1. Post #241
    Gold Member
    Lone_Star94's Avatar
    April 2007
    918 Posts
    Thieves don't shoot people just for fun, they shoot people when the people they are robbing fight back. If a store owner does not have a gun he is less likely to react violently and thus less likely to get himself killed.
    And if that were true, wouldn't that mean that every single country that has very strict gun control laws would be flooded by gun crimes? You yourself argued that knife crime went up in England since the banning of guns, that directly contradicts what you're claiming here.
    Ever see a gang rob a store. They don't give a shit about the cashier's life.

  2. Post #242
    Gold Member
    Mister_Jack's Avatar
    May 2006
    2,528 Posts
    Ever see a gang rob a store. They don't give a shit about the cashier's life.
    Ever seen that not in a movie? When someone is robbing a place, their first concern is getting in and out with as little hitches as possible. Having to shoot someone is like the worst thing that could happen to a robber.

  3. Post #243
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,362 Posts
    What the fuck are you talking about? They carry a gun to get power over you so they can take your money, hell, that's why they have weapons in general.


    Someone isn't going to walk up to you and mug you by politely asking for your money.

  4. Post #244
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Yes, but its a matter of him not being trained. Doesn't make someone stupid. It makes them UNEDUCATED.
    But I said that in they need to train gun safety better. And they were 8-9 when they did that.
    And from what I believe the person just moved into america.
    who the hell gave them the gun?

  5. Post #245
    Gold Member
    Timebomb575's Avatar
    January 2011
    5,747 Posts
    I said "mug you by", not "mug you while"

  6. Post #246
    Gold Member
    Nyaos's Avatar
    October 2006
    2,586 Posts
    I had an interesting thought today talking about gun control. My friend said guns aren't necessary because we can trust the law for these things. Then I started to think about how far the government could really go, and realized how dependent we are on it. You never know if the government will lose it's ability to function as it is today, would you really want to bet your life on it?

  7. Post #247
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,362 Posts
    I had an interesting thought today talking about gun control. My friend said guns aren't necessary because we can trust the law for these things. Then I started to think about how far the government could really go, and realized how dependent we are on it. You never know if the government will lose it's ability to function as it is today, would you really want to bet your life on it?
    It nearly happened earlier in the year on a financial issue that would have caused another depression, when the GOP and Dems couldn't decide on a budget due to something about abortion, if I'm not mistaken. It is a possibility. I saw a video where someone mentioned the same idea, a Canadian actually.

  8. Post #248
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    I had an interesting thought today talking about gun control. My friend said guns aren't necessary because we can trust the law for these things. Then I started to think about how far the government could really go, and realized how dependent we are on it. You never know if the government will lose it's ability to function as it is today, would you really want to bet your life on it?
    do you mean having a revolution, or just that the government collapses?

  9. Post #249
    fox '09's Avatar
    July 2010
    1,321 Posts
    To me gun control only goes as far as to prohibit the sale of firearms to anyone convicted of a violent crime of any sort, including rape. Perhaps the definition of violent crime could be narrowed, and I'm obviously not someone who has studied law so I'm not in the position to define that properly.

    Now mental instability rules needs good oversight but otherwise I'm in favor of it. Just like we imprison criminals to separate them from society (primarily I would argue), we can bar people who are mentally unstable from having weapons.

    Gun control isn't necessarily the prohibition of guns, and I think that is overlooked too often. It may cost money, people, and mistakes, but I think it is a reasonable approach to how to handle firearms in society.

    now, my position aside, I hate how people use children killing people or themselves with firearms to further their argument/agenda. It doesn't happen often, and we have a reason we have laws on child molestation etc, because children cannot reason at the level adults are able to. What the punishment for the parents should be is another question that I don't really have an opinion on

  10. Post #250
    Hi.
    reevezy67's Avatar
    July 2011
    4,409 Posts
    That's the problem with places that teach their citizens about how bad guns are from an early age. They're basically brainwashed into thinking that places that allow guns are basically a violent hell on Earth.

    I've never "worried" about guns and I've never known anyone in my life to be negatively affected by guns yet everyone I know owns at least one. Unless you live in a bad area, it's really a non-issue.
    I've never thought of guns or the people that use them to be a bad thing, I just think they have the potential to be bad things, completely depends on the person using it.

    I personally couldn't be happier never seeing guns in Australia less chance for things to go wrong in case you get that one bad person.

  11. Post #251
    Gold Member
    G-Strogg's Avatar
    October 2007
    7,473 Posts
    I would never feel as safe as I do where I live if I knew anyone of my neighbours could be owning a weapon.

  12. Post #252
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,362 Posts
    I would never feel as safe as I do where I live if I knew anyone of my neighbours could be owning a weapon.

    Wikipedia posted:
    Everything from pepperspray to full-automatic machine guns are technically legal, and license to civilians can be given in 'special' cases. Like the other Nordic countries Sweden has a high rate of gun ownership, due to the popularity of hunting.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#Sweden

    Anyone of your neighbours could be owning a weapon, hell any one of them could own a machine gun, stop being such an intolerant, paranoid fuck.

  13. Post #253
    Antdawg's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,276 Posts
    Violent crimes can happen regardless of whether there is gun control or not, but honestly I'd rather have a knife to me rather than a gun pointed at my head. All it takes to end someone's life with a gun is to point and pull a trigger, I'd hate to think that every individual in a certain number of individuals has the ability to end someone's life just like that.

    I understand some would like the ability to use guns for hunting purposes, but if that were the case would we really need the right to own pistols and semi-automatic rifles?

  14. Post #254
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,362 Posts
    Violent crimes can happen regardless of whether there is gun control or not, but honestly I'd rather have a knife to me rather than a gun pointed at my head. All it takes to end someone's life with a gun is to point and pull a trigger, I'd hate to think that every individual in a certain number of individuals has the ability to end someone's life just like that.

    I understand some would like the ability to use guns for hunting purposes, but if that were the case would we really need the right to own pistols and semi-automatic rifles?
    People use both for hunting, the new editions of the Browning BAR are semi-automatic guns designed specifically for hunting, and there are international shooting competitions that use both rifles and pistols. Then the topics of collecting and sport/target shooting have been mentioned, and everyone seems to go on and ignore that people sometimes buy guns to preserve a piece of history and/or art.

  15. Post #255
    GAYLORD
    Wikipedia Vandilisation Contest Winner
    joe588's Avatar
    June 2005
    15,035 Posts
    Yeah but that takes half the fun out of it

    Thats like owning a really sweet classic car that you restored yourself and not being allowed to drive it.
    suppose, but decent diactvated ones still load bullets and eject cartridges which is half the pornography isn't it?

  16. Post #256
    Gold Member
    sami-elite's Avatar
    May 2007
    3,810 Posts
    I like gun control because it controls guns.
    I'd like control on drugs too.

    Banning guns is something else.

  17. Post #257
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    People use both for hunting, the new editions of the Browning BAR are semi-automatic guns designed specifically for hunting, and there are international shooting competitions that use both rifles and pistols. Then the topics of collecting and sport/target shooting have been mentioned, and everyone seems to go on and ignore that people sometimes buy guns to preserve a piece of history and/or art.
    That might be true for some people, but a great deal shout 2nd amendment, I need to be able to overthrow the government at any time because I can't trust it and I can't do that without weapons you commy bastards.

  18. Post #258
    I make sexist and racist jokes all the time yet,i still support the feminist movement and the rights of blacks.
    znk666's Avatar
    July 2010
    5,535 Posts
    I might be a leftist,but i agree with this.
    Most of violent crimes are caused by unregistered weapons bought off some shady dealer on the street or black market...
    This way people can feel and be more safe

  19. Post #259
    Gold Member
    Ganerumo's Avatar
    September 2011
    17,979 Posts
    So I checked my email yesterday and one of my close friends sent me an email that made me realize how idiotic gun control is. The email contained some fun facts, so here it is:

    1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
    2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
    3. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
    4. If guns are outlawed can we use swords?
    5. If guns cause crime than pencils cause misspelled words.
    6. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
    7. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
    8. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
    9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
    10. The second amendment is in place in case politicians ignore the others.
    11. 65,000,000 firearm owners killed no one yesterday.
    12. Guns only have two enemies- Rust and Politicians.
    13. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stay alive.
    14. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
    15. Criminals love gun control, it makes their jobs safer.
    16. If guns cause crime than matches cause arson.
    17. Only a government who is afraid of it's citizens tries to control them.
    18. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
    19. Enforce the gun laws WE ALREADY HAVE, don't make more.
    20. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
    21. When you remove the right to bear arms you create slaves.
    22. Outlawing guns will create an illegal firearm market, just like drugs and alchohol during the Prohibition.

    Thank you.
    I'll try to make a simple answer to each argument. Take it as the devil's lawyer answer, not as my own opinion :

    1. How so ? You can be free without owning a gun.
    2. Once again, how so ? At least a cop knows what he's doing, and you avoid getting your hands dirty.
    3. This doesn't make much sense. If gun control exists it's because there is crazy-enough people to use them for bad reasons.
    4. Sure you can, but it's heavy, hard to use and inconvenient.
    5. Because guns are the tool of a crime doesn't mean we shouldn't control them. Giving more tools for the robber to do its job is never a good idea.
    6. Criminals are free men before doing the crime.
    7. How is that relevant anyway ?
    8. A simple document can't allow anything just because it says it.
    9. But you have a gun for your own security right ?
    10. If politicians vote dictating laws you can still take arms and fight them, even if you're not supposed to.
    11. But there's at least half of that number who used a weapon for a crime the past month.
    12. Guns are objects, silly
    13. Or you shoot to kill and steal a wallet from a dead body.
    14. It's still not a reason to make the behavior easier.
    15. Or they can get more jailtime by having a weapon if said weapon is illegal.
    16. You already used that argument
    17. Democracy - the government is the people. Is the people afraid of himself ?
    18. What's the link with gun control anyway ?
    19. This is pretty much what's being done.
    20. Yes it would, people would have found guns in another illegal way and fought for a good cause.
    21. No you create people with no guns.
    22. There is already an illegal firearm market, outlawing guns makes more people go towards this market thus make it easier to spot and neutralize.

  20. Post #260
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,362 Posts
    What the fuck has the US government done in the last century to show that it really still gives a fuck about the people? By this point the government doesn't represent the people, it represents a political ideology, that of whichever party is in power. The government is not the people any longer, and now that that's happened America should be most afraid of the government, because it no longer has a regard for the opinion of the people.

  21. Post #261
    fox '09's Avatar
    July 2010
    1,321 Posts
    I'll try to make a simple answer to each argument.
    2. Once again, how so ? At least a cop knows what he's doing, and you avoid getting your hands dirty.
    .
    A citizen can also know what he is doing. Thing is , the phone argument only seems to work in certain situations. If you're at home, by all means shoot the intruder if you feel your life is threatened and you don't think you can call the police.

    If you're at a gas station and someone is holding up the store, don't shoot him, call the police outside.

    It works in favor of the pro-gun argument to be honest, not the other way around.


    Now to the OP's post
    "21. When you remove the right to bear arms you create slaves."
    I think that's fucking hilarious that the founders wanted to create a free country for slave owners. The right to bear arms in that respect would be used to keep slaves enslaved.. At least until the civil war.

    But who are you enslaved to if you don't have weapons? Perhaps the goverment, but as far as I'm concerned nobody really cares about civil liberties anymore, so why would they care for the removal of the right to bear arms?

    I don't understand the slavery argument, perhaps you can enlighten me if you do.

  22. Post #262
    semite's Avatar
    July 2011
    145 Posts
    What the fuck has the US government done in the last century to show that it really still gives a fuck about the people? By this point the government doesn't represent the people, it represents a political ideology, that of whichever party is in power. The government is not the people any longer, and now that that's happened America should be most afraid of the government, because it no longer has a regard for the opinion of the people.
    motherfucking this, 100%

    in fact, close the thread, discussion is over

  23. Post #263
    Gold Member
    Ond kaja's Avatar
    December 2009
    2,957 Posts
    In this scenario, giving the store owner a gun would actually be the worst solution to this problem. A better solution would be to eliminate the factors which lead to the robber making the decision to rob the store. The government should instead of liberating the gun control focus on giving the robber less incentive to carry out crimes to satisfy his basic needs, which includes food and a home.

    Likewise, the best way to prevent crimes is not to equip everyone with a gun, but to eradicate poverty and social misery. Those who are pro-gun will often argue that it will still be easy to get a gun if you are a criminal. Well, if the amount of criminals in the society got reduced the production would follow, as the black market gets less customers.

    And then is the point of liberty, I've seen some arguments from pro-gun debaters which claim that you aren't free if there is gun control. I would reverse that argumentation, and instead ask if you really are free if you need a gun for protecting yourself from the government. In a genuinely free society you don't need guns to protect yourself from the government, because there are democratical measures that can be taken against those who wish to restrain your rights. Use them.

  24. Post #264
    Dennab
    June 2011
    2,108 Posts
    In this scenario, giving the store owner a gun would actually be the worst solution to this problem. A better solution would be to eliminate the factors which lead to the robber making the decision to rob the store. The government should instead of liberating the gun control focus on giving the robber less incentive to carry out crimes to satisfy his basic needs, which includes food and a home.

    Likewise, the best way to prevent crimes is not to equip everyone with a gun, but to eradicate poverty and social misery. Those who are pro-gun will often argue that it will still be easy to get a gun if you are a criminal. Well, if the amount of criminals in the society got reduced the production would follow, as the black market gets less customers.

    And then is the point of liberty, I've seen some arguments from pro-gun debaters which claim that you aren't free if there is gun control. I would reverse that argumentation, and instead ask if you really are free if you need a gun for protecting yourself from the government. In a genuinely free society you don't need guns to protect yourself from the government, because there are democratical measures that can be taken against those who wish to restrain your rights. Use them.
    Eradicate poverty and social misery?

    Sorry but that is pretty much impossible and won't happen.

    And what happens when "democratical measures" do not work.

  25. Post #265
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    What is it with you people and having no faith at all in democracy.

  26. Post #266
    Gold Member
    Ond kaja's Avatar
    December 2009
    2,957 Posts
    Eradicate poverty and social misery?

    Sorry but that is pretty much impossible and won't happen.

    And what happens when "democratical measures" do not work.
    Why would eradicating poverty and social misery be impossible?

    And what do you mean by the democratical measures "not working"? If they aren't, then voters agree with the restriction in question and that is a decision you have to accept.

  27. Post #267
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    yeah that's exactly what we need when democratic measures don't work. a bunch of violent hooligans with guns that replace reasoning and political discourse with dead people.

  28. Post #268
    Hi, my name is mastermaul, and I'm a butt.
    mastermaul's Avatar
    January 2008
    8,392 Posts
    Distribution of weapons has nothing to do with the causation of crime. Crime is caused because the individual has been put in a situation in which reverting to crime has become the only option that they can fathom.

    It baffles me at the amount of money spent pointing fingers at glorified hammers and tubes instead of addressing the real problem: a immensely outdated education system and a nation stricken with poverty. This is where crime comes from. This is fact. The only variable we cannot account for is true, physical mental illness, and we shouldn't adopt such a kneejerk reaction and live in fear just because of that possibility.

    I don't need to justify my rights.

  29. Post #269
    ShadowSocks8's Avatar
    November 2007
    2,489 Posts
    I've said it before and I'll say it again


    IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS

    ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS

  30. Post #270
    kenshin6's Avatar
    December 2011
    1,676 Posts
    Im just going to leave this here


  31. Post #271
    RAPISTS ARE OPPRESSED
    mobrockers2's Avatar
    April 2011
    12,403 Posts
    Im just going to leave this here

    Yeah that really shows how mature and sensible pro-gun people are

  32. Post #272
    ShadowSocks8's Avatar
    November 2007
    2,489 Posts
    Yeah that really shows how mature and sensible pro-gun people are

    Yes brilliant, insult the intelligence of people who believe in their Constitutional rights.

  33. Post #273
    Gold Member
    Ond kaja's Avatar
    December 2009
    2,957 Posts
    Yes brilliant, insult the intelligence of people who believe in their Constitutional rights.
    He would be right to insult the intelligence of those who see the constitution as an impeccable moral document.

  34. Post #274
    Awesome Member
    Dennab
    January 2006
    40,350 Posts
    Yes brilliant, insult the intelligence of people who believe in their Constitutional rights.
    um he didn't insult their intelligence, he insulted their maturity and sensibility because they pretend to value political beliefs over the lives of other people.

  35. Post #275
    Dennab
    June 2011
    2,108 Posts
    Why would eradicating poverty and social misery be impossible?
    Because it is and I consider it a pipe dream?

  36. Post #276
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    Distribution of weapons has nothing to do with the causation of crime. Crime is caused because the individual has been put in a situation in which reverting to crime has become the only option that they can fathom.

    It baffles me at the amount of money spent pointing fingers at glorified hammers and tubes instead of addressing the real problem: a immensely outdated education system and a nation stricken with poverty. This is where crime comes from. This is fact. The only variable we cannot account for is true, physical mental illness, and we shouldn't adopt such a kneejerk reaction and live in fear just because of that possibility.

    I don't need to justify my rights.
    because fixing the root of the problem would be harder than outlawing guns.

  37. Post #277
    Gold Member
    DaCommie1's Avatar
    June 2008
    7,362 Posts
    um he didn't insult their intelligence, he insulted their maturity and sensibility because they pretend to value political beliefs over the lives of other people.
    I believe it was posted in response to his neighbour posting something about him not liking abortion and encouraging people to fuck his wife. Even if the latter was a response to the former, neither of them are very mature in this situation.

    Edited:

    because fixing the root of the problem would be harder than outlawing guns.

    That doesn't stop the reason the outlaw needs/wants the gun though, and he doesn't care if the gun's outlawed, he'll use it anyways.

  38. Post #278
    The Kakistocrat's Avatar
    November 2011
    1,353 Posts
    I believe it was posted in response to his neighbour posting something about him not liking abortion and encouraging people to fuck his wife. Even if the latter was a response to the former, neither of them are very mature in this situation.

    Edited:




    That doesn't stop the reason the outlaw needs/wants the gun though, and he doesn't care if the gun's outlawed, he'll use it anyways.
    sorry, that was sarcasm. I'm pro-gun rights.

  39. Post #279
    ThatIrishSOB's Avatar
    September 2011
    77 Posts
    To me gun control only goes as far as to prohibit the sale of firearms to anyone convicted of a violent crime of any sort, including rape. Perhaps the definition of violent crime could be narrowed, and I'm obviously not someone who has studied law so I'm not in the position to define that properly.

    Now mental instability rules needs good oversight but otherwise I'm in favor of it. Just like we imprison criminals to separate them from society (primarily I would argue), we can bar people who are mentally unstable from having weapons.

    Gun control isn't necessarily the prohibition of guns, and I think that is overlooked too often. It may cost money, people, and mistakes, but I think it is a reasonable approach to how to handle firearms in society.

    now, my position aside, I hate how people use children killing people or themselves with firearms to further their argument/agenda. It doesn't happen often, and we have a reason we have laws on child molestation etc, because children cannot reason at the level adults are able to. What the punishment for the parents should be is another question that I don't really have an opinion on
    I agree, in fact most of the time people being killed inside their house with their own firearms is there fault. Idiots say that we need to outlaw guns because kids kill their parents and stuff with them is idiotic. Things like that happen because of the carelessness of the parents leaving guns in unlocked cabinets and giving shotguns to their kids for their birthday.

  40. Post #280
    One thing annoys me more than any other in this debate That those against gun control seem to believe that owning a gun is a universal right.

    I'm not a huge fan of guns, I can accept them in necessary cases, but I don't want guns in my possesion, or anywhere near me. I don't care about the fact you were raised around them, just keep them away from me.

    For that matter, why don't you guys consider excercising your constitutional right for once. I see a huge amount of dissent in news threads about American politics, yet no one seems to do anything but bitch.