Gun Control

[CptStern]

are you implying god? ..the marines are supposed to be faithful to god and country? that's a bit of stretch ..the US marines = god's army ...lol, god is either a hypocrite or a genius; killing people indirectly so as to not seem hypocritical ..."thou shalt not kill ..unless I tell you to, in which case you'll go to hell and I'll keep my reputation"

 

[Mr Stabby]

Gun control is a bad idea, in the UK criminals can get guns illegally so it isn't stopping gun crime. We should be allowed to shoot burglars.

 

[CptStern]

gun stats prove that you're far more likely to be killed by someone you know rather than a complete dtranger ..simply possessing a gun or knowing somone who has a gun puts you at more risk than the threat of being surprised in the middle of the night by someone attempting to steal your home stereo ...seriously all of you who keep harping on this justification need to get yourselves a dog ..no one is walking into my house in the middle of the night without my dog taking a chunk out of him

 

[Mr Stabby]

gun stats prove that you're far more likely to be killed by someone you know rather than a complete dtranger ..simply possessing a gun or knowing somone who has a gun puts you at more risk than the threat of being surprised in the middle of the night by someone attempting to steal your home stereo

How does gun ownership affect homicide rate, I don't see a correlation, the homicide by someone you know has no relevance to guns. If your going to brake the law by murdering someone, you may also be willing to break gun control laws.

...seriously all of you who keep harping on this justification need to get yourselves a dog ..no one is walking into my house in the middle of the night without my dog taking a chunk out of him

In a fight versus an armed burglar, my money is on the burglar.

 

[CptStern]

How does gun ownership affect homicide rate, I don't see a correlation

I dont know anyone with guns ...my chances of being shot by someone I know is nil ..a friend buys a gun; the chances of my being shot by someone I know becomes nil - 1

the homicide by someone you know has no relevance to guns. If your going to brake the law by murdering someone, you may also be willing to break gun control laws.

simply owning a car makes me more likely to break the law ..sure but that's all relative: if I dont own a car the likelihood of me breaking a vehicular related law is next to none

In a fight versus an armed burglar, my money is on the burglar.

he wont make it in to the house ..seriously would you enter a house where a dog was freaking out possibly alerting the owners/neighbours or would you just move on to the next dog less house ..no burglar will make it within a foot of my house without my dog letting us and the burglar know about it ..that's what dogs are supposed to do

 

[No Limit]

gun stats prove that you're far more likely to be killed by someone you know rather than a complete dtranger ..simply possessing a gun or knowing somone who has a gun puts you at more risk than the threat of being surprised in the middle of the night by someone attempting to steal your home stereo ...seriously all of you who keep harping on this justification need to get yourselves a dog ..no one is walking into my house in the middle of the night without my dog taking a chunk out of him

Not to mention the fact that it will take you a while to get up in the middle of the night, grab your gun and then shoot the person breaking in. The odds are with the attacker, your gun offers you nothing more than a flase sense of security. Unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow in which case you are an idiot with a completely different set of problems.

But I agree with the argument that at this point there is absolutely no way in hell you can control guns in this country. It's simply not going to happen.

 

[HunterSeeker]

In this day and age, no civilian military force would stand a chance against an army that pulls no punshes. And even if the civilians somehow managed to stop all the well trained, equipped and orginized infantry as well their armored vehicles. They still have to stop firebombing, chemical warfare and in some cases perhaps even nuclear weapons.

It was far easier for the average person to fight a military force 200 years ago.

 

[Cavalry]

HunterSeeker-we can look at those civilians in Half-Life as an example(I know it was a game)but,properly armed,we could take out an army(see American Revolution)

 

[HunterSeeker]

The British did not have any of the following: Fully-Automatic Weapons, Armored Vehicles, Chemical and Biological Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction nor did they have any airborne weapons.

 

[Cavalry]

yes,but,until Saratoga,we barely had guns and bullets,in Bunker Hill,we shot rocks and glass at the British

 

[No Limit]

yes,but,until Saratoga,we barely had guns and bullets,in Bunker Hill,we shot rocks and glass at the British

Sorry to burst your buble but your .45 will not stand up to F16s with laser guided missles. So unless you have a couple of tanks and jets in your garage I think you are shit out of luck.

 

[leib10]

HunterSeeker-we can look at those civilians in Half-Life as an example(I know it was a game)but,properly armed,we could take out an army(see American Revolution)

No. Plain no.

 

[Saturos]

are you implying god? ..the marines are supposed to be faithful to god and country? that's a bit of stretch ..the US marines = god's army ...lol, god is either a hypocrite or a genius; killing people indirectly so as to not seem hypocritical ..."thou shalt not kill ..unless I tell you to, in which case you'll go to hell and I'll keep my reputation"

No, actually, I meant the constitution, freedom. Don't be a wise ass.

 

[Saturos]

I dont know anyone with guns ...my chances of being shot by someone I know is nil ..a friend buys a gun; the chances of my being shot by someone I know becomes nil - 1



simply owning a car makes me more likely to break the law ..sure but that's all relative: if I dont own a car the likelihood of me breaking a vehicular related law is next to none





he wont make it in to the house ..seriously would you enter a house where a dog was freaking out possibly alerting the owners/neighbours or would you just move on to the next dog less house ..no burglar will make it within a foot of my house without my dog letting us and the burglar know about it ..that's what dogs are supposed to do

A dog won't stop a desperate man, or a bullet for that matter. EDIT: I retract that last statement, a dog CAN stop a bullet, but not in the way you probably would desire, not unless if your dog is actually Krypto the SuperDog that is. Or DOG form HL2

 

[Tyguy]

I suppose people should be allowed to have uzi's and assault rifles as well? Better yet, lets legalize the distribution of anti-personal fragmentation mines, just to spice up everyday life. Whats more exciting then walking down the street with the possibility of losing your legs?

At least someone in a 1 bedroom apartment on the other side of the country feels safer in bed...

 

[Saturos]

See this? This is my BOOMSTICK!- Bruce Campbell, Army of Darkness. (wasn't his character's name Ash?)

 

[golden_fang]

you go out of your way to misinterpret things I say dontcha?

in this case, yes they would lose ..a rag tag army of civilians carrying guns is no match for the US military



who cares? how do they at all relate to the topic at hand? the french countryside circa 1789 is not the same as modern day america

once again you troll without actually thinking through the situation ..Generalization logical fallacy ..I could easily have said "revolutions have failed in the past therefore all revolutions will fail"

Razziar doesn't fit the definition of troll he was making a joke.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I dont know anyone with guns ...my chances of being shot by someone I know is nil ..a friend buys a gun; the chances of my being shot by someone I know becomes nil - 1

Get new friends, one of them might stick a kitchen knife in your back.

simply owning a car makes me more likely to break the law ..sure but that's all relative: if I dont own a car the likelihood of me breaking a vehicular related law is next to none

simply going outside makes you more likely to break the law.

he wont make it in to the house ..seriously would you enter a house where a dog was freaking out possibly alerting the owners/neighbours or would you just move on to the next dog less house ..no burglar will make it within a foot of my house without my dog letting us and the burglar know about it ..that's what dogs are supposed to do

Dogs are more expensive than guns in the longterm, and a determined burglar wouldn't be stopped by a barking dog. It may even be someone you know trying to murder you.

 

[mastag]

I wonder if Stern debates with his kids like this.

*pictures a man discussing Iraq strategy to a three year old*

 

[The Monkey]

Sweden has very strict gun control and we have lower crime rate than the US, so I see no way of having it any other way, at least not in this country.

 

[CptStern]

Get new friends, one of them might stick a kitchen knife in your back.

or use his fists, a stick, or tightly wrapped magazine ..I fail to see your point

simply going outside makes you more likely to break the law.

you're just parroting what I said ..and agreeing with my point: that people engaged in criminality may not follow gun control laws does not dismiss the case for gun control .. in fact it's not at all related as one would precede the other: gun control would prevent or delay the person obtain a gun; that's the whole point

Dogs are more expensive than guns in the longterm

this is a silly argument against dog ownership over guns for protection ..dogs can provide much more than simply stopping a burglar which happens how often a lifetime? ever been burgled? I havent, and I assume you havent either or we probably wouldnt be having this conversation as you'd be serving time for killing him or at the very least you would be telling us of your experiences

and a determined burglar wouldn't be stopped by a barking dog.

yes because a crime that's defined by stealth wouldnt be deterred by the equivilent of alarm bells going off inside your house at ear splitting volumes .. the only way that bburglar is getting into the house is over the dead body of my dog, he wouldnt just bark ..and 72 pounds of black dog in the middle of the night barking as if all of hell's furies had been released at once is enough to disuade even the hardest of criminals especially one who's profession relies completely on stealth

It may even be someone you know trying to murder you.

and we've come full circle back to my point that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know rather than a stranger

 

[Lt. Drebin]

How many people here realize how pointless gun control is? I mean really, the the term outlaw means outside the law. Outlaws are already breaking the law. What makes people think that they are suddenly going to say, "Gee, we can't own any guns anymore? I guess we are out of luck." They will still have their guns. Meanwhile, the poor honest man is at the mercy of corrupt state officials, unable to defend their families from other gun wielding maniacs.D'oh! When the U.S. Constitution was written, the founding fathers wanted the people to be at equal power to the armies, meaning equal firepower, just in case the current establishment was to fall out of line to the constitution, the people can set them straight. Yes, the U.S. is a passive dictatorship and officials secretly want total control. That's the only reason why there's such a thing as illegal arms. That was the only reason for the incident at Wako Texas.Oh, and Janet Reno is gay. Let the hate posts commence.

What is with this incoherent drivel?? Honestly...if you're going to post in this particular forum, you need to step it up a notch...

:upstare:

 

[No Limit]

this is a silly argument against dog ownership over guns for protection ..dogs can provide much more than simply stopping a burglar which happens how often a lifetime? ever been burgled? I havent, and I assume you havent either or we probably wouldnt be having this conversation as you'd be serving time for killing him or at the very least you would be telling us of your experiences

Hate to butt in again but I've been broken in to twice now, and I live in a fairly safe neighborhood. Both times it happened was during the day when I was at work and one of those times it turned out to be 2 little kids probably no older than 15 according to a neighbor that saw it. So I will pull a statistic out off my ass here but I would guess 95% of burglaries happen when the vicitim is at work. Your gun isn't really going to help you in that case. And even if you were home would you really want to kill someone for something so minor, like I said, one of the times I got broken into they were stupid little kids, not sure how it would feel to have their death on your shoulders for the rest of your life.

 

[CptStern]

maybe canada is just safer or I've yet to have any run ins with burglars ..there was an attempt or two when I was a kid (twice in a week) but then my parents got a dog and it never happened again ..in my experience people ignore things like car/home alarms but everyone comes looking when a dog flips out/attacks someone ..my dog and another went at it and there were at least 3 people who came out of their homes to see what was happening ..I'd trust my dog over someone with a gun any day, he's not going to do something stupid like mistakenly shooting my family

 

[Saturos]

What is with this incoherent drivel?? Honestly...if you're going to post in this particular forum, you need to step it up a notch...

:upstare:

Like no one else ever posts any incoherent drivel in here. I knew someone would eventually say something dumb about my thread. BTW: I like your avatar, I was a Captain N. fan back in the day too.:E

 

[Mr Stabby]

or use his fists, a stick, or tightly wrapped magazine ..I fail to see your point

Gun ownership doesn't affect homicide rate.

you're just parroting what I said ..and agreeing with my point: that people engaged in criminality may not follow gun control laws does not dismiss the case for gun control .. in fact it's not at all related as one would precede the other: gun control would prevent or delay the person obtain a gun; that's the whole point

Criminals aren't constrained by control laws, only law abiding people, criminals can get guns on the black market. Gun control doesn't stop gun crime. If someone is intent on killing you and they can't get a gun, they'll use something else.

this is a silly argument against dog ownership over guns for protection ..dogs can provide much more than simply stopping a burglar which happens how often a lifetime? ever been burgled? I havent, and I assume you havent either or we probably wouldnt be having this conversation as you'd be serving time for killing him or at the very least you would be telling us of your experiences

That's also not an argument against gun ownership. It's next to impossible for me to own a gun, the UK has very strict gun laws, Northern Ireland has even stricter laws. Yet we have gun crime.

yes because a crime that's defined by stealth wouldnt be deterred by the equivilent of alarm bells going off inside your house at ear splitting volumes .. the only way that bburglar is getting into the house is over the dead body of my dog, he wouldnt just bark ..and 72 pounds of black dog in the middle of the night barking as if all of hell's furies had been released at once is enough to disuade even the hardest of criminals especially one who's profession relies completely on stealth

And if the burglars are armed, a dog won't do so well against someone armed with a crowbar or knife etc.

and we've come full circle back to my point that you are more likely to be killed by someone you know rather than a stranger

So? How is that an argument for gun control

 

[CptStern]

Gun ownership doesn't affect homicide rate.

yes it does ..less guns = less gun related crime

Criminals aren't constrained by control laws, only law abiding people, criminals can get guns on the black market.

and where do these guns come from? stolen from legit owners? smuggled across the border? more gun control would prevent people from owning guns therefore no stolen guns, gun control would provide courts more of an incentive to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law making smuggling a less lucrative business

Gun control doesn't stop gun crime.

it may not stop it but it's indisputable that it lessens gun crime ...eventually most of it would taper off to levels consistent with other jurisdictions around the world ..oh and we're talking about the US, all facts and figures i've used to this point are american based

If someone is intent on killing you and they can't get a gun, they'll use something else.

but they're not the great equalisers like a gun is ..anyone can pull a trigger, few would be able to beat me to death

That's also not an argument against gun ownership. It's next to impossible for me to own a gun, the UK has very strict gun laws, Northern Ireland has even stricter laws. Yet we have gun crime.

and the source of those guns used in crimes? mostly stolen from legit gun collectors or imported ..it's plain that gun control does work simply due to the fact that criminals must obtain their guns illegally ..guns used by ordinary citizens to commit murder are rarer still due to inability to purchase one

And if the burglars are armed, a dog won't do so well against someone armed with a crowbar or knife etc.

not like I couldnt call the police, not that I'd have to sit idly by while he stabbed me ..in fact the odds are still in my favour as dog + man armed with Kukri + cops on the way = stupid criminal if he chooses to stay

So? How is that an argument for gun control

it's not, it's an argument against that notion that you need a gun for self defense in case of a burglary ..read back a few pages

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes it does ..less guns = less gun related crime

Gun control doesn't reduce the number of guns, it reduces the number of registered legal guns, supply and demand.

and where do these guns come from? stolen from legit owners? smuggled across the border? more gun control would prevent people from owning guns therefore no stolen guns, gun control would provide courts more of an incentive to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law making smuggling a less lucrative business

Smuggling arms and drugs are very lucrative to organized crime huge money involved, and huge markets. It is almost impossible to stop the black market, whether it's drugs or guns.

it may not stop it but it's indisputable that it lessens gun crime ...eventually most of it would taper off to levels consistent with other jurisdictions around the world ..oh and we're talking about the US, all facts and figures i've used to this point are american based

I would dispute it, Switzerland has more sensible gun regulations than America, but the Swiss can own guns, they don't have gun crime problems like Britain does. If America has a problem with guns but other nations don't, it's not guns that are the problem it's American society that's the problem.

but they're not the great equalisers like a gun is ..anyone can pull a trigger, few would be able to beat me to death

Anyone can stick an 8 inch kitchen knife in your chest if they wanted too.

and the source of those guns used in crimes? mostly stolen from legit gun collectors or imported ..it's plain that gun control does work simply due to the fact that criminals must obtain their guns illegally ..guns used by ordinary citizens to commit murder are rarer still due to inability to purchase one

But criminals can obtained guns illegally, so no it doesn't work. They would be idiots to use a registered gun anyway.

not like I couldnt call the police, not that I'd have to sit idly by while he stabbed me ..in fact the odds are still in my favour as dog + man armed with Kukri + cops on the way = stupid criminal if he chooses to stay

Maybe if you live in a city the police would arrive on time, but chances are they wouldn't. I don't get the logic of allowing Kukris but not guns.

it's not, it's an argument against that notion that you need a gun for self defense in case of a burglary ..read back a few pages

Needs and rights are entirely different things.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Gun control doesn't reduce the number of guns, it reduces the number of registered legal guns, supply and demand.

How does it not? It WILL reduce the number of guns and those that is still avalible will simply cost much more, supply and demand. And why take the great risk of selling many guns when you can earn just as much selling one?

Smuggling arms and drugs are very lucrative to organized crime huge money involved, and huge markets. It is almost impossible to stop the black market, whether it's drugs or guns.

Stop yes, slow down no.

I would dispute it, Switzerland has more sensible gun regulations than America, but the Swiss can own guns, they don't have gun crime problems like Britain does. If America has a problem with guns but other nations don't, it's not guns that are the problem it's American society that's the problem.

Sweden has a tough gun-control law and we do not have a gun crime problem.
I wonder if britains problems would be worse if they loosened up their gun control laws?

Anyone can stick an 8 inch kitchen knife in your chest if they wanted too.

Nope, stabbing someone to death is much more difficult then shooting them, regardless of the defenders armaments.

But criminals can obtained guns illegally, so no it doesn't work. They would be idiots to use a registered gun anyway.

Criminals would be idiots to murder you anyway, why would they? They would risk much higher punishment and will be hunted by the police to a greater extent if they do, and they dont earn zip for doing it unless they are proffessional killers. In which case they would be stupid to attempt to kill you when you could defend yourself.

And it would still be much harder to obtain guns if they where illegal simply becouse there would be less of them.

Maybe if you live in a city the police would arrive on time, but chances are they wouldn't. I don't get the logic of allowing Kukris but not guns.

Becouse guns are much more lethal then kukris, which is very knife like anyway and knives have much more constructive uses then guns. And the criminal would be stupidn to take the chance when someone has called the police, better just flee.

 

[Tyguy]

I dont understand the rationale behind "if gun control cant stop everyone from getting a gun, whats the point?"

The less guns out in the streets, the less gun related crimes will be committed. Can anyone honestly rebut that?

 

[CptStern]

Gun control doesn't reduce the number of guns, it reduces the number of registered legal guns, supply and demand.

yes and in time it will reduce the number of guns altogether ..if supply channels are cut eventually there will be less guns ..that seems obvious to me

Smuggling arms and drugs are very lucrative to organized crime huge money involved, and huge markets. It is almost impossible to stop the black market, whether it's drugs or guns.

and? they most often target each other ..in 34 gun related murders in my home town half were domestic disputes and the other was gang related ..2 of the inncoent victems of gang related violence were innocent bystanders the rest were known gang members ..at the very least it will deminish the amount of crimes of passion or domestic homicide

I would dispute it, Switzerland has more sensible gun regulations than America, but the Swiss can own guns, they don't have gun crime problems like Britain does.

I've seen the Swiss comparison a number of times but it doesnt hold up under scrutiny ..first of all the majority of weapons are military issue ..all males who enter the army (pretty much every male 20 and above)retain their guns after they've left the military ..it's part of their law that they have an armed militia ...ammunition for the most part is registered during the sale as are all guns ..gun laws are much more stringently enforced than in the US

If America has a problem with guns but other nations don't, it's not guns that are the problem it's American society that's the problem.

how does that make sense? there's almost 300 million handguns and 300 million citizens ..obviously the problem has SOMETHING to do with easy access ...like v-tech murderer Cho who despite being court ordered to seek psychiatric evaluation (twice I might add) he still managed to purchase 2 handguns and a shitload of ammo

Anyone can stick an 8 inch kitchen knife in your chest if they wanted too.

umm no, the 95 pound philipino girl who works in my office would not be able to do so, unless taken by surprise ...there is no set of circumstances where a 95 pound philipino girl couldnt shoot the largest male dead if she wanted to ..unless she was a horrible shot

But criminals can obtained guns illegally, so no it doesn't work. They would be idiots to use a registered gun anyway.

sooner or later they wouldnt be able to use anything as there wouldnt be all that many available and those that were would be expensive ...supply and demand

Maybe if you live in a city the police would arrive on time, but chances are they wouldn't. I don't get the logic of allowing Kukris but not guns.

i dont have a Kukris for self defense, it was more tongue in cheek than anything else ..and chances are they wouldnt? please provide source that says so ..response time is exactly 3 minutes to my house from the nearest police station ..cars in the viinity would take less time ..plenty of time for me to barricade my family

Needs and rights are entirely different things.

what gives you the right to possess something that can take away my right to live? how do your rights supercede mine? it's only a right because the gun industry/gun fanatics say so

oh I want a rocket launcher, flame thrower and 24 vials of Sarin Toxin please ...it's my right

 

[Mr Stabby]

How does it not? It WILL reduce the number of guns and those that is still avalible will simply cost much more, supply and demand. And why take the great risk of selling many guns when you can earn just as much selling one?

Do you have any idea the size of the international illegal arms trade, it's quite big. Removing the legal market doesn't really affect the black market.

Stop yes, slow down no.

It will barely be affected

Sweden has a tough gun-control law and we do not have a gun crime problem.
I wonder if britains problems would be worse if they loosened up their gun control laws?

Britain's problems wouldn't change, gun control laws are irrelevant to illegal gun activity.

Nope, stabbing someone to death is much more difficult then shooting them, regardless of the defenders armaments.

Not much more difficult, if someone was intending to kill you, they could do it.

Criminals would be idiots to murder you anyway, why would they? They would risk much higher punishment and will be hunted by the police to a greater extent if they do, and they dont earn zip for doing it unless they are proffessional killers. In which case they would be stupid to attempt to kill you when you could defend yourself.

While I agree crime is a bad thing, and with murder no one wins, it does happen, using a register gun makes you more likely to get caught.

And it would still be much harder to obtain guns if they where illegal simply becouse there would be less of them.

There is a black market excess of guns. If you're determined to get a gun you can get one anywhere in the western world.

Becouse guns are much more lethal then kukris, which is very knife like anyway and knives have much more constructive uses then guns. And the criminal would be stupidn to take the chance when someone has called the police, better just flee.

A knife isn't much less dangerous than a gun, both can kill people in the hands of someone who intends on killing. I agree that crime isn't a good career choice but others clearly don't agree.

 

[Saturos]

I dont understand the rationale behind "if gun control cant stop everyone from getting a gun, whats the point?"

The less guns out in the streets, the less gun related crimes will be committed. Can anyone honestly rebut that?

Determined criminals will get their guns from somewhere. Do people honestly count on the police/government for protection? I don't. There are good hearted and just police out there, but the ones I've dealt with in the past just don't seem to care. Let's not forget that most criminals don't care either. Most would just assume to kill their victims than leave any witnesses. The U.S. second Amendment's right to bear arms, was meant so people can defend themselves, not so they can go hunting.

 

[CptStern]

Determined criminals will get their guns from somewhere.

where specifically ..there are only two avenues: stolen from collectors (which wouldnt be a problem if guns were banned) or smuggled across the border

Do people honestly count on the police for protection? I don't. There are good hearted and just police out there, but the ones I've dealt with in the past just don't seem to care. Let's not forget that most criminals don't care either. Most would just assume to kill their victims than leave any witnesses.

you know this from experience? you have personally witnessed when a police officer didnt care and people died because of it? you're just regurgitating alarmist "OMG WONT PEOPLE THINK OF THE CHILDRENS" type of nonsense ..when was the last time someone broke into your house killed your family and raped your pets ..again you far far more likely to be killed by someone you know ..therefore incidents that you're talking are rare in comparison, why wouldnt you deal with the larger threat as opposed to the smaller threat (liklihood of death by family member/friend rather than stranger)? I'll tell you why, because it doesnt fit your agenda ..facts are only useful to you if they support your narrowly defined pov

 

[Mr Stabby]

yes and in time it will reduce the number of guns altogether ..if supply channels are cut eventually there will be less guns ..that seems obvious to me

No it won't, those drug laws have eradicated drug use, haven't they.

and? they most often target each other ..in 34 gun related murders in my home town half were domestic disputes and the other was gang related ..2 of the inncoent victems of gang related violence were innocent bystanders the rest were known gang members ..at the very least it will deminish the amount of crimes of passion or domestic homicide

The gun may be the easiest option to commit a crime of passion with, but not the only option. You can't blame those crimes on the gun.

I've seen the Swiss comparison a number of times but it doesnt hold up under scrutiny ..first of all the majority of weapons are military issue ..all males who enter the army (pretty much every male 20 and above)retain their guns after they've left the military ..it's part of their law that they have an armed militia ...ammunition for the most part is registered during the sale as are all guns ..gun laws are much more stringently enforced than in the US

Regulation and prohibition are not the same thing, perhaps Germany is a more suitable model of gun regulation, they don't let those who seem dangerous have guns, it seems to work for them.

how does that make sense? there's almost 300 million handguns and 300 million citizens ..obviously the problem has SOMETHING to do with easy access ...like v-tech murderer Cho who despite being court ordered to seek psychiatric evaluation (twice I might add) he still managed to purchase 2 handguns and a shitload of ammo

Had someone else had a gun there they could have stopped him. If he couldn't get a gun at a shop, do you think he wouldn't have killed anyone?

umm no, the 95 pound philipino girl who works in my office would not be able to do so, unless taken by surprise ...there is no set of circumstances where a 95 pound philipino girl couldnt shoot the largest male dead if she wanted to ..unless she was a horrible shot

Well the likely demographic of someone who may try and kill you is male, they could apply enough force to stab you, I think most women would be strong enough, with the adrenalin of a crime of passion to stab you.

sooner or later they wouldnt be able to use anything as there wouldnt be all that many available and those that were would be expensive ...supply and demand

There will always be guns in the black market

i dont have a Kukris for self defense, it was more tongue in cheek than anything else ..and chances are they wouldnt? please provide source that says so ..response time is exactly 3 minutes to my house from the nearest police station ..cars in the viinity would take less time ..plenty of time for me to barricade my family

Everyone lives 3 minutes from a police station, really? I don't. Plenty of time for an assailant to attack you.

what gives you the right to possess something that can take away my right to live? how do your rights supercede mine? it's only a right because the gun industry/gun fanatics say so

What gives me the right to own a car, I could run you over, or a knife I could stab you, or a crowbar, I could crack your skull open. Should I have the right to own these..yes, should I have the right to try and kill you with them..no

oh I want a rocket launcher, flame thrower and 24 vials of Sarin Toxin please ...it's my right

I don't think you could justify nerve gas as self defence, not to mention you need a strong understanding of biochemistry to be around that stuff.

 

[Saturos]

where specifically ..there are only two avenues: stolen from collectors (which wouldnt be a problem if guns were banned) or smuggled across the border




you know this from experience? you have personally witnessed when a police officer didnt care and people died because of it? you're just regurgitating alarmist "OMG WONT PEOPLE THINK OF THE CHILDRENS" type of nonsense ..when was the last time someone broke into your house killed your family and raped your pets ..again you far far more likely to be killed by someone you know ..therefore incidents that you're talking are rare in comparison, why wouldnt you deal with the larger threat as opposed to the smaller threat (liklihood of death by family member/friend rather than stranger)? I'll tell you why, because it doesnt fit your agenda ..facts are only useful to you if they support your narrowly defined pov

Yes, as a matter of fact, I witnessed assault and battery + robbery and when I went with the guy to report it, the police we're like, "so, you got your ass kicked? Are you done wasting my time now?" Are my views narrow? probably to most people. But at least it's honest and to the point. Here we go. I just opened up a whole other can of worms. Go ahead and say something wise and insulting.

 

[CptStern]

No it won't, those drug laws have eradicated drug use, haven't they.

they sure as hell made it harder to get now didnt it?

The gun may be the easiest option to commit a crime of passion with, but not the only option. You can't blame those crimes on the gun.

Cho without a gun = just another angry asian guy/33 people miraculously still alive

Regulation and prohibition are not the same thing, perhaps Germany is a more suitable model of gun regulation, they don't let those who seem dangerous have guns, it seems to work for them.

it doesnt seem to work for americans ..Cho was still able to get a gun and that doesnt address the multitude of people who walk around undiagnosed or are without a criminal record ..warning flags do not sound when a person with a score to settle attempts to buy a gun ..the system has holes

Had someone else had a gun there they could have stopped him.

right, if the queen had balls she'd be king ..for all you know it could have turned into a bigger blood bath ..cho murders students, students fight back, not sure who murderer is shoot everyone with gun in hand, stray bullets kill/injure other students, police open fire on group of men carrying guns taking no chances ...why not just throw a match on the proverbial powder keg, it's much more to the point

If he couldn't get a gun at a shop, do you think he wouldn't have killed anyone?

definately not 33

Well the likely demographic of someone who may try and kill you is male, they could apply enough force to stab you, I think most women would be strong enough, with the adrenalin of a crime of passion to stab you.

that doesnt take into account my self preservation adrelinine ..I wouldnt hesitate to kick a woman in the crotch for example were she to lunge at me with a knife ..or eye gouge, punch to the adam's apple (or where it would be) etc ...the gloves come off when my life is at stake ...still my 74 year old aunt could kill Short Recoil if need be ,,give her a knife and I doubt she'd be able to kill last nights dinner

There will always be guns in the black market

and? if that's the only available source there'll be less guns on the street

Everyone lives 3 minutes from a police station, really? I don't. Plenty of time for an assailant to attack you.

know for a fact I live 3 minutes away, I called them and asked, they checked abulance response time - 3 minutes

What gives me the right to own a car, I could run you over

wasnt designed to run over people

, or a knife I could stab you,

most knives were not designed to stab people, knives over a certain length are prohibited

or a crowbar,

not designed to kill

I could crack your skull open. Should I have the right to own these..yes

not designed with the sole purpose of killing someone ..so yes

I don't think you could justify nerve gas as self defence, not to mention you need a strong understanding of biochemistry to be around that stuff.

flame thrower? rpg? and what's to know? I throw the vial and hope for the best ..you're not implying all gun owners could field strip their weapons/make bullets out of dicarded bubble gum, a brick of coal and citrus juice

 

[CptStern]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I witnessed assault and battery + robbery and when the guy reported it, the police we're like, "so, you got your ass kicked? Are you done wasting my time now?" Are my views narrow? probably to most people. But at least it's honest and to the point. Here we go. I just opened up a whole other can of worms. Go ahead and say something wise and insulting.

bullshit, police officers MUST follow up if you file a complaint ..did that person file a complaint and ask for the police to press charges? if not why not? why wouldnt he have sued the department


i find it funny that in these types of conversations people always know someone who miraculously saved the day when criminals broke into their homes, or stopped a mugging or rushed to the rescue of some old lady who the police deemed "a waste of time"

 

[Saturos]

bullshit, police officers MUST follow up if you file a complaint ..did that person file a complaint and ask for the police to press charges? if not why not? why wouldnt he have sued the department


i find it funny that in these types of conversations people always know someone who miraculously saved the day when criminals broke into their homes, or stopped a mugging or rushed to the rescue of some old lady who the police deemed "a waste of time"

You are right that they have certain procedures to follow, however, alot of police officers have probably had charges against them for not following up in the past and probably as we speak. Even if they do follow up, court sessions have to take place from within' the city or jurisdiction the crime took place. At least that is what I was told. The guy was apparently from out of town, not much money to his name. It would've been too expensive for him to travel to 20 different court appearances for assault and battery. Even with a witness, it wouldn't have speed up the process much. I don't know what happened to him or the police officer, but I never heard from it again, nor from anything about the assailant."How convenient" you must be thinking.

 

[CptStern]

You are right that they have certain procedures to follow, however, alot of police officers have probably had charges against them for not following up in the past and probably as we speak. Even if they do follow up, court sessions have to take place from within' the city or jurisdiction the crime took place. At least that is what I was told. The guy was apparently from out of town, not much money to his name. It would've been too expensive for him to travel to 20 different court appearances for assault and battery. Even with a witness, it wouldn't have speed up the process much. I don't know what happened to him or the police officer, but I never heard from it again, nor from anything about the assailant."How convenient" you must be thinking.

no I'm thinking "that doesnt make sense" ...and police arent charged for not following procedre; they're reprimanded or recieve a citation .."charged" means charged with a crime ..not filing a police report is not a crime