GUNS!!!

Lol so your country tried to ban alcohol? But guns are tottally awesome?
I have lost all faith in humanity.

Tasers can be shot.
And there are guns available in my country, but civilised normal people choose not to use them and don't really have to. If someone breaks into your house doesn't mean they want to kill you. Also 90% of robberies happen while the owners are not at home.

I never had a gun, my family has never had a gun, my friends have never had a gun. Still we survived, must be a mystery to you huh?

You keep saying guns save, but actually they mostly kill. That is their purpose after all.

[quote="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.-[/b]

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.

Because i don't feel like researching all over again to prove a completely rational point.

However i do agree with you in the sense that these type of actions would probably not be effective in the USA, as it appears that maybe the population needs somewhat of a change in mentality or culture, rather than laws. But in most countries, especially european i am sure bans would have a significant effect in reducing crime rate, based on my experience.

wild at heart:

Lol so your country tried to ban alcohol? But guns are tottally awesome?
I have lost all faith in humanity.

Tasers can be shot.
And there are guns available in my country, but civilised normal people choose not to use them and don't really have to. If someone breaks into your house doesn't mean they want to kill you. Also 90% of robberies happen while the owners are not at home.

I never had a gun, my family has never had a gun, my friends have never had a gun. Still we survived, must be a mystery to you huh?

You keep saying guns save, but actually they mostly kill. That is their purpose after all.

Really? Really now. Do you think it's a good thing to have the Government steadily taking away liberties? You don't even live here, our laws don't even apply to you! You've lost faith in a humanity that prefers to have choice? To have freedom? If that's so, then I fear for the humanity you wish would reign. Whatever kind of humanity that is, it isn't predominant here and thank the Lord it isn't.

Are those statistics in your country, or mine?

Fine and dandy. Continue living your life without guns. Since it obviously doesn't affect you, then why debate our laws?

Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self defense. And, since you seem to be against ~the injury of any human~, less than 8% of the time a gun is used in self defense do they actually wound the attacker. Most merely brandish their gun. In addition, over 200,000 women carry a gun to defend against sexual abuse. Armed citizens kill more crooks than the police do. And since I don't feel like having to tell you the whole article, how about you do us a favor and read the article yourself. The arguments cannot be broken.

Also, all of those statistics take place in other countries. None of them are in the USA. Goody for Britain! They can continue to live without guns. The point is that we won't. I'm sick of saying it over and over again. Because it's true.

If you don't want a gun, don't get one. You don't have to take away the Second Amendment from Americans just because you disagree. Keep living the way you do in your country. You are, under no circumstances, obligated to come to our country. So stay there and keep living safely over there.

i think at this point no one is really adding anything to this discussion its just the same points being said over and over

LOL FIZZ

JESSE EISENBERG.:

i think at this point no one is really adding anything to this discussion its just the same points being said over and over

Without any attempt to understand from the other side, dare I say
thank you for stating the obvious.

greenday6:

The Joker.:

JESSE EISENBERG.:

i think at this point no one is really adding anything to this discussion its just the same points being said over and over

Without any attempt to understand from the other side, dare I say
thank you for stating the obvious.

actually it's without attempt to understand from both sides. not just one.

The Joker.:

thank you for stating the obvious. [/font]

It disgusts me how everyone tries to blame things like this on media, video games, music, artists. It's downright moronic.

Please watch it though, it presents both sides of the argument actually.

Quote

Really? Really now. Do you think it's a good thing to have the Government steadily taking away liberties? You don't even live here, our laws don't even apply to you! You've lost faith in a humanity that prefers to have choice? To have freedom? If that's so, then I fear for the humanity you wish would reign. Whatever kind of humanity that is, it isn't predominant here and thank the Lord it isn't.

I just think that it is absurd for the government to ban alcohol. Especially as everyone is all about the liberty of weapons. But yeah, hey it's not my problem, i don't have to be 21 to buy a beer. And I should mention that in fact, I don't live in a country of censorship or absurd restriction and I don't want to reign anything lol what.
If it is a liberty to deliberately threaten other people's lives, then yeah, I'm all about taking that liberty. As far as the rest is concerned, everyone can do whatever the fuck they want.

wild at heart:

It disgusts me how everyone tries to blame things like this on media, video games, music, artists. It's downright moronic.

Please watch it though, it presents both sides of the argument actually.

Quote

Really? Really now. Do you think it's a good thing to have the Government steadily taking away liberties? You don't even live here, our laws don't even apply to you! You've lost faith in a humanity that prefers to have choice? To have freedom? If that's so, then I fear for the humanity you wish would reign. Whatever kind of humanity that is, it isn't predominant here and thank the Lord it isn't.

I just think that it is absurd for the government to ban alcohol. Especially as everyone is all about the liberty of weapons. But yeah, hey it's not my problem, i don't have to be 21 to buy a beer. And I should mention that in fact, I don't live in a country of censorship or absurd restriction and I don't want to reign anything lol what.
If it is a liberty to deliberately threaten other people's lives, then yeah, I'm all about taking that liberty. As far as the rest is concerned, everyone can do whatever the fuck they want.

Oh qurl, I don't have time to watch the whole thing, I have a Batman movie to finish. But I'll watch some of it.
And yeah, I know it was a ridiculous thing for them to try and ban alcohol. Which is why they lifted the ban, because it didn't work.
It's not just a liberty of protection. It offers the absolute capacity to live without fear. There is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not. You have to decide if you believe that a citizen has the right to the best means of protection possible.

JESSE EISENBERG.:

The Joker.:

JESSE EISENBERG.:

i think at this point no one is really adding anything to this discussion its just the same points being said over and over

Without any attempt to understand from the other side, dare I say
thank you for stating the obvious.

actually it's without attempt to understand from both sides. not just one.

Actually, I believe both of us are presenting interesting and factual information. It was a bit unnecessary to barge in and shoot it down.
Thank you for being a Mod though.

i actually was not shooting down anyone i was saying that mostly everyone was repeating the same facts and the discussion was getting as pointless as someone coming in and saying "i agree" no one was really saying anything new. the whole point of me saying something is so you guys can continue the discussion. jfc

ANY FUCKING WAY. wild at heart that is a good video to post here. I've seen some of it and that's a great thing to continue the discussion if people will watch it.

I think that in essence.. the problem lies not in that fact that there are guns at our disposal but rather in the fact that we abuse advances in technology (such as firearms).
And most people don't realize that and are easily tempted to either buy or use them for personal reasons and thus have no respect for the rest of humanity. I must say that no one has the right to decide whether someone should live or die.
What I said earlier about eliminating guns or banning guns or BETTER YET, not producing them at all (after some point in time the guns still available will become impossible to use due to aging or rusting or whatever damage), what I meant was.. taking away the source of temptation or a means to ruin ones own life as well as the lives of others.. can only have positive outcomes.

Or perhaps just make bullets so damn expensive that buying guns would be pointless? Hell, we could save on metal..

But supposing some people still want to hunt, some rifles could be available to people when they've proved that they are responsible. Not just by their deeds but also making sure that their family has minimum history of violence and mental disorders. You can say it's unfair, but trusting a human being with a gun (who is not a cop or hunter by profession) is risky business.ˇ

As for the columbine bit (forgot to add comment on that, lol).. everyone needs a scapegoat. For some it's the subcultures they either can't or don't want to understand, for some it's the actual reason. It's tough being a teenager and we make it even tougher with our cliques and codes and whatever. The majority of young people (suppose the minority on this board..) don't realize that shit until it's too late.. or don't realize it at all.

Evgeni Malkin:

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.

Will you be showing us just ONE manual from a gun manufacturer that specifically states hat you've said? You know they ARE required to by law.

??????????
they are required to write that guns kill??

PaNcAkEs:

I think that in essence.. the problem lies not in that fact that there are guns at our disposal but rather in the fact that we abuse advances in technology (such as firearms).
And most people don't realize that and are easily tempted to either buy or use them for personal reasons and thus have no respect for the rest of humanity. I must say that no one has the right to decide whether someone should live or die.

And yet criminals do that every day. Is it your assertion that those that buy firearms for personal protection are as culpable as the criminals?

PaNcAkEs:

What I said earlier about eliminating guns or banning guns or BETTER YET, not producing them at all (after some point in time the guns still available will become impossible to use due to aging or rusting or whatever damage), what I meant was.. taking away the source of temptation or a means to ruin ones own life as well as the lives of others.. can only have positive outcomes.

So it's your assertion that guns have some kind of mystical power to convince someone to do something they wouldn't do anyway?

PaNcAkEs:

Or perhaps just make bullets so damn expensive that buying guns would be pointless? Hell, we could save on metal..

So now you believe that self defense shpuld be means tested. How noble. So you have a haterd for poor people. Duly noted.

PaNcAkEs:

But supposing some people still want to hunt, some rifles could be available to people when they've proved that they are responsible. Not just by their deeds but also making sure that their family has minimum history of violence and mental disorders. You can say it's unfair, but trusting a human being with a gun (who is not a cop or hunter by profession) is risky business.ˇ

So how many other rights and liberties would you propose require all of this hoop jumping before they can be exercised? Do you know what liberty is? And you liek to project your own inadequaciesw onto others just because you know you can't trust yourself with a firearm.