULY believe that the reason people want to posess semi-automatic weaponry is for hunting? Think about that long and hard for a second. Find that source of extreme arrogance induced stupidity within yourself, and snuff it out.

If it's not for hunting, then one must wonder why the need to hunt is an oft sited source for the need to have a firearm.

Uh... people usually have to. You know, I think I'm going to make an educated guess, judging from the brains dribbling out of your nostrils, that you've never even attempted to purchase a weapon anywhere, nor seen a legal purchase take place.

And I'd guess you don't know what in the fuck your talking about. A vast amount of gun advocates are against waiting periods.

Actually, insane koreans with a taste for college blood lead to thinks like the V-Tech rampage. They just happen to use guns in the killing.

Yes, and moronic and ill-thought-out gun control laws that don't raise a red flag when a known mentally disturbed man with severe anger issues attempts to buy a gun sure doesn't help matters.

At 8/12/07 03:48 PM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 8/12/07 08:33 AM, tony4moroney wrote:

First, when the FBI talks about someone you had a relationship with, it means someone you know. Preacher, mailman, classmate, teacher, etc. Knowing your attacker, or being aquainted to them, doesn't mean you're close, or even friends.

When the fbi talks about someone you have a relationship with it's just that. A relationship with the person, be it familial or acquaintance. Like I said you're more likely to kill your family or someone you know. You're also more likely to be shot due to an argument rather then a criminal action, says the statistics.

Doesn't answer my question at all.

You're demanding to know whether self defense is legitimate. Which is, in and of itself, an insanely stupid question.

No it didn't answer my question provided that I said those 'legitimate defensive uses' could've been attributed to another less lethal defensive weapon such as a taser gun. You just went on a rant about how you wanted to shoot any trespasser.

If the woman had had a tazer, instead of a shotgun, she MIGHT have been able to overcome her three attackers. She also might have ended up raped and murdered.

Let's try that again but substitute a few words. If the woman had a gun she might have been able to overcome her attackers. she also might have ended up raped and murdered.

Putting the emphasis on victims to demand they resolve a conflict they didn't start with a lesser force is assinine.

Especially so considering I said 'provided that guns are illegal'

Your argument is stupid on it's face.

Only if you misinterpret it

No, actually, I'm highly intelligent. As I've proven again and again on these forums, the laws regarding guns have little effect on actually reducing crime.

where?

England banned guns because of a SINGLE INCIDENT.

And as I said this wasn't a radical implementation given that they already had strict gun restrictions in place prior to the full outlaw.

Same with Australia. Oh my god, they got rid of guns and crime dropped! But crime had been plummeting anyways.

I'm going to need a source for this.

In short, you look at the fact that England has gun laws and less crime, and go "aha, it's the guns." What I'm asking you to do is prove that the laws are responsible.

The UK has lower gun crime rates. This can be attributed to the fact that there are less guns because they were outlawed and ownership was always restricted. Popular arguments propagated are 'it's an island' Then I'll point at Europe. Another is 'black-market' which is only responsible for 15% of illegal guns, outlawing it will eliminate the majority of illegally obtained black-market guns which are due to straw-man purchases; it also denies them fresh ammunition. Another is 'criminals are responsible for the heinous crimes, ordinary citizens shouldn't be denied the privileges of a gun' which is also a false myth as I've shown the leading cause of firearm murders are arguments and relationship-bourne problems not psychopaths and robberies. 'it's a constitutional right' that's what amendments are for, and that's also based on a loose interpretation. Are you part of a militia? No I don't think so. What was the intent? To prevent a fascist uprising, do you sincerely believe you can prevent a modern army slamming down your door with your hunting rifle? No I didn't think so you've got to consider the historical context of the amendment too.

At 8/17/07 03:40 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 8/15/07 05:28 PM, Dre-Man wrote:

Haha, the classic line of the man who knows he's posting an overused, and usually heavily opposed topic.

Or the classic line of someone who's not a troll.

Sure...

And why should I respect an opinion that wants to take my rights away?

Because the right of the 15 year old child to purchase a semi-automatic firearm without filling out a background check is as moronic as my "right" to shoot the president.

Ah, once again the age card, tell me, how does my age have any relation to the words I put on this website, if I was 26 and posting the same paragraph, would it make my arguments any more valid? Oh, and lets not forget the ridiculous comparison to boot.

The people have the right to bear arms, to protect themselves against criminals, against an oppressive over-powered parliament based government, if they see fit, and for whatever uses they see fit that do not take rights away from other law abiding citizens.

Thomas Jefferson, a man I personally despise for most of his opinions even wrote that citizens of America have the DUTY, not just the right, to put the government back in its place when they become too oppressive and powerful. Why don't you pull out the Declaration of Independance and look over it one more time, see what you missed, eh?

Government backround checks include having to register your firearm. Now tell me, if the government knows exactly how many weapons I have, and what kind of weapons they are, doesn't that cheapen my ability to protect myself from them?

Do they? Damn, why don't you give me a source to confirm that... because I don't come across those stores very often.

My friends mother purchased a rather beautiful Mosin-Nagant in Georgia for about 200 USD without filling out any forms.

Oh... and did he kill anyone with it? Rob any banks? Sell it to a drug dealer?

Okay, let me ask you a simple, simple question. Do you TRULY, TRULY believe that the reason people want to posess semi-automatic weaponry is for hunting? Think about that long and hard for a second. Find that source of extreme arrogance induced stupidity within yourself, and snuff it out.

If it's not for hunting, then one must wonder why the need to hunt is an oft sited source for the need to have a firearm.

Because most people are too stupid to think of any other reasons. Such as yourself.

Uh... people usually have to. You know, I think I'm going to make an educated guess, judging from the brains dribbling out of your nostrils, that you've never even attempted to purchase a weapon anywhere, nor seen a legal purchase take place.

And I'd guess you don't know what in the fuck your talking about. A vast amount of gun advocates are against waiting periods.

Purchasing a firearm for legal use is like buying a pack of gum.

"Sir, that will be twenty five cents, come back in a week, and it'll be ready for you."

I wonder what's wrong with that picture?

Actually, insane koreans with a taste for college blood lead to thinks like the V-Tech rampage. They just happen to use guns in the killing.

Yes, and moronic and ill-thought-out gun control laws that don't raise a red flag when a known mentally disturbed man with severe anger issues attempts to buy a gun sure doesn't help matters.

You're right, I'm sure he couldn't have killed anyone if he had used absolutely anything else...

OH! And you know what, he couldn't have bought that gun illegally either... nope... no way, paperwork and backround checks would have stopped him in his tracks.

Criminals don't walk into a Wal-Mart to buy a hunting rifle when they go to rob a bank, criminals don't walk into a thrift shop to buy a revolver when they want to shoot a fellow drug dealer, criminals buy ILLEGAL weaponry, for one, because they're harder to trace, and two, because no one knows that they ever existed. I'm pretty sure that they don't have to fill out paperwork when they buy their weapons from Mr. Joe in an alley as long as they have 200 bucks handy.

So tell me, what's the use of making law abiding citizens fill out paperwork when they walk into a thrift shop or a Wal-Mart to buy their hunting rifle or revolver?

If criminals didn't buy guns what would be the problem?

The answer is none.

From this, the answer to the solution is made.

On the UK

Cellardoor6 says:
"UK gun crime kept going up after the ban, it went up 35% in one year, and doubled 6 years into the ban."

This link says:
1.) 53% of the UK's gun crime is with air weapons.
2.) The greatest increase is with brandishing replicas as real guns.

I say:
When half of the UK's gun crime rate is on the level of shooting somebody's windows out with an air rifle, it's pretty much impossible to claim the UK has a gun crime rate to be worried about - after all, the remainder is lower than the pre-ban level.

And, with the 46% increas ein brandishing replicas and pretending they're the real thing, that's another chunk of the gun crime rate: especially when the use of real guns has falled by 13% - while replicas continue to increase by 66%. If it is ownership of replicas that fuels the rise in gun crime, when use of actual live weapons is decreasing, your footing is further weakened. As it is by your continued ignorance of the fact that being apprehended with a handgun on your person constitutes as a gun crime.

When the Home Office are targeting imitation and air weapons to stamp out gun crime, you knbow there isn't a problem with live weapons.

Can you say that of the US? No, you quite plainly cannot - and that is what I've been saying all along.

On Australia

Cellardoor6 says:
"Island with low population and low minority rate."

This link says:
1.) Gun deaths drop from 521 to 289 per year following the introduction of stricter gun controls in the wake of Port Arthur.
2.) Gun murders drop from 93 to 56.

I say:
When gun deaths halve in a decade, you get the feeling gun control works.

Coincidentally, Australia has a 98% immigration rate, if there is a 2% Aboriginal population, although that probably escaped you. And, as 6% of that is Asian, that's 92% of the Australian population that are caucasian. In other words, this implies white people happen to gun people down.

That's two of your central "arguments" slightly shattered, isn't it?

On South Africa

Cellardoor6 says:
"South Africa is dominated by tribal behavior and is in a technical low-level civil war, and was even before they reintroduced firearms."

This link says:
The Zulu, Xhosa and the Sotho warrior nations (not "tribes") were united in trying to drive out the Dutch Boers and the English from their lands - united by a common cause.
This links says the Zulus and Xhosas were both ANC supporters, segregated away from the whites who imposed Apathaid.
This link states that "Coloureds" - West Indians to you and me - are responsible for the most gun murders in South Africa.

I say:
When the main group to commit gun murders in South Africa are notable for not being of African descent, therefore having no affiliation to the warrior nations - therefore you CANNOT say it is based along tribal lines as they have no tribal blood in them - you are grasping for straws. When Asians and whites commit more gun murders than Blacks of Coloureds, you CANNOT proportion blame along tribal lines again - simultaniously you cannot say Asian communities are not responsible for murder rates if they gun down more people than any other ethnic group in South Africa.

And, as previously stated, "Asian" is a remarkably loose definition: that covers everything from Turkey to Japan - Asian murder statistics vary wildly, as shown here. Hong Kong, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Quatar have low murder rates, Malaysia's is double that of the UK, India is treble the UK's, with South Korea, Yemen and Azerbaijan filling in the gaps inbetween (note that the US is higher than all of them, coincidentally).

And, as previously stated, Asian communities in the US tend to be of East Asian descenet, mainly Chinese, Korean or Japanese. In the UK, it's South Asians, mostly Indian or Pakistani: Patel is the 45th most common surname in the UK, while Khan is 80th.