Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 0:00:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2013 1:50:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jack Specific on Jan 11, 2013 8:26:23 GMT -5
29,000 PEPOLE DIE PER YEAR Due to gun violence. Thats 2.2% of deaths in the US. Of that 29k 15,000 are suicides. About 900 are justified self defense. And about 1000 are accidents. 50% Of all violent gun crime those involved are intoxicated. And cumulatively in the last 5 years .005 of all violent gun deaths were committed by law abiding permit holders. Case and point laws only stop the good guys. Its all about the news nobody is interested in people killed with bats which the fbi reports is the number one weapon used in crime.
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on Jan 11, 2013 8:52:52 GMT -5
I'd rather take my chances with someone wielding a bat than a gun.
|
|
|
Post by 1992 on Jan 11, 2013 23:57:12 GMT -5
I'd rather take my chances with someone wielding a bat than a gun. So you'd rather wield a single baseball bat to defend yourself and your family against 6 armed robbers wielding anything from baseball bats, to knifes, to crowbars, to chains, to ohhhh I dunno, stolen/illegal/smuggled guns you no longer have access to as a law abiding citizen, after they kick in your door in at 2:27 in the morning and you're forced to react on the fly after being pulled from a sound sleep? #logic
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on Jan 12, 2013 9:55:26 GMT -5
I'd rather take my chances with someone wielding a bat than a gun. So you'd rather wield a single baseball bat to defend yourself and your family against 6 armed robbers wielding anything from baseball bats, to knifes, to crowbars, to chains, to ohhhh I dunno, stolen/illegal/smuggled guns you no longer have access to as a law abiding citizen, after they kick in your door in at 2:27 in the morning and you're forced to react on the fly after being pulled from a sound sleep? #logic Did you even read what I said? I'd rather take my chances with someone wielding a bat, not me wielding it.
|
|
Dat guy ova der
Main Eventer
WF 10 Year Member
Dah What?
Joined on: May 16, 2005 19:43:50 GMT -5
Posts: 3,085
|
Post by Dat guy ova der on Jan 12, 2013 10:14:51 GMT -5
So you'd rather wield a single baseball bat to defend yourself and your family against 6 armed robbers wielding anything from baseball bats, to knifes, to crowbars, to chains, to ohhhh I dunno, stolen/illegal/smuggled guns you no longer have access to as a law abiding citizen, after they kick in your door in at 2:27 in the morning and you're forced to react on the fly after being pulled from a sound sleep? #logic Did you even read what I said? I'd rather take my chances with someone wielding a bat, not me wielding it. As long as we are choosing what weapon our imaginary attacker is wielding, may I suggest fly swatter?
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 12, 2013 23:49:29 GMT -5
Illegally obtained guns you mean. Too bad no honest citizens or security guards were armed there. JS Yeah, I agree. More guns are going to lower the number of shootings - makes perfect sense. The FBI crime stats don't lie, places with more gun restrictions, actually have higher gun crime. There is no answer to this, banning guns will NOT work, more restrictions will NOT work, armed guards in schools COULD work, removal of GFZ (or Gun Free Zones) COULD work.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 12, 2013 23:54:23 GMT -5
Last year in Chicago there were over 500 murders and that city has a population of approximately 2.7 million people. Contrast that with 89 murders in London, a city with approximately 8.1 million people. So London has more than 3 times Chicago's population and yet Chicago has more than fives times its murders. There's something wrong here guys. Piers Morgan, is that you? Fact check time kids:
|
|
|
Post by Suckasays on Jan 13, 2013 11:00:15 GMT -5
One thing I'd like to add then slowly back out because I honestly don't give a crapabout the gun debate one way or the other is this...
That stat about gun related crime is also padded by the fact that simply owning a gun in some instances where there are gun control laws is considered a gun related crime. Meaning that it ups the gun crime rate even when they're not involved in a violent gun crime.
Anyway, carry on.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 13, 2013 17:39:26 GMT -5
Heard someone argue (not necessarily on WF, can't remember where it was) that they had weapons to protect themselves from the government. How does that work? Even if you kill some policemen who were at your door, how are you going to get away? You gonna fight against the whole government? They have nuclear weapons. Bit of a one sided fight.
Just encapsulates the whole gun debate for me.
What I also will say is that people from the UK will never understand people from the USA on this issue. You might as well be speaking another language because the pro-gun people in this thread make no sense to me. And I make no sense to them. We come from different countries and have no similarities on this issue. Its kinda pointless debating becuase everything surrounding us at home agrees with us, but the internet is not home. Its difficult for all sides to comprehend that such an opposing opinion can be backed so completely by so many people.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 13, 2013 19:30:39 GMT -5
Heard someone argue (not necessarily on WF, can't remember where it was) that they had weapons to protect themselves from the government. How does that work? Even if you kill some policemen who were at your door, how are you going to get away? You gonna fight against the whole government? They have nuclear weapons. Bit of a one sided fight. Just encapsulates the whole gun debate for me. What I also will say is that people from the UK will never understand people from the USA on this issue. You might as well be speaking another language because the pro-gun people in this thread make no sense to me. And I make no sense to them. We come from different countries and have no similarities on this issue. Its kinda pointless debating becuase everything surrounding us at home agrees with us, but the internet is not home. Its difficult for all sides to comprehend that such an opposing opinion can be backed so completely by so many people. Dropping nuclear bombs on their own country would be a bit self defeating now wouldn't it? Defense is of the home land, it's not to be interpreted as one "Rambo" vs the entire government.. it's the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE will band together to over take a tyrannical government, just like we did in 1776. Thats the thing that people in the UK don't get right there, you we're not slaves to another country, we were. We rose up and took this land for ourselves, and if we have to, we'll do it again. UKers have never realized that they're being oppressed because of the simple fact that you've known oppression for probably most of your lives (gun ban was what, 15 years ago? most people on this forum are 15-25), you do not know what it's like to be free like Americans do.
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on Jan 13, 2013 19:48:43 GMT -5
Heard someone argue (not necessarily on WF, can't remember where it was) that they had weapons to protect themselves from the government. How does that work? Even if you kill some policemen who were at your door, how are you going to get away? You gonna fight against the whole government? They have nuclear weapons. Bit of a one sided fight. Just encapsulates the whole gun debate for me. What I also will say is that people from the UK will never understand people from the USA on this issue. You might as well be speaking another language because the pro-gun people in this thread make no sense to me. And I make no sense to them. We come from different countries and have no similarities on this issue. Its kinda pointless debating becuase everything surrounding us at home agrees with us, but the internet is not home. Its difficult for all sides to comprehend that such an opposing opinion can be backed so completely by so many people. Dropping nuclear bombs on their own country would be a bit self defeating now wouldn't it? Defense is of the home land, it's not to be interpreted as one "Rambo" vs the entire government.. it's the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE will band together to over take a tyrannical government, just like we did in 1776. Thats the thing that people in the UK don't get right there, you we're not slaves to another country, we were. We rose up and took this land for ourselves, and if we have to, we'll do it again. UKers have never realized that they're being oppressed because of the simple fact that you've known oppression for probably most of your lives (gun ban was what, 15 years ago? most people on this forum are 15-25), you do not know what it's like to be free like Americans do.So because we don't have guns we don't know what it's like to be free? Well.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 13, 2013 20:03:01 GMT -5
Dropping nuclear bombs on their own country would be a bit self defeating now wouldn't it? Defense is of the home land, it's not to be interpreted as one "Rambo" vs the entire government.. it's the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE will band together to over take a tyrannical government, just like we did in 1776. Thats the thing that people in the UK don't get right there, you we're not slaves to another country, we were. We rose up and took this land for ourselves, and if we have to, we'll do it again. UKers have never realized that they're being oppressed because of the simple fact that you've known oppression for probably most of your lives (gun ban was what, 15 years ago? most people on this forum are 15-25), you do not know what it's like to be free like Americans do.So because we don't have guns we don't know what it's like to be free? Well. You missed the point there. You do not know freedom the way we do because you've likely always been oppressed, because your government tells you that you do NOT have the right to defend yourself, nor do you have the freedom of speech, or any other freedom laid out in the US Constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 28, 2024 0:00:22 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2013 20:08:59 GMT -5
I'm easily on the lines of doing more intense background checks on people applying to own gun licenses(seeing if anyone in the family/neighbors has mental disorders, previous crime records, etc) so we have a less chance of some guy stealing his mom's gun from the cabinet and shooting up some place.
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on Jan 13, 2013 20:20:18 GMT -5
So because we don't have guns we don't know what it's like to be free? Well. You missed the point there. You do not know freedom the way we do because you've likely always been oppressed, because your government tells you that you do NOT have the right to defend yourself, nor do you have the freedom of speech, or any other freedom laid out in the US Constitution. We do have the right to defend ourselves, who said owning a gun was the only way to protect ourselves?
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 13, 2013 20:53:57 GMT -5
You missed the point there. You do not know freedom the way we do because you've likely always been oppressed, because your government tells you that you do NOT have the right to defend yourself, nor do you have the freedom of speech, or any other freedom laid out in the US Constitution. We do have the right to defend ourselves, who said owning a gun was the only way to protect ourselves? Please, define how you would defend yourself from threats both foreign and domestic.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Jan 13, 2013 21:08:51 GMT -5
The FBI crime stats don't lie, places with more gun restrictions, actually have higher gun crime. There is no answer to this, banning guns will NOT work, more restrictions will NOT work, armed guards in schools COULD work, removal of GFZ (or Gun Free Zones) COULD work. I'm just not buying this. I think there are way too many guns out there already - I don't think tougher gun restrictions are gonna do a damn thing. For places like Chicago, I don't think tougher gun restrictions have anything to do with the violence - I think it was a reactionary move to a problem that was already out of hand, all the inner city violence. Who care about some weak-ass gun control law when thousands of guns are already out there? Countries that have stricter gun laws have less gun crime, yet cities in the US with stricter gun laws have more gun crime? I just don't think these statistics prove anything one or the other, so you taking these stats as fact that banning guns will NOT work seems like you're trying to simplify things that aren't so simple - or that you are using the numbers to justify your preexisting opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on Jan 13, 2013 21:16:32 GMT -5
We do have the right to defend ourselves, who said owning a gun was the only way to protect ourselves? Please, define how you would defend yourself from threats both foreign and domestic. Foreign I usually just shout "ooga booga" and they run scared and domestic, well, I usually snap the mop in half. Guns are NOT the only way to defend yourself, it's moronic to even think they are. You can use other weapons, such as bats, knives, hell use a ing taser if need be. *cue excuse "but what if they have a gun and you have a bat, they're going to win"* No. I feel safe knowing no one can easily gain access to a gun in the UK. I don't have to worry about someone breaking into my house with a gun. The worst weapon they're likely to have is a knife, and I'd much rather take my chances with a knife than a gun.
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 13, 2013 22:18:33 GMT -5
Please, define how you would defend yourself from threats both foreign and domestic. Foreign I usually just shout "ooga booga" and they run scared and domestic, well, I usually snap the mop in half. Guns are NOT the only way to defend yourself, it's moronic to even think they are. You can use other weapons, such as bats, knives, hell use a ing taser if need be. *cue excuse "but what if they have a gun and you have a bat, they're going to win"* No. I feel safe knowing no one can easily gain access to a gun in the UK. I don't have to worry about someone breaking into my house with a gun. The worst weapon they're likely to have is a knife, and I'd much rather take my chances with a knife than a gun. So.. if you're willing to defend yourself with a knife/ bat/taser/ etc why NOT have a gun instead? And you did not answer the question about foreign defense. Do you expect your government to always be there to protect you?
|
|
|
Post by HR2X on Jan 13, 2013 22:19:57 GMT -5
The FBI crime stats don't lie, places with more gun restrictions, actually have higher gun crime. There is no answer to this, banning guns will NOT work, more restrictions will NOT work, armed guards in schools COULD work, removal of GFZ (or Gun Free Zones) COULD work. I'm just not buying this. I think there are way too many guns out there already - I don't think tougher gun restrictions are gonna do a damn thing. For places like Chicago, I don't think tougher gun restrictions have anything to do with the violence - I think it was a reactionary move to a problem that was already out of hand, all the inner city violence. Who care about some weak-ass gun control law when thousands of guns are already out there? Countries that have stricter gun laws have less gun crime, yet cities in the US with stricter gun laws have more gun crime? I just don't think these statistics prove anything one or the other, so you taking these stats as fact that banning guns will NOT work seems like you're trying to simplify things that aren't so simple - or that you are using the numbers to justify your preexisting opinion. Please refer to the video I posted on page 3. Those are facts.
|
|