Guns

[fredyellowone]

Good reply. Let me know when you can actually present a counterpoint. I'll jot that one down as a "no contest."

Maybe I should put this in terms you understand...

:tup:

I hope you don't mean you would use a gun on me, I don't have one.

 

[Famine]

No.

Would you give up your car if it meant a large reduction in car accidents? Would you give up your internet access if it meant a reduction in child porn? Would you give up the ability to buy soda if it meant a reduction in obesity? Would you give up your right to have sex if it meant a reduction in rape?

See? It's not all that interesting a concept.

Statistically speaking, a reduction in testicles would mean a reduction in car accidents, child porn and rape. In fact of all crime and particularly violent and sexual crime.

So. Is @mister dog scheduling a clinic appointment?

 

[Swagger897]

Amidst the back and forth flaming gun supporters vs gun opposers; i find this statement of XS quite refreshing. I wonder how the rest of you in this thread think about this? Would you be willing to give up your guns if it meant this would be for the greater good? And please don't reply that a law like that wouldn't be possible etcetera, just give us a straight yes or no.

I was going to reply to him but I thought it would be in a pressuring way, so indirectly here was my thought last night to him by you..

"You do know you have the right to stay armed unless a warrant is given out. No one is saying you will be forced, no one is saying you won't. Before that scenario even happens, Russia would have to invade us though. However, giving up your guns when going out in public, if you have the legal documents with you and you actually do carry, you will be another helpless soul to someone else, if danger be brought to you. "

Women are even more at risk at all of this, and should be armed, but with only proper training, like everyone else.. It is someone's option to be armed or not, but please, don't bitch out in public when you could've been armed to stop the situation..

Well you can compare that a bit to the situation here in Europe as almost none of us has guns. Criminality will always be there and it needs to be countered by the police but that's another discussion. On the other hand all those guns in the US do not prevent criminality neither no?

Your not accounting for your military... Plus, I'm not going to trust something that's 7 years old...

And cars, and rocks, and plastic bags, and cords. This is a bit besides the point if you ask me

Once again you elude the question with other examples and a smiley face... If you don't think a knife is not as dangerous as flying lead, then you have a problem. But the point was if it can kill you, by someone else, then it should be banned. So should video games with guns, so should GT because you could kill someone with a car.. It's not feasible, and it won't ever happen, because you can't put them all in a hole and expect no one to dig them out..

Point is he got to her guns (machine guns included) in the end; the matter how he did it is not really relevant. If his mom or close relationships wouldn't have had guns in the first place there's a good chance those poor kids in Sandy Hook would have still been alive today.

I'm not going to speculate whether or not 30+ children would be alive or dead to this day because of some idiot who wanted to be on fame or shame....

That argument is so funny, almost even more that the one turning around Stalin.

Yes, because knifes = guns, right? We should say that to that guy in China who stabbed last year 22 people without being able to kill even one. I think that guy in China whould be pretty upfront to say that if he had a gun instead, his success rate would have been better. A lot.

Someone stabbed in the hand is different than anywhere above the diaphragm. Also, how many of them were paralyzed? How many were infected with a dangerous virus? How many even got stabbed in a lethal area that could kill? If his point was to kill, surely he would figure out that cutting some as bad as paper can won't kill them..

Statistically speaking, a reduction in testicles would mean a reduction in car accidents, child porn and rape. In fact of all crime and particularly violent and sexual crime.

So. Is @mister dog scheduling a clinic appointment?

Castration should be observed after every sex offense. If a woman was armed, there wouldn't be a case over anything but a police report for a poor, happy soul..

 

[mister dog]

No.

Would you give up your car if it meant a large reduction in car accidents? Would you give up your internet access if it meant a reduction in child porn? Would you give up the ability to buy soda if it meant a reduction in obesity? Would you give up your right to have sex if it meant a reduction in rape?

See? It's not all that interesting a concept.

Unlike cars, internet and soda; i think people wouldn't really miss guns as much if they aren't hanging in their closets anymore all of a sudden

 

[Danoff]

Unlike cars, internet and soda; i think people wouldn't really miss guns as much if they aren't hanging in their closets anymore all of a sudden

Interesting, why do you think that?

 

[Famine]

Castration should be observed after every sex offense.

Inequality of punishment - women commit sex offences too - and sex crimes are not necessarily linked to sex or sexual desire so it doesn't really solve the problem.

 

[FoolKiller]

Unlike cars, internet and soda; i think people wouldn't really miss guns as much if they aren't hanging in their closets anymore all of a sudden

Some countries have gone down this road with Internet censorship.

The US has gone down this road with privacy. Manage to maintain a system that violates individual rights long enough and it becomes accepted as just how life is.

As for me, no I wouldn't give up guns for the "greater good." I don't own a gun, but I wouldn't support that notion. No idea scares me more than doing things for the greater good. That is how liberties, freedom, and even equality are lost.

 

[Badasp5.0]

I hope you don't mean you would use a gun on me, I don't have one.

Awe how cute your ignoring my question. So I guess that gives me the answer I was looking for, you were just talking out your 4th point of contact.

 

[XoravaX]

Would you be willing to give up your guns if it meant this would be for the greater good?

No, I wouldn't - simply because they'll never be used against other people (in time of peace), what greater good would it serve? And probably most others in Finland wouldn't either. We already have almost 1 million illegal guns here (in a country of 5.3 million inhabitants) because people haven't turned them in after the gun law changes - that meaning 1/3 of all privately owned firearms. Changing the gun laws to be any more strict would just make the firearms go underground. It's already a problem here that it's cheaper, faster and easier to obtain an illegal gun than a legal, registered one.

Well you can compare that a bit to the situation here in Europe as almost none of us has guns.

Maybe not in Spain, but in the Northern Europe they are pretty common. Not just in Finland, but also in Sweden and Norway.

My grandfather used to have two Brownings in the drawers next to his bed, two more in the drawers of his working desk in the living room and then also two more in the bedroom wardrobe at his summerplace. On top of that he also had three rifles and a shotgun which he kept in that aforementioned wardrobe. There also used to be two "souvenir" SMGs from WW2 but those were handed over to the police because of the gun law changes (and because there were absolutely no use for them).

Nowadays we keep those three rifles and the shotgun, but the pistols we handed over to a guy who has a licence for them (technically we're still the owners but we don't have them in our possession making the situation legal).

The odds of being raped and/or murdered are so low that I may as well being armed with a lottery ticket. Or Cayenne Pepper.

So are the odds of getting gunned down too, outside of the US I mean. In Finland and eg. Switzerland there are very few homicides committed with the use of firearms, despite that there are around one privately owned firearm per two people here. Only around 5-10 people are killed with firearms here per year, most homicides are due to knives and misuse of alcohol.

 

[Kent]

Lets say a person has a collection of firearms worth many thousands of dollars, does the government buy them or are they supposed to just accept the loss?

 

[Danoff]

Lets say a person has a collection of firearms worth many thousands of dollars, does the government buy them or are they supposed to just accept the loss?

I do love that avatar.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Lets say a person has a collection of firearms worth many thousands of dollars, does the government buy them or are they supposed to just accept the loss?

"Yes for the greater good" would probably be the response Mr Dog is looking for.

Personally I would Not turn in my guns since I have the experience of growing up a bad neighborhood that was not covered by the local PD so response times for home robbery/home invasion was measured in hours. I will never have blind faith that local law enforcement will be there on time to protect my family.

 

[Swagger897]

Unlike cars, internet and soda; i think people wouldn't really miss guns as much if they aren't hanging in their closets anymore all of a sudden

No... First thing I'd do is go to the Capitol Hill and bitch out some senators... Then make a mob like the soldiers of the Bonus Army did..

To say that is no different than video games cause obesity and should be taken away. I'm in no way shape or form obese, let alone overweight.. So there you go with that one done..

Inequality of punishment - women commit sex offences too - and sex crimes are not necessarily linked to sex or sexual desire so it doesn't really solve the problem.

Yeah... Going off of equality I guess women don't see the whole part of it (got the idea because women and a little fit on our Capitol..)

"Yes for the greater good" would probably be the response Mr Dog is looking for.

Personally I would Not turn in my guns since I have the experience of growing up a bad neighborhood that was not covered by the local PD so response times for home robbery/home invasion was measured in hours. I will never have blind faith that local law enforcement will be there on time to protect my family.

Some people will say don't take things into your own hands, but situations like these, any registered cop would do the same need the situation come to them. If it's against someone else and it doesn't directly involve you, it isn't my business to finesse with that's for sure...

But then the next response would be "move out", but whatever the situation is, it normally isn't always that easy..

 

[Badasp5.0]

But then the next response would be "move out", but whatever the situation is, it normally isn't always that easy..

Yep and what is sad is it not a super rural area or far from town just a part of town that local government/powers that be has chosen to ignore.

 

[mister dog]

No, I wouldn't - simply because they'll never be used against other people (in time of peace), what greater good would it serve? And probably most others in Finland wouldn't either. We already have almost 1 million illegal guns here (in a country of 5.3 million inhabitants) because people haven't turned them in after the gun law changes - that meaning 1/3 of all privately owned firearms. Changing the gun laws to be any more strict would just make the firearms go underground. It's already a problem here that it's cheaper, faster and easier to obtain an illegal gun than a legal, registered one.

Maybe not in Spain, but in the Northern Europe they are pretty common. Not just in Finland, but also in Sweden and Norway.

My grandfather used to have two Brownings in the drawers next to his bed, two more in the drawers of his working desk in the living room and then also two more in the bedroom wardrobe at his summerplace. On top of that he also had three rifles and a shotgun which he kept in that aforementioned wardrobe. There also used to be two "souvenir" SMGs from WW2 but those were handed over to the police because of the gun law changes (and because there were absolutely no use for them).

Nowadays we keep those three rifles and the shotgun, but the pistols we handed over to a guy who has a licence for them (technically we're still the owners but we don't have them in our possession making the situation legal).

So are the odds of getting gunned down too, outside of the US I mean. In Finland and eg. Switzerland there are very few homicides committed with the use of firearms, despite that there are around one privately owned firearm per two people here. Only around 5-10 people are killed with firearms here per year, most homicides are due to knives and misuse of alcohol.

You have an idea on how come countries like Finland and Switzerland that also have lot's of guns; don't have the murder rate nor the shooting sprees like the US has? I'm genuinely asking here, as I don't really have a clue how it can differ so much. You think it's something to do with the American mentality?

Just to throw some oil on the fire as most of the posters here hate em so much ; Michael Moore said the same thing when he compared Canada to the US in Bowling for columbine; both have almost equal gun ownership yet Canada doesn't have these sad wild west stories the US has nor the death toll because of gun violence...

 

[Zenith]

Hint: Think about poverty and income.

 

[Joel]

Just to throw some oil on the fire as most of the posters here hate em so much ; Michael Moore said the same thing when he compared Canada to the US in Bowling for columbine; both have almost equal gun ownership yet Canada doesn't have these sad wild west stories the US has nor the death toll because of gun violence...

The US has roughly 25-30 times as many guns, and ~3 times as many as a rate (Canada has about 10M which is one gun per 3 people, while the US is anywhere from 250-300M which makes it a nearly one to one ratio). If we're talking households it's about 15% of households in Canada which own guns compared to nearly 50% in the US. Stats are about the same for Finland, Germany, France, etc. Only Switzerland is a bit higher.

Mexico has strict gun regulations, low gun ownership, and tons of gang violence. What are the factors that lead to the gang violence?

 

[Badasp5.0]

Michael Moore he says bahahahahahahahahaha

 

[fredyellowone]

You have an idea on how come countries like Finland and Switzerland that also have lot's of guns; don't have the murder rate nor the shooting sprees like the US has? I'm genuinely asking here, as I don't really have a clue how it can differ so much. You think it's something to do with the American mentality?

Just to throw some oil on the fire as most of the posters here hate em so much ; Michael Moore said the same thing when he compared Canada to the US in Bowling for columbine; both have almost equal gun ownership yet Canada doesn't have these sad wild west stories the US has nor the death toll because of gun violence...

"Following the Columbine High School massacre, Michael Moore acquired a life membership to the National Rifle Association (NRA). Moore said that he initially intended to become the NRA's president and dismantle it, but he soon dismissed the plan as too difficult."

Got to give him credit. He did try something, at least.

 

[Badasp5.0]

"Following the Columbine High School massacre, Michael Moore acquired a life membership to the National Rifle Association (NRA). Moore said that he initially intended to become the NRA's president and dismantle it, but he soon dismissed the plan as too difficult."

Got to give him credit. He did try something, at least.

I don't see how dismantling the NRA would have stopped the columbine shooters.
We are talking about a man who after been shown obvious Potemkin village hospitals in Cuba proclaimed that "Cuba has better healthcare than the US"

 

[fredyellowone]

I don't see how dismantling the NRA would have stopped the columbine shooters.
We are talking about a man who after been shown obvious Potemkin village hospitals in Cuba proclaimed that "Cuba has better healthcare than the US"

According to the world health organization, that it's true. And by a quite big margin.

 

[Badasp5.0]

According to the world health organization, that it's true. And by a quite big margin.

Right a corrupt UN organization give a true picture of a heath care system... My Step-fathers family who still lives in Santiago De Cuba and Havana says otherwise. They maintain that there is two healthcare systems one for tourists and government officials which is good and one for rank and file Cubans which sucks horribly.

End O/T conversation.

 

[Swagger897]

You have an idea on how come countries like Finland and Switzerland that also have lot's of guns; don't have the murder rate nor the shooting sprees like the US has? I'm genuinely asking here, as I don't really have a clue how it can differ so much. You think it's something to do with the American mentality?

Just to throw some oil on the fire as most of the posters here hate em so much ; Michael Moore said the same thing when he compared Canada to the US in Bowling for columbine; both have almost equal gun ownership yet Canada doesn't have these sad wild west stories the US has nor the death toll because of gun violence...

When you a nation where everyone feels that their home is their castle, it is hard to tell them to stfu and sort them in lower, middle, or upper class. Unless we have the obvious ones who feel that their voices should be loudest in the land, not cohere with modern societies rules and politeness, and disregard anyone attempting to help. That single "breed" of humans can be well determined if you understand where I'm getting to. We basically have to keep up with them, and show them how to live. Emancipation might have been the worst thing honestly...

Hint: Think about poverty and income.

Ding ding ding..... Winner

 

[fredyellowone]

Right a corrupt UN organization give a true picture of a heath care system... My fathers family who still lives in Santiago De Cuba and Havana says otherwise.

A corrupt UN organization? Haha! Good one! I'm sure you know a lot about corrupted organizations. They prolly all are; at the very moment they are based outside United States, or not controlled by them, right? 💡

 

[Badasp5.0]

A corrupt UN organization? Haha! Good one! I'm sure you know a lot about corrupted organizations. They prolly all are; at the very moment they are based outside United States, or not controlled by them, right? 💡

This has nothing to do with US control or not. But nice try.

 

[fredyellowone]

This has nothing to do with US control or not. But nice try. So where is the answer for my previous question to you?

Maybe whole UN is currupt too? Because they refused to applaud the States for creating false moving trucks in Irak on some pictograms? "Hey look, a truck in Irak, I'm sure they have destruction weapons! We got to fight them! They support Al Qaeda!"

When you a nation where everyone feels that their home is their castle, it is hard to tell them to stfu and sort them in lower, middle, or upper class. Unless we have the obvious ones who feel that their voices should be loudest in the land, not cohere with modern societies rules and politeness, and disregard anyone attempting to help. That single "breed" of humans can be well determined if you understand where I'm getting to. We basically have to keep up with them, and show them how to live. Emancipation might have been the worst thing honestly...



Ding ding ding..... Winner

And why do you think there is that much poverty in the United States?

 

[Badasp5.0]

Maybe whole UN is currupt too? Because they refused to applaud the States for creating false moving trucks in Irak on some pictograms? "Hey look, a truck in Irak, I'm sure they have destruction weapons! We got to fight them! They support Al Qaeda!"

Oh how cute you bring up OIF with out having any clue about it.
The issue is a lot more complex than just a few pictograms. Nice try again.

 

[fredyellowone]

Oh how cute you bring up OIF with out having any clue about it.
The issue is a lot more complex than just a few pictograms. Nice try again.

Actually, no, it's not. And yes, I'm having real clues about what I'm talking about. Unlike the United States at that very moment, to say the least.

 

[Badasp5.0]

Actually, no, it's not. And yes, I'm having real clues about what I'm talking about. Unlike the United States at that very moment, to say the least.

No you don't have any clue but I am not going to continue this off topic conversion. If you want to continue it else were you can make a thread.

 

[Joel]

Was wondering how long until Iraq got brought up. That's the next arrogant Canadian move after LOL HEALTH CARE.