Gun Debate

farfromglorified

even flow? wrote:

Take a swing cool guy at why the need for guns? I didn't think so. Too easy to walk into that trap, eh. :rolleyes:

Guns have two uses: coercion and wounding/killing. So if you need to coerce someone, or you need to hurt something, a gun is typically a good option.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Guns have two uses: coercion and wounding/killing. So if you need to coerce someone, or you need to hurt something, a gun is typically a good option.

A cop pulled a gun on me when I was a teenager, told me to stop or he'd shoot: I was running, and kept running. Didn't coerce shit from me.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

A cop pulled a gun on me when I was a teenager, told me to stop or he'd shoot: I was running, and kept running. Didn't coerce shit from me.

Fair enough.

bigdvs

Ah, the gun debate.

The "facts" that all of you anti gun folk spew miss one major point in the whole discussion. Those that want them will get them no matter what sort of ban you place on them. When 75% of the guns used in homicides in NYC are illegal unregistered and unlicensed, what good does making Joe Hunter have to jump through 14 more hoops to get a peashooter for hunting? Absolutely none. Fact of the matter is this, Europe and the States are like night and day (its more then cultural, we refuse to be ruled and will revolt if and when it becomes necessary, short revolution when you let them take away your right to own a gun). A full ban on guns would only have everyone and their brother digging a hole in the backyard. Calling in the inspector to show them they have no guns on the premisiss and then digging them up once the athourities leave. (people that live around me have plans for this all joking aside) If we can not prevent drugs and people from entering, being used or grown in this country with legislation what in the heavens makes you all think that a few more laws will make people hand in their guns or stop using them once you make them illegal. /boggle

Maybe the answer is to have more stringent requests on security. Other professions are required to maintain Continuing Education and a certain level of health. More and more cops/police/sherrifs/campus police fit into the stereotype and are at the local Dunkin Donuts or coffee joint as opposed to doing what the taxpayers pay them for (like stopping a guy on a 2 hour killing spree on a college campus).

So if this guy had not had a gun but had some fertilizer (not a hard find in VA this time of year) and went and got a couple of gallons of gas (he must be rich) he could have pulled a Timothy McVeigh and done a lot more damage thats a fact. So to echo others, where there is a will there is a way.
bah i hate these debates the answers always suck either way

fanch75

reborncareerist wrote:

I was not trying to suggest that a guy with a knife can kill as many people as someone with a gun

"Know what happens to people with knives?"

"No."

"They get shot."

- quotable from the movie Grindhouse

69charger

reborncareerist wrote:

That's just it. They never think that far ahead. Current laws banning automatic weapons are poorly enforced, yet the solution posed is yet more laws?!

I think you mean semi-automatic weapons.

rebornFixer

69charger wrote:

I think you mean semi-automatic weapons.

Those too.

dunkman

bigdvs wrote:

(its more then cultural, we refuse to be ruled and will revolt if and when it becomes necessary, short revolution when you let them take away your right to own a gun).

:rolleyes:

that shows massive ignorance of europe there buddy... Romania ring any bells, Yugoslavia, French Revolution?

anyway americans are too fucking fat to have a revolt.... waddling to get their guns they'd be blasted by then! what kind of country lives in such fear of its government that it feels the need to buy 12 guns... the US army would obliterate you all before you had lifted your faces from your fucking maple syrup swamped pancakes

gue_barium

dunkman wrote:

:rolleyes:

that shows massive ignorance of europe there buddy... Romania ring any bells, Yugoslavia, French Revolution?

anyway americans are too fucking fat to have a revolt.... waddling to get their guns they'd be blasted by then! what kind of country lives in such fear of its government that it feels the need to buy 12 guns... the US army would obliterate you all before you had lifted your faces from your fucking maple syrup swamped pancakes

That about sums it up for me.

rebornFixer

dunkman wrote:

before you had lifted your faces from your fucking maple syrup swamped pancakes

You're just mad because you're stuck with "treacle" or whatever the heck you call it ...


and for the record, maple syrup is Canadian, dammit!

dunkman

reborncareerist wrote:

You're just mad because you're stuck with "treacle" or whatever the heck you call it ...


and for the record, maple syrup is Canadian, dammit!

nothing wrong with treacle my man.. its so sweet you can kill people with it

i did know that.. i'm european.. i know what geography is ......... but i don't know any US syrups

onelongsong

D.C. Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional, Violates Individual Right To Own A Gun

Friday, March 09, 2007

This week, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right and concluded that the District of Columbia’s ban on guns in the home is unconstitutional. According to the majority opinion, "[T]he phrase 'the right of the people'...leads us to conclude that the right in question is individual." Also, earlier this week, Second Amendment supporters on Capitol Hill introduced H.R. 1399 - the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act."
In ruling on the D.C. gun ban case, the majority opinion of the Circuit Court held as follows:

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."

fanch75

I'm not really sure why some (again I repeat some) European folks take it so personally that Americans can carry guns and that we don't have nationalized healthcare to the extent that Europeans do. I mean, I don't make threads insulting European folks in general because they have don't have guns or do have nationalized healthcare (because that'd be just as ridiculous and pointless).

rebornFixer

fanch75 wrote:

I'm not really sure why some (again I repeat some) European folks take it so personally that Americans can carry guns and that we don't have nationalized healthcare to the extent that Europeans do. I mean, I don't make threads insulting European folks in general because they have don't have guns or do have nationalized healthcare (because that'd be just as ridiculous and pointless).

Indeed.

dunkman

fanch75 wrote:

I'm not really sure why some (again I repeat some) European folks take it so personally that Americans can carry guns and that we don't have nationalized healthcare to the extent that Europeans do. I mean, I don't make threads insulting European folks in general because they have don't have guns or do have nationalized healthcare (because that'd be just as ridiculous and pointless).

why would you start a thread insulting my nations Healthcare??? its awesomeness encapsulated.. i mean we dont have gunshot victims clogging up the beds for a start

desandrews

dunkman wrote:

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[15] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[16] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[17]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).[18] New York City, with a population size similar to London and similar firearms laws with almost all firearms prohibited to normal citizens (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[19]

dunkman wrote:

(75% of which were illegally obtained)

5.5 murders per 100,000 of population...
3.85 murders per 100,000 of population involving the use of firearms

0.9625 murders per 100,000 of population involving legally obtained firearms.
4.5375 murders per 100,000 of population involving something other than legally obtained firearms.

Scratchin a Letter

69charger wrote:

Arming properly trained teachers would be a good start.

A good start? What, for a computer game? I can see it, 'Teachers with Guns!'

Honestly, I know you're serious but if it ever came to that maybe it'd be time to just outlaw guns. Arming teachers in order to protect some pointless amendment and those who like to shoot shit is a load of utter bollocks.

onelongsong

fanch75 wrote:

I'm not really sure why some (again I repeat some) European folks take it so personally that Americans can carry guns and that we don't have nationalized healthcare to the extent that Europeans do. I mean, I don't make threads insulting European folks in general because they have don't have guns or do have nationalized healthcare (because that'd be just as ridiculous and pointless).

and why do other countries come to the us when they have complicated medical problems? it only proves that socialized medicine breeds sub-standard medicine. the public medical system in the us sparks competition and thus great strides in medicine.

the european gun issue is simple. they are subjects; americans are citizens.

fanch75

dunkman wrote:

why would you start a thread insulting my nations Healthcare??? its awesomeness encapsulated.. i mean we dont have gunshot victims clogging up the beds for a start

You're right, I wouldn't. One, I don't know much about it...second, nationalized healthcare in Scotland do not affect me any more than Scotland's tax rates, therefore I don't get too excited one way or another. Ya'll seem fine with it, so good on ya for that.

As far as your second comment, it is my opinion that guns don't kill anymore than a knife or baseball kills someone. It's the user who does. And before you make the comment that a gun's only use is to kill, I'll tell you that a buddy of mine enjoys target practice as a hobby, and has never killed a person or animal in his life. And no, he's not deranged and no he's not paranoid.

So yeah. Debate is cool but just insulting a whole nation because you disagree with their gunlaws doesn't add anything to the debate, than to give chuckle to fellow countrymen who agree with you.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

the european gun issue is simple. they are subjects; americans are citizens.

the european gun issue is simple. we feel safe; americans just have no cocks.