GUNS!!!

AuthorMessage
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 10th, 2011 at 01:42pm
Dave Grohl.:
wild at heart:
I'm not even going to quote the first one because you are repeating yourself. Read my previous answers to that I guess.
Also you are hunting for survival? Your profile says Ohio.
Moreover, your house has been broken into but you were basically saved (safe&protected) by your alarm. My exact point, wouldn't you rather everyone had an alarm in their house/apartment instead of a gun?

The links I have posted are resources- facts on which this organisation bases the statements on. It is not part of their manifesto. You can sure look there are pretty interesting things their, true facts. Therefore none of this information is biased.
I'm not saying if there were no guns there would be no crime, I'm saying there would be perhaps significantly less crime. Do you have any graphs comparing the number of crimes by gun compared to those by molotov cocktails? I'm thinking you don't encounter the second one as often, using my common sense of course.
Again, the information is obviously not biased and at this point you are basically arguing with the writers of an article who based their statements on statistics, science etc.
Moreover, I think that these actual gun victims have more of a point or say in this than me you or anyone else. They have experienced the full power of guns and had their lives on the edge.
Yes, I completely agree it is not the guns fault, it is the person's fault, that is why people shouldn't be given guns. Fire weapons are far more dangerous and common than any other weapon, they cause most victims. And everyone needs to stop with the pencil allegory, pencils don't kill people.

Err, no, I don't hunt for survival. Hunting's the only way to keep the population in check.
And what about the people that don't have alarms/can't afford them?
lol no. My entire argument was that guns aren't going to decrease crime. Read this whole entire article. That's all I'm saying on that matter.
And actually, have you seen The Dark Knight? lolol nerds strike again


That article is outdated.
And yes i have. I hope this won't lead to you somehow suggesting it has anything to do with reality.
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 10th, 2011 at 01:44pm
discovering picasso:
Dave Grohl.:
Derpaherp:
Imho guns are created to kill. That's why people buy them, whether to kill animals or humans. Guns are never going to be banned because they have legit uses, but some will always find their way into the wrong hands.

Also, if we ban guns, how are the army people going to kill each other? Stones?

omg guns aren't created to kill. The actual use of a gun is to fire a projectile at wherever the user decides to shoot it, it just so happens that guns can be used to kill humans.

And, 80% of that statement actually backs up my argument. Guns will never be banned. I'm just saying that banning guns, or further regulating them, isn't going to decrease crime.
what kind of logic is that?
By some weird chance, this projectile-shooting apparatus also kills humans and animals?

When whoever invented the gun was thinking about it and making it, don't you think they were thinking "this can be used to wound or kill living things?"
i mean as pretty as they are just lying around or shooting cans with, wounding, threatening or killing is their practical use.


^ agreed.
I mean what is the point of creating something to ~shoot projectiles. It's such a childish argument, guns are created to kill and that is their one and only use. Everybody knows.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 10th, 2011 at 03:13pm
wild at heart:
Dave Grohl.:
wild at heart:
I'm not even going to quote the first one because you are repeating yourself. Read my previous answers to that I guess.
Also you are hunting for survival? Your profile says Ohio.
Moreover, your house has been broken into but you were basically saved (safe&protected) by your alarm. My exact point, wouldn't you rather everyone had an alarm in their house/apartment instead of a gun?

The links I have posted are resources- facts on which this organisation bases the statements on. It is not part of their manifesto. You can sure look there are pretty interesting things their, true facts. Therefore none of this information is biased.
I'm not saying if there were no guns there would be no crime, I'm saying there would be perhaps significantly less crime. Do you have any graphs comparing the number of crimes by gun compared to those by molotov cocktails? I'm thinking you don't encounter the second one as often, using my common sense of course.
Again, the information is obviously not biased and at this point you are basically arguing with the writers of an article who based their statements on statistics, science etc.
Moreover, I think that these actual gun victims have more of a point or say in this than me you or anyone else. They have experienced the full power of guns and had their lives on the edge.
Yes, I completely agree it is not the guns fault, it is the person's fault, that is why people shouldn't be given guns. Fire weapons are far more dangerous and common than any other weapon, they cause most victims. And everyone needs to stop with the pencil allegory, pencils don't kill people.

Err, no, I don't hunt for survival. Hunting's the only way to keep the population in check.
And what about the people that don't have alarms/can't afford them?
lol no. My entire argument was that guns aren't going to decrease crime. Read this whole entire article. That's all I'm saying on that matter.
And actually, have you seen The Dark Knight? lolol nerds strike again


That article is outdated.
And yes i have. I hope this won't lead to you somehow suggesting it has anything to do with reality.

lol I was joking (about Batman.)
Here is a more recent one.
Here's one from 2008.
Like, seriously, I don't even get it. The National Academy of Science has, as Stossel says, gone through laws and has failed to find ANY that reduce crime.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 10th, 2011 at 03:20pm
wild at heart:
discovering picasso:
Dave Grohl.:
Derpaherp:
Imho guns are created to kill. That's why people buy them, whether to kill animals or humans. Guns are never going to be banned because they have legit uses, but some will always find their way into the wrong hands.

Also, if we ban guns, how are the army people going to kill each other? Stones?

omg guns aren't created to kill. The actual use of a gun is to fire a projectile at wherever the user decides to shoot it, it just so happens that guns can be used to kill humans.

And, 80% of that statement actually backs up my argument. Guns will never be banned. I'm just saying that banning guns, or further regulating them, isn't going to decrease crime.
what kind of logic is that?
By some weird chance, this projectile-shooting apparatus also kills humans and animals?

When whoever invented the gun was thinking about it and making it, don't you think they were thinking "this can be used to wound or kill living things?"
i mean as pretty as they are just lying around or shooting cans with, wounding, threatening or killing is their practical use.


^ agreed.
I mean what is the point of creating something to ~shoot projectiles. It's such a childish argument, guns are created to kill and that is their one and only use. Everybody knows.

A childish argument? Really? Isn't it a bit childish to, even after all of these studies have been done and a lot of legitimate evidence has been presented, completely ignore everything that's been proved?
No matter the purpose of guns. That's not the discussion right now. I know I use this example all the time, but if the purpose of a gun is to kill, what's the purpose of a knife? To cut/slice, right? It can be used to, say, cut a tomato. But it can also be used as a murder weapon. When the gun was invented, do you think its inventor was thinking "Boy, I can't wait for people to use this to shoot bunches of people!" No. He wasn't. It JUST SO HAPPENS that people use it to kill humans. The main purpose of guns, or rather, what it's supposed to be used for is hunting, sport, defense, and collecting.
Mareh
King For A Couple Of Days
Mareh
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 4222

Blog
July 10th, 2011 at 03:49pm
Dave Grohl.:

A childish argument? Really? Isn't it a bit childish to, even after all of these studies have been done and a lot of legitimate evidence has been presented, completely ignore everything that's been proved?
No matter the purpose of guns. That's not the discussion right now. I know I use this example all the time, but if the purpose of a gun is to kill, what's the purpose of a knife? To cut/slice, right? It can be used to, say, cut a tomato. But it can also be used as a murder weapon. When the gun was invented, do you think its inventor was thinking "Boy, I can't wait for people to use this to shoot bunches of people!" No. He wasn't. It JUST SO HAPPENS that people use it to kill humans. The main purpose of guns, or rather, what it's supposed to be used for is hunting, sport, defense, and collecting.
Actually I think you'll find that the reason guns were invented, the most primitive ones after the invention of gunpowder by the Chinese, was to create a weapon capable of killing people better than swords, arrows, spears or anything else could. Guns were then fine tuned and made more proficient at what they do, which is fire a metal slug at an extremely high speed in order to penetrate a target. Do YOU think that the inventor of the gun was sitting there thinking "oh this will make a great new olympic event, shooting clay disks out of midair"? Fact of the reality is he was thinking how much he would be rewarded for making a weapon that would make his civilisation something to be feared by all their enemies.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 10th, 2011 at 04:27pm
Derpaherp:
Dave Grohl.:

A childish argument? Really? Isn't it a bit childish to, even after all of these studies have been done and a lot of legitimate evidence has been presented, completely ignore everything that's been proved?
No matter the purpose of guns. That's not the discussion right now. I know I use this example all the time, but if the purpose of a gun is to kill, what's the purpose of a knife? To cut/slice, right? It can be used to, say, cut a tomato. But it can also be used as a murder weapon. When the gun was invented, do you think its inventor was thinking "Boy, I can't wait for people to use this to shoot bunches of people!" No. He wasn't. It JUST SO HAPPENS that people use it to kill humans. The main purpose of guns, or rather, what it's supposed to be used for is hunting, sport, defense, and collecting.
Actually I think you'll find that the reason guns were invented, the most primitive ones after the invention of gunpowder by the Chinese, was to create a weapon capable of killing people better than swords, arrows, spears or anything else could. Guns were then fine tuned and made more proficient at what they do, which is fire a metal slug at an extremely high speed in order to penetrate a target. Do YOU think that the inventor of the gun was sitting there thinking "oh this will make a great new olympic event, shooting clay disks out of midair"? Fact of the reality is he was thinking how much he would be rewarded for making a weapon that would make his civilisation something to be feared by all their enemies.

Oui oui. But this is America, 2011. Not China, 1132 AD. We use guns for a lot of things.
And l o l. He could have been thinking anything. But the fact is, that's true. If you've a gun, do you think someone's going to want to rob you? Or even attempt to harm you? No. So, it has done its job, and you didn't even have to shoot it. That's the point. People who suggest taking guns away are taking away the security of knowing that, with a gun, you can save your life. Guns are used to kill, but they're also used to protect, and the fact that it saves lives alone should be predominant.
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 11th, 2011 at 03:41am
Guns take more lives than they save and that should be predominant.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 12th, 2011 at 12:57am
Mareh
King For A Couple Of Days
Mareh
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 4222

Blog
July 12th, 2011 at 01:08am
Robert Fischer.:
Derpaherp:
Dave Grohl.:

A childish argument? Really? Isn't it a bit childish to, even after all of these studies have been done and a lot of legitimate evidence has been presented, completely ignore everything that's been proved?
No matter the purpose of guns. That's not the discussion right now. I know I use this example all the time, but if the purpose of a gun is to kill, what's the purpose of a knife? To cut/slice, right? It can be used to, say, cut a tomato. But it can also be used as a murder weapon. When the gun was invented, do you think its inventor was thinking "Boy, I can't wait for people to use this to shoot bunches of people!" No. He wasn't. It JUST SO HAPPENS that people use it to kill humans. The main purpose of guns, or rather, what it's supposed to be used for is hunting, sport, defense, and collecting.
Actually I think you'll find that the reason guns were invented, the most primitive ones after the invention of gunpowder by the Chinese, was to create a weapon capable of killing people better than swords, arrows, spears or anything else could. Guns were then fine tuned and made more proficient at what they do, which is fire a metal slug at an extremely high speed in order to penetrate a target. Do YOU think that the inventor of the gun was sitting there thinking "oh this will make a great new olympic event, shooting clay disks out of midair"? Fact of the reality is he was thinking how much he would be rewarded for making a weapon that would make his civilisation something to be feared by all their enemies.

Oui oui. But this is America, 2011. Not China, 1132 AD. We use guns for a lot of things.
And l o l. He could have been thinking anything. But the fact is, that's true. If you've a gun, do you think someone's going to want to rob you? Or even attempt to harm you? No. So, it has done its job, and you didn't even have to shoot it. That's the point. People who suggest taking guns away are taking away the security of knowing that, with a gun, you can save your life. Guns are used to kill, but they're also used to protect, and the fact that it saves lives alone should be predominant.
I never said we should be taking guns away. I'm just pointing out that guns are designed to kill, or at the very least seriously injure. That's the reason why they work in self defence, because the attacker doesn't want to get shot when he can find someone else who is defenceless.

Also the reason why they're designed to hunt, to kill animals, whether for game or for control.

Just saying while other weapons are tools (tazers, knives, etc), guns serve no other purpose than the threat of death of injury.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 12th, 2011 at 01:09am
Well, there it is.
As we've now established the purpose of a gun, may we now close the argument that gun control, in fact, will not reduce crime?
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 12th, 2011 at 02:16am
Robert Fischer.:


Lol ok ~gunowners.org

And your opinion is that guns won't reduce crime, however in the last few pages i made valid and reasonable points on how they would. Please reflect on that.
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 12th, 2011 at 02:36am
Quote
New firearm legislation was introduced to Britain in 1996 after Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland and shot to death 16 school children and their teacher. Finalised in March 1998, these new gun laws ban handguns, providing compensation to gun owners for their weapons, while still allowing air weapons. Many applauded this move, seeing it as conveying a message about the kind of society Britain wants to be, a message reflecting the belief that the widespread ownership of handguns is not compatible with a sane, civilized or safe society.

Britain's response to the Dunblane Massacre contrasts sharply with South Africa, in which 461 children under the age of 12 and 358 minors between 12 and 17 years of age were killed by guns in 1998.(1) In short, "each year guns kill enough children to empty an entire school". (2) But because these deaths result from sporadic incidents of violence instead of in massacres, like Dunblane, we remain tolerant of guns and gun violence.

Britain's intolerance of firearm violence has impacted on its gun crime trends. Figures from the British Home Office reveal that there has been a substantial decline in gun crimes involving weapons other than airguns since new laws were introduced in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, there has been an overall drop of 17% in gun crime involving shotguns, handguns and other firearms excluding air guns.-


Quote
UK: Licensed gun owner kills 12 people
Posted on Thu, 2010-06-03 00:00
Twelve people were killed and 25 injured in Cumbria (northwest UK) by a gunman who then committed suicide on 2 June. The man, who had been a licensed gun owner for 20 years, killed his twin brother, a colleague and the family solicitor before driving through several towns firing randomly at people. Gill Marshall-Andrews, from the UK Gun Control Network, said: “This tragedy demonstrates once again that legal guns are no less deadly than illegal guns. The UK licensing system on its own is clearly insufficient, because it doesn’t foresee that previously law-abiding gun owners can become violent. If private citizens are going to be allowed to keep firearms at home, there should be annual checks with their doctor, their spouse and the police in relation to alcohol or drug abuse and depression.”

Even with completely normal owners, with no previous criminal background things like this could happen.

Quote
Brazil: Fewer guns means fewer deaths
Posted on Thu, 2010-05-06 00:00
New research reveals that gun homicides in the state of São Paulo (Brazil) dropped 70% between 1999 and 2008. The report argues that the strong 2003 gun law (the Disarmament Statute) was vital to this decrease, especially the prohibition on carrying guns, which was enforced effectively in São Paulo state. The study was produced by Instituto Sou da Paz, an IANSA member in Brazil. The study also shows that commercial sales of firearms decreased by 90% and that over half a million guns have been collected in the country. According to Daniel Mack, from Sou da Paz, “the study confirms the undeniable success of Brazil’s gun control law, but also pinpoints areas in which its implementation is lacking, betraying the legislation’s potential to save even more lives. Brazil can’t afford to rest on its laurels, but rather must push towards full and effective implementation”.


Quote

The fall in the murder rate in Sao Paulo state in the last few years can be attributed to several factors, such as an increase in the number of police on the streets, and a disarmament campaign which collected 150,000 weapons in the hands of civilians. But there was no "qualitative" improvement in policing, Mingardi, who said he has been "a criminologist for 20 years," told IPS. Some municipalities created their own security guard corps.

Quote
Other countries around the world that are experimenting with stricter firearms laws are seeing more conclusive results. Australia implemented their laws in 1996 and has since experienced a 30 percent decrease in firearm homicides according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. The Institute also noted others such as Scotland and England who have also witnessed a decrease in firearm incidents since banning guns. Our neighbors to the north, Canada implemented laws in 1991 and 1995 restricting the private ownership of firearms and they have reached a 30 year low in gun-related deaths.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 12th, 2011 at 12:54pm
wild at heart:
Quote
New firearm legislation was introduced to Britain in 1996 after Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland and shot to death 16 school children and their teacher. Finalised in March 1998, these new gun laws ban handguns, providing compensation to gun owners for their weapons, while still allowing air weapons. Many applauded this move, seeing it as conveying a message about the kind of society Britain wants to be, a message reflecting the belief that the widespread ownership of handguns is not compatible with a sane, civilized or safe society.

Britain's response to the Dunblane Massacre contrasts sharply with South Africa, in which 461 children under the age of 12 and 358 minors between 12 and 17 years of age were killed by guns in 1998.(1) In short, "each year guns kill enough children to empty an entire school". (2) But because these deaths result from sporadic incidents of violence instead of in massacres, like Dunblane, we remain tolerant of guns and gun violence.

Britain's intolerance of firearm violence has impacted on its gun crime trends. Figures from the British Home Office reveal that there has been a substantial decline in gun crimes involving weapons other than airguns since new laws were introduced in 1996. Between 1996 and 1998, there has been an overall drop of 17% in gun crime involving shotguns, handguns and other firearms excluding air guns.-


Quote
UK: Licensed gun owner kills 12 people
Posted on Thu, 2010-06-03 00:00
Twelve people were killed and 25 injured in Cumbria (northwest UK) by a gunman who then committed suicide on 2 June. The man, who had been a licensed gun owner for 20 years, killed his twin brother, a colleague and the family solicitor before driving through several towns firing randomly at people. Gill Marshall-Andrews, from the UK Gun Control Network, said: “This tragedy demonstrates once again that legal guns are no less deadly than illegal guns. The UK licensing system on its own is clearly insufficient, because it doesn’t foresee that previously law-abiding gun owners can become violent. If private citizens are going to be allowed to keep firearms at home, there should be annual checks with their doctor, their spouse and the police in relation to alcohol or drug abuse and depression.”

Even with completely normal owners, with no previous criminal background things like this could happen.

Quote
Brazil: Fewer guns means fewer deaths
Posted on Thu, 2010-05-06 00:00
New research reveals that gun homicides in the state of São Paulo (Brazil) dropped 70% between 1999 and 2008. The report argues that the strong 2003 gun law (the Disarmament Statute) was vital to this decrease, especially the prohibition on carrying guns, which was enforced effectively in São Paulo state. The study was produced by Instituto Sou da Paz, an IANSA member in Brazil. The study also shows that commercial sales of firearms decreased by 90% and that over half a million guns have been collected in the country. According to Daniel Mack, from Sou da Paz, “the study confirms the undeniable success of Brazil’s gun control law, but also pinpoints areas in which its implementation is lacking, betraying the legislation’s potential to save even more lives. Brazil can’t afford to rest on its laurels, but rather must push towards full and effective implementation”.


Quote

The fall in the murder rate in Sao Paulo state in the last few years can be attributed to several factors, such as an increase in the number of police on the streets, and a disarmament campaign which collected 150,000 weapons in the hands of civilians. But there was no "qualitative" improvement in policing, Mingardi, who said he has been "a criminologist for 20 years," told IPS. Some municipalities created their own security guard corps.

Quote
Other countries around the world that are experimenting with stricter firearms laws are seeing more conclusive results. Australia implemented their laws in 1996 and has since experienced a 30 percent decrease in firearm homicides according to the Australian Institute of Criminology. The Institute also noted others such as Scotland and England who have also witnessed a decrease in firearm incidents since banning guns. Our neighbors to the north, Canada implemented laws in 1991 and 1995 restricting the private ownership of firearms and they have reached a 30 year low in gun-related deaths.

You can talk about as many isolated events as you want to make your point look better.
We're not talking about Brazil. Last time I checked, Brazil is run by a dictator. And it's sad their people don't have guns. That is sad.
Might I remind you, you can't compare us to Sao Paulo. You can't compare us to Australia. In case you didn't know, North America is huge. There are WAY more people here than there will ever be in Sao Paulo. Don't even try and correlate statistics based on the populations of these countries. I seriously doubt that they have gangs like they have here. Or the kind of instances we have here. America's known for self sufficiency. If you're out of a job here, and you don't have money to buy groceries, you've the right to hunt and get food. In America, you've the right to protect yourself. I don't even know why you're debating our laws when you don't even live here. We don't debate Bosnia laws because they don't pertain to us.
If you've such a problem with guns, feel free to never visit our country. You don't have to buy a gun. That's great, good for you. You don't ever have to get one. But in America, where it's our right to own one, we're going to continue to own guns.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 12th, 2011 at 12:59pm
wild at heart:
Robert Fischer.:


Lol ok ~gunowners.org

And your opinion is that guns won't reduce crime, however in the last few pages i made valid and reasonable points on how they would. Please reflect on that.

lol okay ~International Action Network on Small Arms~
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 12th, 2011 at 01:16pm
Robert Fischer.:
wild at heart:
Robert Fischer.:


Lol ok ~gunowners.org

And your opinion is that guns won't reduce crime, however in the last few pages i made valid and reasonable points on how they would. Please reflect on that.

lol okay ~International Action Network on Small Arms~


An international organization which has made amazing progress in reducing violence among the countries of latin america. What have gun owners ever done?
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 12th, 2011 at 01:26pm
Quote
You can talk about as many isolated events as you want to make your point look better.
We're not talking about Brazil. Last time I checked, Brazil is run by a dictator. And it's sad their people don't have guns. That is sad.
Might I remind you, you can't compare us to Sao Paulo. You can't compare us to Australia. In case you didn't know, North America is huge. There are WAY more people here than there will ever be in Sao Paulo. Don't even try and correlate statistics based on the populations of these countries. I seriously doubt that they have gangs like they have here. Or the kind of instances we have here. America's known for self sufficiency. If you're out of a job here, and you don't have money to buy groceries, you've the right to hunt and get food. In America, you've the right to protect yourself. I don't even know why you're debating our laws when you don't even live here. We don't debate Bosnia laws because they don't pertain to us.
If you've such a problem with guns, feel free to never visit our country. You don't have to buy a gun. That's great, good for you. You don't ever have to get one. But in America, where it's our right to own one, we're going to continue to own guns.


Girl you need to work on your geography skills. Brazil is one of the countries with the highest population ( not as much as the united states but still). And actually it is a developing country and is known for being a rather violent nation. There are more gangs and drug wars than in usa, ,my point is that now, thank's to serious action against guns their crime rate has seriously decreased, by 70% in total. I'm not comparing any statistics i am simply proving that government actions against guns have worked in decreasing crime, in a lot of countries for example the ones previously stated.
I am not only referring to usa, but you seem to keep bringing it up, i am referring to all countries with loose gun laws etc. When did i mention usa in the previous post?
And again, you don't need a gun to protect yourself, there are plenty of methods. For example tasers, they are amazingly effective and are built for protection. Police use it too, in order to imobilise the attacker. Most of all, they are not lethal.

And brazil is not run by a dictator Rolling Eyes

Also if you don't have a job or money for food, how come you have money to buy a gun? I'm not trying to debate your laws or anything, i am just debating the use of guns in modern society.
Batman.
Falling In Love With The Board
Batman.
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Posts: 7651
July 12th, 2011 at 04:47pm
Not as much as the USA ahem.
Yeah, maybe in Brazil. Not here.
Great. Get yourself a taser then. People that want guns will have guns.
Family members? Friends? I don't care. I was using an example.
jessay
This Board Is My Home
jessay
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 34163

Blog
July 21st, 2011 at 05:56am
James McAvoy.:
Not as much as the USA ahem.
Yeah, maybe in Brazil. Not here.
Great. Get yourself a taser then. People that want guns will have guns.
Family members? Friends? I don't care. I was using an example.


I get you point it only scares me to death ....
I live in a country and are surrounded by countries where gun are restricted. So people can't have a loaded gun in there house and most people don't. (the police has guns)

The wrong people can always come by it in illegal ways . But most people don't because they don't need to (here), partly because they know that people don't have guns. (so a burglar could break in to a house without a gun: for example)

There shall be alot of researches claiming alot, that is there goal, one thing i do know that gun crimes in countries with gun restriction are lower than in countries with no restriction, that says nothing about the crime rate itself.

I know you live in a country where it is normal to have a gun, but take in concideration that there are countries where that is not normal and they aren't nest of crimes or unsafe at all, you could come here to my city and no one i know has a gun and you would still be and feel safe. That is where my point of view comes from.
Even if there was no difference between crime and safty i would choose for gun restriction and less guns in the world, because if it makes no difference, i have the point of view that less guns would make the world a better place.

Like i said it is my oppinion about guns, it is not an attack on yours. I think guns are scary things that shouldn't be in the hands of anybody, not the good or the bad. But i hate all celibration of violence and the celibration hurting others and i think guns are a representation of that to me.
(i know i am a hippie, peace love and everything)

I am not trying to convince you that i am rigth but i am trying to get you to understand that there are people on this site and in this world that will never agree with you point of view and there is nothing wrong of right with that, it is just a difference of oppinion.

(about the whole knive against gun use btw people who have no intend in violence what so ever still use knives but don't use guns, you can't use a gun to slice a tomato)
PaNcAkEs
Jackass
PaNcAkEs
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 1808

Blog
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:01am
Guns are okay for:
- hunting and self-protection.
Guns are not okay for:
- taking someone's life (read: homicide and war), keeping around the house.

Guns don't kill people, people do but people are weak and easily manipulated. Personally, the only way to end firearm-related violence is by eliminating firearms from our minds, which might also be a possibly solution for this big problem called war. But yeah, make love, not war, hahaha.
wild at heart
Idiot
wild at heart
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Posts: 983

Blog
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:35am
PaNcAkEs:
Guns are okay for:
- hunting and self-protection.
Guns are not okay for:
- taking someone's life (read: homicide and war), keeping around the house.

Guns don't kill people, people do but people are weak and easily manipulated. Personally, the only way to end firearm-related violence is by eliminating firearms from our minds, which might also be a possibly solution for this big problem called war. But yeah, make love, not war, hahaha.


Please read the previous pages of this topic.
There are plenty of reasonable ways to protect yourself other than guns. If gun number is reduced, then crime rate would be reduced thus you would live in a safer environment.
Hunting is no longer necessary and it hasn't been for hundreds of years.
Basically if you don't intend to kill anyone don't get a gun.

And guns do kill people and yes people are weak and easily manipulated, therefore they shouldn't get guns in the first place.

If you have nothing to add to the discussion please refrain from posting.
Register