For or against?

Originally Posted by Gumby

OK since I am tired of catering to the weak arguments of some anti-gun idiots that are too fucking stupid to stay on topic in my firearms thread about what firearms the population of GFF would like to own we shall come here and listen to their argument in the proper place.

So are you for or against firearms and why? Maybe because someone told you to think that way or maybe because you just don't like others having the right to protect their family and home? Sooooo babble away with all the overdone arguments you want.

Libel is always a great way to start a thread.

You need to stop stroking that gun, Bubba. You're scaring the girls away.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Rock

Quoted for falsehood.

Culture, not history.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by Rikimaru

Here are some points why US have the right to own a gun:

1.) To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

2.)The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several ... [countries], which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

3.)A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.

By the way, these arguments are from the best minds of the political world.

From the eighteenth century. When one of the wonders of the modern world was a shitting mechanical duck. Times change. You don't write with a quill anymore. And you don't need a gun to defend your house from King George.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

You fucking crack me up.

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

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rikimaru

You know that King George is not only the threat, and that is not only the reason why second amendment was created. Let me emphasize the third point: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."

Since the Bill of Rights are for the protection of the people and the states from the thing that they are creating, which was the Union, the second amendment gives the opportunity to check the big government. If you do not have any weapons, how can you and your state fight against the big federal government?

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.

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

Originally Posted by Gumby

Pathetic. If you really trust your lives to the federal government then so be it, but that is a very foolhardy thing to do considering the track records of the governments in power now across the world.

Track records? There you go into history which is largely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Gumby

I love how your retort Arrowhead is that because it doesn't matter any more. What makes you so sure about that?

Because, again, this isn't the XVIIIth century anymore. Guns or no guns, people in democratic nations are not afraid of their governments nor do they have reason to be.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Dead Horse++ brings up a good point, why shouldn't I have the right to own a firearm? It is a right guaranteed by our constitution, which why I find it funny that all the foreigners are the ones telling us that we can't or shouldn't have guns. Maybe a touch of jealousy at our rights? I don't know, but the simple fact is if you are not American then you really have no say in what we choose to own or allow our people to own.

Very funny!

You shouldn't have the right because of the danger it puts you all in.

Look at your stupid self: You argue that you have the right to bear arms which makes gun ownership good, but at the same time you admit that the danger is from other gun owners! That's absurd and a circular argument at best!

I don't dignify such "you're not American so you don't know what you're talking about" arguments with a retort. Keep that shit on the Jerry Springer show, thanks.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by David4516

I don't see how it is "common sense". The presance of a firearm is not was causes people to get hurt. It's people who do stupid things with firearms, for example leaving a loaded pistol within reach of a small child...

Replace the loaded pistol with a cauliflower sprout and the child isn't in danger now is he? Guns are very dangerous.

Quote:

Actually it's not a "shoot first" law, it's a "stand your ground" law.

All that really means is that if you REASONABLY feel someone is about to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself. That doesn't sound so bad to me...

Semantics. Thanks to that law, it is no longer the judge and jury that decide whether the shooter's life was in danger if he/she pleads "self defense". Now all the shooter has to do is claim that he/she felt his/her life was in danger without any solid reason, e.g. the commission of a felony. In my opinion, that's just completely unacceptable.

Quote:

Actually, I believe that the word "criminal" refers to people of commit felonys. I don't think of someone who gets a parking ticket as a "criminal"...

Someone who commits a misdemeanor is also a criminal, in common English anyway - my dictionary doesn't make a distinction.

Quote:

I find this whole "cars have a nondangerous purpose" argument laughable.

Then you, sir, are a loonie.

Quote:

To those of you who are in favor of banning guns: why do you want them banned? I'm sure most of you would say "because they hurt/kill people", and that "fewer people would be hurt/killed if guns were banned".

Because their SOLE purpose is to hurt/kill people.

Quote:

If your goal is to save lives by banning dangerous machines, then logically you MUST be in favor of banning cars.

Let me see you drive your handgun to work. Let me see your handgun carry the groceries home.

Quote:

So why arn't you in favor of banning cars? You then use the "you can do things with them that don't involve anyone dying" argument. Again, guns are the same way, there are alot of things you can do with firearms that won't kill anyone. So please explain to me how they are different?

Because none of these "a lot of things you can do with firearms" are necessary parts of life by any stretch of the imagination. On the other hand, what you do with a car is very much necessary.

Quote:

Thats exactly why they should teach kids NOT to shoot themselves in schools.

True, but in countries where people are not armed, that point is moot.

Quote:

You can't legislate saftey. Either people will be smart (and therefore safe) or they won't. Stupid people can find all sorts of ways to hurt themselves or others, with or without guns.

Guns make it a hell of a lot easier, and on top of that more likely that they'll kill rather than hurt.

Quote:

Secondly, wouldn't you be pissed too if someone told you that you can't have something because you MIGHT do something bad with it? That would be like me saying that you shouldn't be allowed to own a computer, because you might use it pirate movies or music. Nevermind the fact that you've owned computers for X number of years and never done anything illegal with them. You MIGHT do something bad in the future, therefore you have no right to own a computer...

That's as stupid as your previous car argument.

Computers have thousands of uses. Guns are made specifically with the intent of doing harm.

And I'd love to see you try to kill somebody with your computer.

Quote:

I've been shooting for nearly 20 years now. I've never once shot anyone or held up a bank or anything of the sort. Explain to me how taking away my firearms will make the world a safer place?

Because the firearms are made to do harm. Because you can very easily accidentally injure/kill someone with them. Because somebody can steal your firearms from your house when you are away and hurt/kill with them. Because neighbourhood children may get a hold of one of your firearms and hurt/kill someone while playing with them.

Quote:

As long as people are responsible with them, why should anyone care if they have guns?

How can we say that they are responsible?

Quote:

I don't recall anyone sujesting the use of a full auto for home defense... thats just plain stupid, as you've pointed out...

So I suppose you could at least admit that there's no point for a private citizen to own a fully automatic weapon, then? And no I wouldn't take that as your stance slipping.

Quote:

While technology has changed, human nature has not. I believe that the founders wisdom is just as valid today as it was 200 years ago...

As I've already shown, the founders' wisdom is not as valid today as it was 200 years ago. The world is very different from what it was 200 years ago.

Quote:

Actually, I believe on of the reasons that the Japanese didn't invade hawaii or the west coast in WWII was because they knew that the citizens were well armed...

And you have nothing to back it up, so it remains just that: a belief.

Quote:

What if that same meth-head has a knife or bat? And what if I'm a 75 year old granny? Are you saying that a gun wouldn't be a good thing to have in that situation?

How many 75 year old grannies do you know who are gun owners?

Quote:

Also, the Meth-head is already breaking the law. What makes you think he (or she?) would obey a gun law when they won't obey other laws?

If the Meth-head has a gun, then for crying out loud don't put up a fight. You'll only get your dumb ass shot.

Quote:

I think the goverment is more dangerous now than ever before. The current leadership seems determined to take away as many rights as possible in the name of "protecting" us from terrorists...

The government will be replaced in two years, so keep your safety on.

Quote:

I think I said this before, but I'll say it again: I bet the Jews would have fared better in Nazi Germany had they been armed...

That's an interesting bit of "what if".

Quote:

There are many examples of powerful, organized armys being defeated by untrained locals with guns. Two that come to mind very quickly are the amerian war for independance, and the veitnam war...

The Vietnamese were not "untrained", let me be the first to tell you that.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

I'm going to have to ask you to try again and this time actually make a connection between the rights of law-abidiing citizens and the fact that people get shot.

THE GUN

Suivant-next!

Quote:

But as such, you've shown me no compelling reason as to why law-abiding citizens should be stripped of their rights.

No. You have been shown the reasons and you refuse to accept any of them.

Quote:

And given that you've refused to do so,

Really. Who did?

Quote:

it leaves me to believe that there is no compelling reason why Americans should lose their 2nd Admendment rights other than you simply not liking the fact that people can own firearms.

That's cute.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

When you show me evidence that me having the right to own a gun causes people to get shot I'll start to consider what you say.

What do you call that, "circular avoidance"? If you're not considering what I say, then how do you find the evidence?

http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm

There you go.

Australia initiated a voluntary gun buy-back program, and as a result, in only one year, gun-related crime and death stats dropped significantly.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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

Quote:

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

No to the first question and I don't know the answer to the second.

Quote:

Night Phoenix's challenge is impossible to meet.

Such as it is, you're right.

Australia initiated a gun buy-back - and thanks to it, gun crime, injury and death stats dropped across the board, bucking the trend of increase they had been on which prompted them to initiate the program in the first place. Such proof can't be ignored. He can spin it if he likes. It'll just make him look more foolish.

Quote:

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.

Without statistics, you can't prove anything.

Quote:

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.

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

FELIPE NO

You have been given the proof.

You show me your proof of American gun crime dropping. Show me the actual numbers. Quote the study or studies. Otherwise you're still jut blowing hot air as you have been all along.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Does this suffice?

Not really. It only covers the timeframe between the Brady Act and the lifting of the ban on assault weapons. The only relevance it has is to support the Brady Act.

Double Post:
I'll dig up Gumby's proof, thanks.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Statics

Very weak. Early on, the author neglects to point to specific stats, instead comparing stats without showing them in any form that can be scrutinized. And this is just plain silly:

Quote:

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted. On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

Comparing averages of Right To Carry states against one state with tight restrictions.

Quote:

Lowest violent crime rate in 30 years. Gun ownership is up.

Much better. And I actually believe you now.

Quote:

1999 state comparison of crime rates

Really doesn't say anything on the topic on its own.

Quote:

American Enterpise Institute for Public Policy Research

Biased as all hell, doesn't cite sources.

But I certainly agree with your overall argument ("Guns should be legal but people really ought to be taught to be responsible with them"?) You'd be right, in that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Dead Horse++

That's a problem, too. There's always going to be a gun, or a knife, or a bat, or a stapler, or a dry-eraser...

Don't forget body parts. People have died from being headbutted. Now there's "using your head".

at my own dumb joke.

Most amazing jew boots

Makes sense. This is, after all, a time when music and art aren't taught in some schools. In such places that don't teach those classes, I doubt Gun Safety 101 even merits discussion by the board.

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

Originally Posted by Gumby

I have no problem with back ground checks to make sure criminals aren't buying guns but psychological tests? Seems like a wasted effort.

I agree, to a certain point anyway. There are already some psychological requirements in a way though, aren't there? Like, if a court finds you legally incompetent/insane, doesn't that prevent you from obtaining a gun or at least put a legal roadblock in your way?

Most amazing jew boots