For or against?

Quote:

Do any of you actually live in dangerous neighbourhoods?

There's lots of black people, if that's what you mean.

Quote:

u have a lot of urban centers especially in Central America

And Central America has a significant crime problem. Jamaica, I believe, has only one urban center, yet they have one of the highest murder rates in the world.

The fact of the matter is that none of us are criminologists. Determining whether or not the presence of guns increases crime is impossible, yet we can statistically establish that an absence of guns does not eliminate crime, or criminal intent.

In fact, we've had crimes since we've had laws. Murders used to be commited primarily with knives and swords. Does the multiple use of a dagger justify its banning? Some ancient civilizations would say so, but now that we have guns, versatility is all of a sudden an important element.

And what of bows? You could use them to hang your dry-cleaning, but how many uses for them involved something outside of maiming and killing a human being?

Of course, in ancient times, "gun control" was a simple matter of production. Your average Joe didn't have access to a furnace, or advanced smithy. Nor could he even afford its products. Rebellion was practically impossible without monetary backing, or an industrial base, and those rebellions that succeeded were committed to the selfish wishes of individuals or oligarchies.

There was never really a true "People's Rebellion" until the advent of the gun. There have never been free societies before the gun. The gun, as they say, is the Great Equalizer, and the base threat of force it provides is what, I feel, makes the right to bear arms so important. It forces law to remain legitimate, it forces governments into serving their people.

Is owning an AK any different from owning a shotgun? Does a 30 round magazine make it any easier for me to kill people? What if I just carried a lot of guns?

Then again, I believe that criminalizing the possession of anything is ridiculous, since it's impossible to determine intent until use. I am, after all, some dumb Libertarian.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

Yes. It's very different. Because at that point you now out-gun every law enforcement officer minus a SWAT team. Unlike the German Politzer who carries around SMGs, American police officers are inadequately equipped.

Nigga plz, if I carry anything bigger than a 9mm automatic, I'm already outgunning the police. Your standard shotgun is heavier firepower than what most beat cops would use (though they have to get it off the gun rack).

Besides, if citizens can't own anything that can penetrate Level I armor, how are we supposed to effectively rebel? :'D

The simple solution to this problem would be giving police better body armor, and better firearms, but that costs cash money, and lobbyists love pushing peacenik issues that get the standard police caliber down to 9mm from 45 cal.

Quote:

Because kids should have access to guns! Okay!

It's not a matter of letting kids have guns, it's a matter of shattering the illusion that guns are toys. Something that can only be properly done by a symbol of authority, like your parents.

Maybe it shouldn't be a school thing, but parents with guns should teach their kids how to use them, and why they shouldn't mess with them. Also locked, all that sort of thing.

Quote:

Shoplifters aren't executed for a reason, and so on.

Shoplifters, on the other hand, are invited onto the property. The same can't be said for a home invader. You also have a clearly defined area of intent with a confirmed shoplifter. With a home invader, the intent could be any number of things. This is why the severity of self-defense on the behalf of the property owner must be entrusted to him or her, to practice at his or her discretion.

Quote:

On the subject of availability of firearms: Yeah, weapons are easily bought illegaly. My argument against this, is that if every joe sixpack didn't buy gun(s), then there would be a whole hell of a lot less made. A whole hell of a lot less stolen/lost/resold illegaly. Those illegaly obtained weapons have to come from somewhere, and they are only made because there is a legal demand for them.

This is true. That does not, however, eliminate the demand for black market firearms, which will then come from outside of the country, usually in the form of Soviet Surplus and 3rd World knockoffs. The end result, then, is less firearms overall, but more dangerous firearms.

Quote:

Please elaborate on all the other practicle things you do?

Use it as a crutch. Clearly you hate cripples.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yeah, but pencils weren't made to butcher vocabulary.

If I see another "Guns don't kill people" post, it will be deleted.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

What guns can or can't be used for is irrelevant to this discussion. Hemp making nice rope didn't stop its prohibition.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So, how do we know what Gangbangers have access to?

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

This news just in: Ancient Greeks had guns!

I'd hardly call the Ancient Greeks a free society.

Quote:

Look here's the difference between swords and guns. If someone came at you with a sword not only could you fight back but the fight would be noble and fair in a sense.
I say noble because only noble men were armed and when they did challenge and dual to the death it was a fair contest.
With a gun bang you're fucking dead. If you're regular home invader comes in guns blazing. If he even sees you reach for a gun he'll shoot you dead before you even get it from your bedside drawer, or your blazer pocket. You're a gonna.

So how do you feel about Dueling pistols?

How ya doing, buddy?

Jesus Christ, why don't I just close the fucking thread?

FELIPE NO

5 infantry could take down a tank in Red Alert. Why lie.

The point about law abiding citizens following a registry is because registering a weapon signifies intent to use it. If you register your weapon, chances are you bought it for personal protection, hunting, whatever else people go gaga for.

If, however, you bought a weapon and didn't register it, then the assumtion is that it would be used for some nefarious purpose.

Here's the problem, though. In a national gun registry, how are we supposed to know who has unregistered weapons?

Quote:

Good lord, why would someone ever need a fully automatic weapon?!?!?!?

I need a fully automatic weapon like I need a triple bypass surgery. Just because I don't need it doesn't mean that I don't want it, nor does it mean that I have no good reason for doing so.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Sure I want things here and there, but I say to myself all the time, "You don't NEED that so why buy it?" When people I know say, "I just had to buy it, it was 60% off and just cool." I reply sometimes, "I got a better deal than you. I saved 100% by not buying it!"

And I suppose I saved 100% by not buying Sabrina the Teenaged Witch DVDs. But I suppose that's where I don't understand your want.

It's like Lil' Abner found an AppleII.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

I like how in the wonderful world of pro-firearm, law-abiding citizens are law-abiding citizens and criminals are criminals.

[capslock]THE WORLD IS NOT THAT SIMPLE, FOLKS.[/capslock]

From a legal standpoint, it is that simple. If you break a law, you're a criminal. I'm fairly sure I break the law every day in some way or another, however the argument in the context of Gun Control refers to people that adhere to gun code laws, and not necessarily the speed limit, or drug usage, or internet piracy, or whatever other laws people break every day.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I would dare say, though, that people making their own guns with primitive machinery would increase the occurence of firearm accidents. =)

Quote:

I was criticizing the argument that "law-abiding citizens" should have a right to bear firearms. Of course, every criminal was a law-abiding citizen before he became a criminal. Because frankly, if a firearm is used to inflict lethal injury, it's usually a crime; thus the perpetrator becomes a criminal. I might also add that "criminals" are usually kept in prisons and don't even have a chance to fire a gun in the first place.

I'm not sure if that's at all what people are saying. I mean, I'm not Gumby or David, after all. The argument in regards to gun registry, though, is based on its actual effectiveness in regards to law enforcement. I mean, with no fool-proof way to track any firearm made, it's impossible to know who has an unregistered firearm. I suppose we could "audit" people on their firearms possession, but that would be an illegal search of property. Then again, the judge would already be on the side of the agency.

The other problem with gun control, is that from a practical standpoint, it doesn't make a lick of sense. How can you honestly determine what lead-spewing pipe is more dangerous than the next lead-spewing pipe?

The last gun ban bill that wasn't renewed was based on gun aesthetics as opposed to any measure of lethality. Of course, if it would be based on terms of lethality, you'd have to settle for an acceptable "lethality threshold." So if everyone can, say, only own a .22, there's no real point in possessing a right to bear arms, and if you draw the line at hunting weapons, you've still got high-powered rifles and shotguns.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I like how the "Times Change" argument has no bearing on national and home defense whatsoever.

If the British all of a sudden invaded the US, then yes, you would need a gun to defend your home. I don't know if any of you have taken a physics course, but it's fairly hard to stop a bullet with your fist. (contrary to what RAB would have us believe )

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

The British invading the U.S.... in the twenty first century. Puhlease.

It's a hypothetical, maybe you've heard of them. As if the Right exists explicitly to fight King George.

Quote:

My "Times Change" argument is pointed DIRECTLY at the "national defense" argument. It's just stupid. NEWS FLASH: America is the world's greatest superpower and has the world's most powerful military. Individual citizens DO NOT need weapons for national defense.

On the other hand, having the world's strongest military power would make citizenry that much easier to suppress in the unlikely event of a Coupe de Tat. Not to mention that we have an overstretched Army, and don't have the proper deployment to protect ourselves from any kind of present invasion. Hell, the Mexicans could probably get as far as Arkansas at this point (if it weren't for those ignorant, gun-loving Texans rite).

Is Mexico likely to invade? Not at all. However, it's not entirely impossible for them not to in the course of future events. Not to mention the very real danger of the Chinese crossing the Bering Straits and invading North America through Alaska. Alaska would normally be easy to defend, if we had soldiers there to defend it. The argument that the United States Navy would intercept a Chinese fleet is also rendered moot by the fact that it can't be everywhere at once, and that China is rapidly modernizing its military force and attempting to construct a Blue Water Navy.

The likelihood of a Chinese invasion of North America is unlikely given present circumstances, but the energy crisis is only going to get worse. We have oil, the Chinese don't. Put two and two together and you're looking at a potential invasion.

Quote:

As for home defense, well you don't need a gun to protect your home in a country where the government doesn't allow the meth-head who's breaking in to buy a gun.

I imagine a Meth Head can get a gun with the Government telling him not to already. Nevermind, either, that a Meth addict invading my home is looking for valuables he can pawn with which to buy more Meth. Sure it isn't threatening to me, but how would I have known that? I'd prefer to shoot first and ask questions later thx.

Quote:

The Union which they were creating. Well it has been a long time now and anybody who isn't buying into a dozen conspiracies will tell you that there is no need to arm yourself against the federal government.

Exactly. If we did arm to protect ourselves against the government, the ATF would burn our house down.

The thought that a representative government will remain benevolent is naive at best. Nations don't last forever.

Quote:

In the event that there was some sort of uprising, do you think that soldiers everywhere, who conceivably see themselves as patriots, would all be hunky-dory with slaughtering their neighbors?

Not that I'm arguing for Rikimaru here, but have you seen Dr. Strangelove, Skate? The mad general who orders his bomber wing to attack Russia in the movie tells his base defense force that the Commies have attacked the United States, and that they would send themselves disguised as American soldiers to try and seize the Air Base. The soldiers, since they trusted their commander, hated Commies, and are willing to accept the idea of a Nuclear Exchange, readily comply and attack the Airborne troops that try and re-take the Air Base.

It's not exactly the same situation, but when you're placed in a command-control situation, and presented with highly unusual circumstances, soldiers tend to put their faith in their commanding officers. The idea of dissenters is rendered null, as dissenters are branded as Commies, or Terrorists, or Traitors, and shot. Dissent has to be in the majority, which is never a guarantee.

I was speaking idiomatically.

No, and you're perfectly right. The way things are now, American soldiers are independant enough to be instilled with a sense of morality that goes beyond the orders of a superior officer. If, for instance, a soldier thinks that a direct order defies something set in place by the Geneva Conventions, then he does not have to follow that order.

However, with the little, or no education concerning the rules of war being instilled in our soldiers at the present, I think you can see how things could change for the worst.

Quote:

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? Your arguments are outdated.

By what standard, exactly? Are Newtonian concepts of Gravity merely outdated because they were established a long time ago?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Well, the Bill doesn't explicitly mention the individualistic nature. In fact, a Militia would be a community of individuals. Regardless, over a hundred million firearm owners is supposed to act as more of a deterrent than a legitimate threat to the establishment. It only becomes a threat when people are like-minded in will, and it'd take quite a bit to push them over that edge.

FELIPE NO

Arrowhead seems to have forgotten all about me. C'est la vie. :'(

Quote:

There you go.

Those numbers can be easily construed, particularly when the American crime rate has decreased without gun control laws. The resulting conclusion, then, is possibly that an increase in living standards has decreased the overall crime rate, or that the prospect of easy cash would lower the number of gun-related crimes.

Did the gun buy-back only apply to legally registered firearms? Did Australia even have a gun registry?

Night Phoenix's challenge is impossible to meet. The factuality of him owning a firearm does not in any way prove or increase the danger of those around him, because possession does not imply intent.

It is impossible to prove the case of gun control with statistics, because you can put a spin on any numbers. Hell, I just did.

Does a presence of a firearm increase your likelihood to get a chunk of lead in your brain? Yes. Obviously if there were no firearms around, that danger would be non-existant. However, that does not mean that the presence of the danger, or the chance of it coming to fruition is in any way significant to the average person, nor does it debunk the deterrent that an armed citizenry creates.

You could argue that it's hard to wage guerilla warfare in Suburbia, but I would beg to differ. Nobody knows the surrounding area more than its locals, and soldiers from New England are going to be just as lost in Kansas as they would be in Columbia as far as familiarity goes. Tanks aren't the end-all threat either, because you can easily flank a tank in any urban environment, even the suburban ones. Of course, that doesn't eliminate the nuclear threat, but using nuclear weapons as an effort to quell dissent is retarded on so many levels I don't feel I have to go into.

The fact of the matter is, I'm still more likely to die in a car crash than a gun-related accident, or a gun-related crime. (the former, admittedly, is practically impossible because I do not own a firearm) While the gun does not have a utilitarian function outside of putting holes in things, it's that deterrent that ultimately guarantees even the most basic of freedoms.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

David, you are quoting troo much shit your posts look like a mess. I also think I saw something about the Nazis in there, because you know that's a surefire way to win an argument.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

There's a key element you're overlooking, RAB.

Australia sucks ass.


There's nowhere I can't reach.

Calling America ethnically diverse is a laugh and a half. Maybe in the border states, and the big cities, but by and large, you won't find Black people outside of the south, and you won't find Poles in Washington state.

Aside from Chinks and aboriginees, though, what else does Australia have?

Most amazing jew boots

And while those populations have a local effect on their communities, "American Society" is by and large, unaffected. My point is that regionally, you can make the case for diversification, but on a national level, we have a by and large white society, dominated by whites, and based around white values.

Quote:

Stricter gun control isn't the same thing as forbidding any citizen to own a gun, ever.

The problem with gun control, though, is that it tends to trivialize the right if it's effective, or is trivial in and of itself.

It depends, really, on the purpose of the gun control. If, like with the Brady bill, all you're basing your bannings on are aesthetics, then you have a trivial law. If you base it on an actual lethality threshold, though, then not only is the law itself trivial, but you also trivialize the right to own the guns that are left. A gun registry, also, is a huge waste of money, because the only people that will register their weapons would be those who don't intend to commit crimes with them in the first place. The actual benefit it'd give to Law Enforcement wouldn't justify the cost of maintaining the beurocracy required for a gun registry.

Waiting limits, and criminal background checks, though, are perfectly reasonable. I don't see how you could be denied a right to bear arms if the retailer refuses your service based on your background.

Also, I'm not entitled to overnight delivery. You have to pay extra for that shit.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

The Right to Bear Arms wasn't added to the constitution, it was an article of the original Bill of Rights. =/

The only Constitutional Ammendment that's been repealed, as far as I know, was Prohibition.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

That's not a conclusion. That's a new theory, with no evidence of its own to back it up. Denial is not a river. :P

Like environmental and sociological factors have nothing to do with crime rates. What I'm saying is that there isn't enough data being provided to come to a logical conclusion. Assuming that things like income and basic standards of living have remained the same, or even lowered, you have a much better case for the buy-back program. However, the following lends itself better to the buy-back program than either of the above:

Quote:

No to the first question

And here we have the key. If all firearms are bought back with no questions asked, then you're looking at a situation where the state is openly purchasing illegally possessed firearms. The end result, then, is that there are less guns being possessed by the people that intend to use them.

While this definitely reduces gun-related crime, as your source is oft to point out, how has it affected Australia's overall crime rate? Are Australians honestly any safer thanks to the buy back? How many Australians still have legally possessed firearms after compared to before?

All of these are factors, as people who trade in illegal weapons to the government are probably those looking to make some quick cash in the first place. While they no longer have a gun, that still hasn't eliminated their perceived need to commit crimes.

All situations are created from more than a single cause. Looking at all contributing factors is the only way to effectively make an objective conclusion. For instance, the article that Gumby linked to could be used to support the idea that an increase in gun ownership reduces the crime rate. However, that's highly unlikely, and there's no real logical reason to come to that conclusion.

Quote:

I'd rather have the infinitessimal drop in guaranteedness of my freedoms than the burden of responsibility of owning a firearm, thanks.

Well, the beauty of freedoms and rights is that you don't have to excercize them. What you're really looking for is a false sense of security stemming from the lack of trust in your neighbors.

It's ironic that a driving motive for both sides of the camp can stem from an overblown need for safety.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

And the military is funded by...

FELIPE NO

Quote:

You completely missed the point, Manis Tricuspis. I am well aware of the fuction of the military as I am a part of it. Also I was speaking more of police than the military.

It's still highly irrelevant, as we rely on socially funded methods of security. Unless you're somehow implying that crime does not impact National Security.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The important part of the bill is whether or not exceptions are made for those whose guns have been reported stolen.

The idea of the bill is to crack down on gun show salesmen who sell off their merchandise without going through the proper channels. If the firearm gets tied back to Mountain Joe at the Farris County Gun Show, he should be held accountable for any crimes commited with said weapon.

Jam it back in, in the dark.