Posted by Wild Card on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:20pm 2004
Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada

Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by -Stratesiz- on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:25pm 2004
| ? quoting Yak_Fighter | ||
Then what is the point of banning guns if it doesn't reduce crime? And a lack of guns doesn't make crimes harder to commit. If thugs have no fear of being shot they could do whatever the f**k they wanted. That's a point of having guns, to deter others from committing physical violence upon you. Just having a gun doesn't mean you're a murderous reckless nutcase who is looking for the slightest excuse to plug someone. |
Guns make crimes easier to commit as stated above. The police force would still use guns.
-Stratesiz-
member
39 posts
54 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 15th 2004
Location: Finland

Occupation: Student
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:30pm 2004
| ? quoting -Stratesiz- |
|
Yes you can kill with vechiles but it isn't as effective as using guns. Ever heard of a group of robbers driving a car inside a bank and threatening people with a car? Don't move or I'll squash you! Drive by shootings with knives or rocks? Guns do lower the bar. |
ok, you seem really confused.. lets elaberate..
1) criminals use guns.
2) the reason they call them criminals is??? because they break the law.
3) pass a law to ban guns.
4) criminals will abide by this law, cause it makes more sense, afterall they don't wanna be shot while breaking other laws.
5) you need to wake up and smell the coffee
cause only honest people would obey this law, and they are less likely to kill than criminals..
i live in gun central arkansas, and guns are hardly ever reported as the weapon in a crime.. guns make noise, noise brings unwanted attention. silent weapons are preferred..
[addsig]Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA

Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Posted by Campaignjunkie on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:31pm 2004
I just think assault weapons should be banned; I mean, there's not much of a practical need for civilians to own one. Or a need that I can see, anyway.
[addsig]
Campaignjunkie
member
1309 posts
291 snarkmarks
Registered: Feb 12th 2002
Location: West Coast, USA
Occupation: Student
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:31pm 2004
| ? quoting -Stratesiz- |
|
Guns make crimes easier to commit as stated above. The police force would still use guns. |
Ha, the police, they couldn't catch a cold.
Seriously though, some people aren't interested in waiting for the police if their lives are in danger. You're looking at this in high profile situations like bank robberies and kidnapping where the police would be called in to shoot it out with the criminals. That's not the majority of crime in the US. What are you going to do if somebody tries to break into your house? Sob silently in the corner while you dial 911 and wait 10 minutes for the police to show up?
Yak_Fighter
member
1832 posts
406 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 30th 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Occupation: College Student/Slacker
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:31pm 2004
double post
Do you want the King of England coming in here and pushing you around? Huh? Do ya?
EDIT: from below: It depends on the body. I really won't shed a tear if a burglar gets his head blown off.
Yak_Fighter
member
1832 posts
406 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 30th 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Occupation: College Student/Slacker
Posted by -Stratesiz- on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:32pm 2004
-Stratesiz-
member
39 posts
54 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 15th 2004
Location: Finland

Occupation: Student
Posted by Spartan on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:32pm 2004
Double post of doom!
Posted by -Stratesiz- on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:39pm 2004
How about just using a pepper spray, baseball bat a household knife or anything less leathal than a gun as you would both be better off with less harm done as a result of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" in Game Theory. It would also reduce the odds of a break in since they wouldn't have a gun either.
-Stratesiz-
member
39 posts
54 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 15th 2004
Location: Finland

Occupation: Student
Posted by Leperous on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:39pm 2004
| ? quoting Orpheus |
|
the 3 most important reasons i feel kerry is evil are: (in order of importance) 1) kerry supports pro-choice, i have heard that he doesn't even separate the levels of abortion, its all the same to him, from cell cluster to full term, the mother should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.. i heard he will push through any legislation it takes to make it legal nation wide.. 2) kerry wants to make gun ownership illegal, i do not currently own any sort of a gun, but i would purchase one just to protest such an action.. i was in the military, i know how to hurt you just fine without resorting to a gun, hence i own none, but i know exactly how to use one if the need arose.. i firmly believe guns do not kill, people do. 3) kerry supports gay marriages.. this should never have even become a consideration, but alas it has.. gay marriages are no more morally apprehensible than brother and sister marriages, yet it is forbidden, even if both partners are sterilized, reducing the odds of pregnancy to zero.. i do not support brother/sister marriages, but on rare occasions adopted siblings beat all the odds and meet.. without the prior knowledge they are related, they fall in love and marry.. if it becomes known somehow, they are forced, BY LAW to divorce.. in spite of the strong love attachments.. gays have no more rights.. wrong, is wrong. |
1) I think being pro-choice is a great position to be in, and one that you can really only argue against "effectively" from a religious point of view.
2) Give me one reason why any sane person needs an assault rifle that can fire 10's of rounds per minute. I can understand why they may "need" another gun of some kind, but unfortunately it is a fact that in countries with tougher gun laws that there is less violent crime- compare the US with the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany etc... If owning a gun is so necessary for "self-defence", then why do you still need to be able to buy shotguns, Desert Eagles etc.? I'm sure that if your government said "We'll let you only keep this one type of gun for self-defence" that people would be up in arms, simply because there is some strange "addiction" to them; similarly if someone came up with an effective non-lethal device. On one hand you're ok over killing thieves, but on the other it's totally wrong to kill an unborn child!!
3) I too am against gay marriage; however, it is utterly taking things out of proportion if you judge a presidential candidate based on a view that affects only minorities and will probably not ever affect you. To be honest, I don't think anyone has ever shown that having gay parents will harm children (like someone else once pointed out, straight parents turn out gay kids sometimes!) and it's just homophobia, which is no better than being racist... meh, anyway, prejudices exist and you can't do much about them, except not to treat others badly because of them.
Leperous
member
3382 posts
788 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 21st 2001
Location: UK
Occupation: Lazy student
Posted by -Stratesiz- on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:41pm 2004
-Stratesiz-
member
39 posts
54 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 15th 2004
Location: Finland

Occupation: Student
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:42pm 2004
| ? quoting -Stratesiz- |
|
How about just using a pepper spray, baseball bat a household knife or anything less leathal than a gun as you would both be better off with less harm done as a result of the "Prisoner's Dilemma" in Game Theory. It would also reduce the odds of an break in since they wouldn't have a gun either. |
If there was a trespasser in my house I would rather not have to get close to him in order to subdue him, so the spray, bat, or knife would be less than optimal. It puts me in even greater danger, especially if this person is bigger or stronger than me and possibly has a concealed weapon. If I have a gun I can project force from farther away so I can stop him without putting myself in unnecessary danger, plus it could scare the bad guy into leaving or giving up. I wouldn't consider the implications of game theory while my life was on the line ![]()
Yak_Fighter
member
1832 posts
406 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 30th 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Occupation: College Student/Slacker
Posted by -Stratesiz- on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:45pm 2004
What if he has a gun as well? As I said, you would both be better off with no guns at all. There would be less incentive for a burglery.
-Stratesiz-
member
39 posts
54 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 15th 2004
Location: Finland

Occupation: Student
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:50pm 2004
| ? quoting Leperous |
|
1) I think being pro-choice is a great position to be in, and one that you can really only argue against "effectively" from a religious point of view. 2) Give me one reason why any sane person needs an assault rifle that can fire 10's of rounds per minute. I can understand why they may "need" another gun of some kind, but unfortunately it is a fact that in countries with tougher gun laws that there is less violent crime- compare the US with the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany etc... If owning a gun is so necessary for "self-defence", then why do you still need to be able to buy shotguns, Desert Eagles etc.? I'm sure that if your government said "We'll let you only keep this one type of gun for self-defence" that people would be up in arms, simply because there is some strange "addiction" to them; similarly if someone came up with an effective non-lethal device. On one hand you're ok over killing thieves, but on the other it's totally wrong to kill an unborn child!! 3) I too am against gay marriage; however, it is utterly taking things out of proportion if you judge a presidential candidate based on a view that affects only minorities and will probably not ever affect you. To be honest, I don't think anyone has ever shown that having gay parents will harm children (like someone else once pointed out, straight parents turn out gay kids sometimes!) and it's just homophobia, which is no better than being racist... |
1) so ineffective actions should be discouraged then? .. well s**t, if i knew in advance i would have no opinions about pro-choice by being agnostic, i might have chosen some religion. ![]()
2) the problem is, they are not choosing any specific types, they wanna ban all of them.. i see no advantage to owning military weaponry at all.. they are designed to kill people only.. sporting weapons can kill too of course, but when was the last time you heard of it? yes it happens, but usually its accidental, and you cannot prevent all accidents.
3) thats your opinion, its no better or worse than mine is.. the only difference i can detect is, i believe in racist, i do not believe in homophobia.. it doesn't matter if i am alone or the whole world agrees with that, its my choice.
[addsig]Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA

Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:50pm 2004
The lack of guns will not make burglary any less problematic. I'm certain that people still get their houses broken into in Great Britain.
And if he has a gun then well I'd better shoot first and ask questions later. Given that I'm in my home turf so to speak and the lights would be off I'd have the upper hand. I'd rather take that risk than for each of us to not have a gun and he beats me to death with a hammer.
Yak_Fighter
member
1832 posts
406 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 30th 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN

Occupation: College Student/Slacker
Posted by Wild Card on Wed Nov 3rd at 10:55pm 2004
With respect to gay marriages. I am against calling it a marriage, but I am not against the concept.
What is marriage? It is the union of 1 man and 1 woman under God with the goal of procreating and raising a child. At least, as far as I can understand from the Bible. Many couples get married and dont even have children. And its not because of infertility, just, they dont want kids. So then why should they be married? The reason is because today the word marriage no longer means the joining of a man and a woman. It is a contract under law for the unison of 2 people.
So I believe 2 people of the same sex could not be married under Religious terms. However, under law, there is nothing against it.
[addsig]Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada

Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Wild Card on Wed Nov 3rd at 11:00pm 2004
| ? quoting Yak_Fighter |
|
The lack of guns will not make burglary any less problematic. I'm certain that people still get their houses broken into in Great Britain. |
Your telling me. Here where I live is a very nice community. The only exception is the level of crime. Commited by dumb-ass teenagers with nothing better to do.
A few weeks ago, 3 teens (2 guys, 1 girl) broke the glass window to a bus stop using a 2-by-4 they had picked up off the ground somewhere. Me and my brother nailed them though and we waited for the cops. They got busted pretty good.
Not even a week after that incident, and only a few days after OC transpo replaced the broken window did some kid throw some eggs on it.
The other day, 2 guys were in the middle of a 4-lane road on their skateboards at 11pm all dressed in black. Looking to get killed?
The school in from of my house is a local meeting place for teenagers to smoke a joint at 10pm when there's no one around and the sun has set.
My house, in the last 6 years, has been broken into twice. Most of my friends houses have been broken into. My house has been egged quite a few times as well. So did my neighboor.
Crime doesnt always involve weapons.
[addsig]Wild Card
member
2321 posts
339 snarkmarks
Registered: May 20th 2002
Location: Ontario, Canada

Occupation: IT Consultant
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Nov 3rd at 11:01pm 2004
did no one read my example for my opinion of gay marriage?
it was well thought out, and not necessarily homophobic (the webster definition)
what, if any right, would a gay couple have over an accidental brother/sister marriage?
as i said, i do not condone bro/sis marriages, but one is definitely illegal.
[addsig]Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA

Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
Posted by Leperous on Wed Nov 3rd at 11:02pm 2004
Yak, I'm only talking about burglary in the sense that that's the only possible (and legal?) reason people can use a gun against someone else; otherwise I was talking about violent crime. Of course we still get break-ins, but at least the criminals aren't killed, and the vast majority aren't doing it with a gun in their pocket ready to kill anyone!
If there are violent psychos out there who are willing to attack and kill you, they will do it with a gun or a hammer or whatever, but how many people do you think there are who feel much more confident attacking someone or stealing someone when they're carrying a gun?
And Orph- I ask you again why you seem to think it's ok to keep a gun for "self defence" (i.e. shooting and probably killing someone) but so absolutely wrong to kill an unborn child?! And yeah, it's totally my opinion that you and other people are homophobic, it doesn't really bother me, but the point is that what does it matter if your potential president wants to ban it- I'm sure you have bigger things to worry about, e.g. petrol prices. What were their energy policies? Bush wants more oil- preferably from Alaska, but he still needs to get it from foreign countries- whilst Kerry wanted more alternative energies. I'm sure you'd love driving around in a solar/hydrogen powered bus for 1/1000th the price of oil...
BUT I guess there's no point in going on about it all. Bush will do some things "right" and I'm sure horribly f**k up a lot of other things, but life is terribly unpredictable and I'm sure very little will go to plan!
Leperous
member
3382 posts
788 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 21st 2001
Location: UK
Occupation: Lazy student
Posted by Crono on Wed Nov 3rd at 11:06pm 2004
It doesn't matter, they will never turn over that amendment. So, shut it.
There are several guns that are banned here (AKs for example) and guess what, they're used ever so often in crimes because they can pierce Kevlar.
Most people who use guns to commit crimes DIDN'T GET THEM LEGALLY. So, how the hell would a complete ban on firearms help that? Because it's not as if they hijack the latest shipment in .22s to do the bank heist.
I think the only thing that we can really do that sounds reasonable is force REAL security checks at gun shows. They're suppose to check you out with ID and proof of residency, but a lot don't.
Other times there isn't much we can do to stop gun crimes, since the majority of people who commit them aren't suppose to have that weapon anyway. How would this other law actually effect crime rate?
It might actually raise crime in some areas. Since normal people wouldn't be allowed to have guns to scare off people who have the illegal guns.
I think, somewhere in Delaware, there is a town with no police, It's a small town of course. It became more effective, since the police didn't do much of anything. So, it is required by law, in that county, to own a firearm. As a result, crime goes down. Because criminals' chances of being shot just went up about 80% or something like that.
The point is: people who break the law have no respect for the law, so adding another law would mean nothing to them. Meaning, it's pointless. Get over America having guns. I don't go around telling everyone from other countries that their country should support firearms and that firearms are great or anything like that. I doubt you have any position or right to have the same type of argument.
By the way, I don't support the use of guns. But, I have no right to tell people they can't own them. [addsig]
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0308 seconds.

