yes I hate guns. I hate how easy it is for wackos to obtain one. Law enforcement should have them to protect people. stop assuming things to fit your argument.
great job turning my thread into some joke of the Far's lesson on life. anyone else care to join the debate?
I tried to join it pages ago when I asked for proof of your contention that a ban or restriction on guns would lead to lower crime rates. I'm still waiting.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Protest noted. Tell me at any point if you want me to stop posting in your thread.
jury is still out, but its not looking good
Not looking good because you think I would buy a gun in order to harm someone?
no
If the American public that is buying guns is not, on average, whackos, why are you proposing to treat them as if they were?
sure they should. if they pass the very strict laws of getting one.
But you've said above that you're going to make it very hard to get one, including using words like "ban" and "no loopholes" and "impossible". How then do you expect these people to get them for protection?
that ban wasnt strict enough. and yes over time, crimes used with assault weapons would go down.
And why wouldn't those crimes made with assault weapons just turn into crimes made with handguns?
they would pay the price of their crime.
There "crime" is simply selling guns. What would the price be for such a crime? How would it be enforced? Please don't tell me you're going to use the guns you purchase from the gunmakers to then punish them for selling guns, because that's what it sounds like.
exactly. asshole shouldnt have had a gun in the first place.
No, asshole shouldn't have used that gun to shoot a kid.
no it doesnt.
Right. Now try again without misquoting me:
Hatred for guns equates to hatred for human life at the exact point you kill someone because of your hate.
I hate guns because they are designed to Kill. there only purpose is to wound or kill whatever stands in front of it.
That is your perception. Let me tell you a story:
A number of years back, I bought a gun. I bought this gun in order to win a bet against someone much like you who thought that gun control laws would prevent me from buying a gun. Suffice to say that they did not and I won my bet.
After purchasing my gun I also purchased a box of ammunition. I went to the local shooting range and fired off a few rounds just to see if the gun worked. It did.
Since then, I've attended a number of required gun safety courses and even applied for and received a conceal and carry permit. As I write this, my gun sits in my backpack not three feet away from me. When I go home tonight, my gun will go into my car, and when I get home my gun will go into my house. It will remain in that backpack where it's been for quite a long time.
Someday, it's likely that I'll be the victim of some sort of crime. And it's also more likely that the criminal involved will not be armed. In that event, I will use my gun by pointing it at the criminal and demanding that he or she desist and remove themselves from the situation. That criminal will make the very same assumption you've likely made the entire time you've been reading this: that my gun is loaded.
The box of ammo I purchased that day a long time ago is in the possession of a friend of mine who also owns a gun, though I'm sure he's used that ammo by now. He owns a gun for one sole reason: to go to the shooting range because he enjoys it.
So, as you can see, guns do not only have the purpose to "kill or wound". Guns can have the purpose to trick. Guns can have the purpose for enjoyment. The purpose of a gun is defined by the man or woman who uses it, not by its sheer existence.
Guns are arguably the worst invention in the history of mankind. The gun is involved in most of mankind's greatest atrocities and absent from most of mankind's greatest accomplishments. But they remain powerless inanimate objects until matched with human intent. It is the dark root of that intent, the hatred of one man for another, that you must address if you hope to accomplish what you want. And fighting hate with hate will simply provide you with the silly paradox you're proposing: using the guns of the state to reject the guns of the people.
I tried to join it pages ago when I asked for proof of your contention that a ban or restriction on guns would lead to lower crime rates. I'm still waiting.
still waiting huh? I sincerely apologize. I dont have proof. where is yours? I am going by the logic that if guns are very hard to get, and assault weapons are banned, crime will be reduced over time. could it take a long time? sure. happy now buddy boy
I tried to join it pages ago when I asked for proof of your contention that a ban or restriction on guns would lead to lower crime rates. I'm still waiting.
its very obvious that violent crime will go down once all guns are banned....there's no denying it....BUT....I do see from this point (Millions of guns already in circulation) till they are truely erradicated...there will be a limited reduction of violent crime. I don't have the stats.....but surely you would agree that countries that have relatively no guns have less murders hence the proof no guns...less violent crime.
I have a real problem when the government interferes with citizens rights....and can understand how some have very strong feelings that owning a gun is their right...I just still feel they cause way more harm than good.
After purchasing my gun I also purchased a box of ammunition. I went to the local shooting range and fired off a few rounds just to see if the gun worked. It did.
Since then, I've attended a number of required gun safety courses and even applied for and received a conceal and carry permit. As I write this, my gun sits in my backpack not three feet away from me. When I go home tonight, my gun will go into my car, and when I get home my gun will go into my house. It will remain in that backpack where it's been for quite a long time.
Someday, it's likely that I'll be the victim of some sort of crime. And it's also more likely that the criminal involved will not be armed. In that event, I will use my gun by pointing it at the criminal and demanding that he or she desist and remove themselves from the situation. That criminal will make the very same assumption you've likely made the entire time you've been reading this: that my gun is loaded.
.
and I thought gun classes taught..don't bring out the gun unless you will shoot..and if you shoot you shoot to kill. Am I missing something....someone else that's taken a gun class please chime in here.
Also at what point do you take out the gun...when someone takes a stick of gum....a pencil???? What are your boundaries??
its very obvious that violent crime will go down once all guns are banned....there's no denying it....BUT....I do see from this point (Millions of guns already in circulation) till they are truely erradicated...there will be a limited reduction of violent crime. I don't have the stats.....but surely you would agree that countries that have relatively no guns have less murders hence the proof no guns...less violent crime.
"Hence"??? First, did it ever occur to you that high rates of gun ownership and high rates of violent crime are not part of a causal relationship with one another, but rather both effects of other factors?
Second, the stats will not really help your contention. Major cities in the US where gun control laws are most severe still suffer from a much higher than average rate of violent crime. States like Texas where gun ownership are high have moderate rates of violent crime.
The one part of your post that is correct is that a complete eradication of guns would certainly reduce violent crime. What I'm interested to hear is how that eradication would happen, and whether or not the methods involved would not themselves amount to violent crime.
I do not want a ban on all guns. I want a ban on assault weapons, such as machine guns. a very strict ban with very harsh penalties. other then assault weapons such as your gun, I want very hard laws to obtaining one. background checks, 100% clean record, credit check, serial number of gun assigned to you. list can go on here, but im not a law maker or lawyer like I said so this is for someone else to decide. so please dont break down this sentence with your undeniable wisdom.
and I thought gun classes taught..don't bring out the gun unless you will shoot..and if you shoot you shoot to kill. Am I missing something....someone else that's taken a gun class please chime in here.
With an unloaded weapon, such things would not be possible. And yes, people advise not to wield a gun unless you intend to use it. I do intend to use it, just not in the fashion they prescribe.
Also at what point do you take out the gun...when someone takes a stick of gum....a pencil???? What are your boundaries??
My boundaries are quite simple: whenever I feel that the perception of having a loaded gun pointed at someone else would give me control of a situation wherein my viable options were limited to that option alone. If I already have a loaded gun pointed at me, that situation would not qualify. However, if I had a stick of gum or pencil pointed at me, it would most certainly qualify.
I do not want a ban on all guns. I want a ban on assault weapons, a very strict ban with very harsh penalties. other then assault weapons such as your gun, I want very hard laws to obtaining one. background checks, 100% clean record, credit check, serial number of gun assigned to you. list can go on here, but im not a law maker or lawyer like I said so this is for someone else to decide. so please dont break down this sentence with your undeniable wisdom.
your story was nice but it proved nothing.
jlew, you are nuts, a complete lunatic, whats wrong with y.......... oh sorry, that was a natural reaction to one of your posts. Fact is, i agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. we do need an all out ban on all assault weapons, and tougher laws mandating who own guns. you have made your point very well in this thread and i fail to see how people don't get what you are trying to say. but we cant go on agreeing like this or people will talk, so i challenge you to a duel, no wait, we both seem to lean against gun violence, so how about a few hands of blackjack over at youkanland?????????
" Second, the stats will not really help your contention. Major cities in the US where gun control laws are most severe still suffer from a much higher than average rate of violent crime. States like Texas where gun ownership are high have moderate rates of violent crime.
The one part of your post that is correct is that a complete eradication of guns would certainly reduce violent crime. What I'm interested to hear is how that eradication would happen, and whether or not the methods involved would not themselves amount to violent crime.
Well I live in Texas...but its in Houston...and our murder rate is way up....Katrina. Compare Countries that don't have guns to the US...not areas within the US. England per capita murder rate to the US...Canada to the US...Germany, Switzerland...wish I had the stats.
I think it would be very easy to ban guns in the US...you have 3 mos to turn in your hand guns....Blue Book for guns would need to be created to pay owners fair market value......gun owners should be compensated then after 3 mos if your caught with a gun...felony and 1 year sentence mandatory.....that would do it.
Course as I mentioned in an earlier thread...I'm contemplating a persons right to arm themselves.
jlew, you are nuts, a complete lunatic, whats wrong with y.......... oh sorry, that was a natural reaction to one of your posts. Fact is, i agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. we do need an all out ban on all assault weapons, and tougher laws mandating who own guns. you have made your point very well in this thread and i fail to see how people don't get what you are trying to say. but we cant go on agreeing like this or people will talk, so i challenge you to a duel, no wait, we both seem to lean against gun violence, so how about a few hands of blackjack over at youkanland?????????
I do not want a ban on all guns. I want a ban on assault weapons, such as machine guns. a very strict ban with very harsh penalties. other then assault weapons such as your gun, I want very hard laws to obtaining one. background checks, 100% clean record, credit check, serial number of gun assigned to you. list can go on here, but im not a law maker or lawyer like I said so this is for someone else to decide. so please dont break down this sentence with your undeniable wisdom.
your story was nice but it proved nothing.
are already outlawed...you can't own on legally (well except collectors that registered with the ATF many many years ago). Also its the hand gun that's causing us all the grief...not rifles.
are already outlawed...you can't own on legally (well except collectors that registered with the ATF many many years ago). Also its the hand gun that's causing us all the grief...not rifles.
that ban expired. now its goes state by state. but I mean assault weapons such as machine guns. ever go to a gun show and see whats available? I did, it freaked me out.
I agree hand guns cause alot of grief. thats why I think it should be much harder to get one.
its very obvious that violent crime will go down once all guns are banned....there's no denying it....BUT....I do see from this point (Millions of guns already in circulation) till they are truely erradicated...there will be a limited reduction of violent crime. I don't have the stats.....but surely you would agree that countries that have relatively no guns have less murders hence the proof no guns...less violent crime.
I have a real problem when the government interferes with citizens rights....and can understand how some have very strong feelings that owning a gun is their right...I just still feel they cause way more harm than good.
I'm not interested in statistics from other countries, because it isn't just the guns that lead to violent crime rates. There is something cultural.
We also know that it will be impossible to ban all guns, so while I agree that if all guns were eradicated violent crimes would decrease, it isn't realistic. What I do know is that every time a city passes a handgun restriction violent crime rates increase.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I'm not interested in statistics from other countries, because it isn't just the guns that lead to violent crime rates. There is something cultural.
We also know that it will be impossible to ban all guns, so while I agree that if all guns were eradicated violent crimes would decrease, it isn't realistic. What I do know is that every time a city passes a handgun restriction violent crime rates increase.
prove it. and no one here wants a ban on ALL guns. of course thats unrealistic.
that ban expired. now its goes state by state. but I mean assault weapons such as machine guns. ever go to a gun show and see whats available? I did, it freaked me out.
I agree hand guns cause alot of grief. thats why I think it should be much harder to get one.
on assualt weapons the ban expired...but not on fully automatic machine guns.
Comments
Because you hate guns.
Long enough for what?
Because they didn't go door-to-door confiscating guns?
But he didn't. He shot the kid because of the egg.
People always need a reason. That reason is hate. It's the same thing motivating your gun ban.
Maybe. Perhaps, however, your goal should be to prevent fighting by examining the reasons people do it, rather than fixating on the tools they use.
yes I hate guns. I hate how easy it is for wackos to obtain one. Law enforcement should have them to protect people. stop assuming things to fit your argument.
for what? I wanted it longer then 10 years. forever would have been nice
nope, would be nice if they would stop selling them though
he shot the kid because he is fucking crazy. o wait, tell me his death was justified
good job equating hatred for guns to hatred for human life.
sounds great. where do I start Dr. ?
Am I a wacko? Are the majority of America gun owners wackos?
But people shouldn't have them to protect people?
I didn't assume anything. You said above you hate all guns.
When, after 10 years, would violent crime rates go down?
And if they didn't?
Then shouldn't you ban crazy?
His death was completely unjustified.
Hatred for guns equates to hatred for human life at the exact point you kill someone because of your hate.
By letting go of your own hatred, of course.
jury is still out, but its not looking good
no
sure they should. if they pass the very strict laws of getting one.
your so clever
that ban wasnt strict enough. and yes over time, crimes used with assault weapons would go down.
they would pay the price of their crime.
would love to. great idea!!!!
exactly. asshole shouldnt have had a gun in the first place.
no it doesnt.
I hate guns because they are designed to Kill. there only purpose is to wound or kill whatever stands in front of it.
ok your turn........ready go.........
Which is it?
BOTH. go force your brilliant philosophy somewhere else. its boring and annoying
I tried to join it pages ago when I asked for proof of your contention that a ban or restriction on guns would lead to lower crime rates. I'm still waiting.
Protest noted. Tell me at any point if you want me to stop posting in your thread.
Not looking good because you think I would buy a gun in order to harm someone?
If the American public that is buying guns is not, on average, whackos, why are you proposing to treat them as if they were?
But you've said above that you're going to make it very hard to get one, including using words like "ban" and "no loopholes" and "impossible". How then do you expect these people to get them for protection?
And why wouldn't those crimes made with assault weapons just turn into crimes made with handguns?
There "crime" is simply selling guns. What would the price be for such a crime? How would it be enforced? Please don't tell me you're going to use the guns you purchase from the gunmakers to then punish them for selling guns, because that's what it sounds like.
No, asshole shouldn't have used that gun to shoot a kid.
Right. Now try again without misquoting me:
Hatred for guns equates to hatred for human life at the exact point you kill someone because of your hate.
That is your perception. Let me tell you a story:
A number of years back, I bought a gun. I bought this gun in order to win a bet against someone much like you who thought that gun control laws would prevent me from buying a gun. Suffice to say that they did not and I won my bet.
After purchasing my gun I also purchased a box of ammunition. I went to the local shooting range and fired off a few rounds just to see if the gun worked. It did.
Since then, I've attended a number of required gun safety courses and even applied for and received a conceal and carry permit. As I write this, my gun sits in my backpack not three feet away from me. When I go home tonight, my gun will go into my car, and when I get home my gun will go into my house. It will remain in that backpack where it's been for quite a long time.
Someday, it's likely that I'll be the victim of some sort of crime. And it's also more likely that the criminal involved will not be armed. In that event, I will use my gun by pointing it at the criminal and demanding that he or she desist and remove themselves from the situation. That criminal will make the very same assumption you've likely made the entire time you've been reading this: that my gun is loaded.
The box of ammo I purchased that day a long time ago is in the possession of a friend of mine who also owns a gun, though I'm sure he's used that ammo by now. He owns a gun for one sole reason: to go to the shooting range because he enjoys it.
So, as you can see, guns do not only have the purpose to "kill or wound". Guns can have the purpose to trick. Guns can have the purpose for enjoyment. The purpose of a gun is defined by the man or woman who uses it, not by its sheer existence.
Guns are arguably the worst invention in the history of mankind. The gun is involved in most of mankind's greatest atrocities and absent from most of mankind's greatest accomplishments. But they remain powerless inanimate objects until matched with human intent. It is the dark root of that intent, the hatred of one man for another, that you must address if you hope to accomplish what you want. And fighting hate with hate will simply provide you with the silly paradox you're proposing: using the guns of the state to reject the guns of the people.
Yep..... farfromglorified is taking the piss.....
Could be that he is... you'd be stuffed then!
All you have to do is open your mouth and let all that verbal diarrhea come out... your assailant would just run away.. no need for a gun for you!
still waiting huh? I sincerely apologize. I dont have proof. where is yours? I am going by the logic that if guns are very hard to get, and assault weapons are banned, crime will be reduced over time. could it take a long time? sure. happy now buddy boy
I have a real problem when the government interferes with citizens rights....and can understand how some have very strong feelings that owning a gun is their right...I just still feel they cause way more harm than good.
and I thought gun classes taught..don't bring out the gun unless you will shoot..and if you shoot you shoot to kill. Am I missing something....someone else that's taken a gun class please chime in here.
Also at what point do you take out the gun...when someone takes a stick of gum....a pencil???? What are your boundaries??
"Hence"??? First, did it ever occur to you that high rates of gun ownership and high rates of violent crime are not part of a causal relationship with one another, but rather both effects of other factors?
Second, the stats will not really help your contention. Major cities in the US where gun control laws are most severe still suffer from a much higher than average rate of violent crime. States like Texas where gun ownership are high have moderate rates of violent crime.
The one part of your post that is correct is that a complete eradication of guns would certainly reduce violent crime. What I'm interested to hear is how that eradication would happen, and whether or not the methods involved would not themselves amount to violent crime.
for the last time let me explain how I feel.
I do not want a ban on all guns. I want a ban on assault weapons, such as machine guns. a very strict ban with very harsh penalties. other then assault weapons such as your gun, I want very hard laws to obtaining one. background checks, 100% clean record, credit check, serial number of gun assigned to you. list can go on here, but im not a law maker or lawyer like I said so this is for someone else to decide. so please dont break down this sentence with your undeniable wisdom.
your story was nice but it proved nothing.
With an unloaded weapon, such things would not be possible. And yes, people advise not to wield a gun unless you intend to use it. I do intend to use it, just not in the fashion they prescribe.
My boundaries are quite simple: whenever I feel that the perception of having a loaded gun pointed at someone else would give me control of a situation wherein my viable options were limited to that option alone. If I already have a loaded gun pointed at me, that situation would not qualify. However, if I had a stick of gum or pencil pointed at me, it would most certainly qualify.
jlew, you are nuts, a complete lunatic, whats wrong with y.......... oh sorry, that was a natural reaction to one of your posts. Fact is, i agree with you wholeheartedly on this one. we do need an all out ban on all assault weapons, and tougher laws mandating who own guns. you have made your point very well in this thread and i fail to see how people don't get what you are trying to say. but we cant go on agreeing like this or people will talk, so i challenge you to a duel, no wait, we both seem to lean against gun violence, so how about a few hands of blackjack over at youkanland?????????
Well I live in Texas...but its in Houston...and our murder rate is way up....Katrina. Compare Countries that don't have guns to the US...not areas within the US. England per capita murder rate to the US...Canada to the US...Germany, Switzerland...wish I had the stats.
I think it would be very easy to ban guns in the US...you have 3 mos to turn in your hand guns....Blue Book for guns would need to be created to pay owners fair market value......gun owners should be compensated then after 3 mos if your caught with a gun...felony and 1 year sentence mandatory.....that would do it.
Course as I mentioned in an earlier thread...I'm contemplating a persons right to arm themselves.
its on!!!!!
are already outlawed...you can't own on legally (well except collectors that registered with the ATF many many years ago). Also its the hand gun that's causing us all the grief...not rifles.
that ban expired. now its goes state by state. but I mean assault weapons such as machine guns. ever go to a gun show and see whats available? I did, it freaked me out.
I agree hand guns cause alot of grief. thats why I think it should be much harder to get one.
I'm not interested in statistics from other countries, because it isn't just the guns that lead to violent crime rates. There is something cultural.
We also know that it will be impossible to ban all guns, so while I agree that if all guns were eradicated violent crimes would decrease, it isn't realistic. What I do know is that every time a city passes a handgun restriction violent crime rates increase.
prove it. and no one here wants a ban on ALL guns. of course thats unrealistic.
Now you come out and look for proof. I'll prove my statement after you prove yours.
I told you I didnt have proof. I'm using logic and common sense. less guns=less crime. stricter laws = guns in the hands of law abiding people.
no assault weapons = no crime with assault weapons.
over time. a long time? sure. maybe my grand kids will be a little safer.
thanks for playin
awsome!