• I don’t know the exact facts of that, but point taken.


  • In the US you may live and never be touched by a rape (at least a rape by someone you do not know). In SA it is impossible. Life is very cheap there.

    Im sure there is a difference, but Id like to see a source, saying it is impossible to not be touched by a rape. also, (this is coming from me, i dont have a source) ive never heard of a rape conducted at gun point (though that doesnt mean it doesnt occur of course), and the victims are obviously (at least in the vast majority of cases) women, who are less likely to own a firearm, let alone have one on them, since they often take place on the street or somewhere away from their home, where the gun would most likely be, so its not really applicable.

    Why is it that many of the same kinds of people who believe that America should invade other countries to prevent them from having weapons capable of killing many people from a distance believe that they should be allowed to own weapons capable of killing many people from a distance?

    I cant speak for everyone, but Id say that most of them are talking about WMD’s, artillery, ICBM, or other extreme long-range weapons, not a handgun or rifle.

    A gun changes everything.

    This is because a gun is so easy to get. if you were going to commit an armed crime, would you use a gun or a knife? a gun obviously, because its more effective than a knife, a gun is a better weapon than a knife ( 😉 mike, lol), and its so easy to get a hold of, why not use it? so make guns harder to get, i have no problem with that, but not impossible. and if a criminal cant get a gun, but a homeowner has one, whos going to back down, the gun owner, or the knife owner?

    They don’t nearly as often stab themselves to death as shoot themselves to death.

    Granted, but in the case of suicides, this is usually because if they dont act quickly, they will lose their nerve, and to them, its easier to pull a trigger than jab a knife into themselves (if i were going to kill myself, i would think the same way).
    In the case of accidental death, this is because of careless gun owners, either storing a weapon loaded, or allowing their children to gain access to the gun and the ammo, without properly teaching them the safety necessary.

    But really - is America as dangerous as South Africa?

    1. you are in canada.
    2. yes, in some areas, more dangerous in some
    3. for example, in Operation: Desert Storm, when the Iraqis launched Scuds at the Saudi Arabian City of Riyadh, even if you were in the city proper, you were statistically more likely to be attacked crossing any street in NYC (New York City) than be affected by the large missiles approaching your position. Just something to think about

    “Firearms are used three to five times more often to stop crimes than to prevent them” -FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annual reports


  • @cystic:

    Another thing:
    Why is it that many of the same kinds of people who believe that America should invade other countries to prevent them from having weapons capable of killing many people from a distance believe that they should be allowed to own weapons capable of killing many people from a distance?

    Umm, we’re talking chemical and biological weapons here, possibly even nuclear. That presents an entirely more dangerous potential for human casualties than any firearm you can show me. They can’t even be compared with each other using the same line of reasoning.

    Besides, we don’t stop everyone else from having WMD’s. We try to stop crazy & dangerous people from having WMD’s. Just as we try to stop crazy & dangerous people from acquiring guns.


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    @cystic:

    Another thing:
    Why is it that many of the same kinds of people who believe that America should invade other countries to prevent them from having weapons capable of killing many people from a distance believe that they should be allowed to own weapons capable of killing many people from a distance?

    Umm, we’re talking chemical and biological weapons here, possibly even nuclear. That presents an entirely more dangerous potential for human casualties than any firearm you can show me. They can’t even be compared with each other using the same line of reasoning.

    Besides, we don’t stop everyone else from having WMD’s. We try to stop crazy & dangerous people from having WMD’s. Just as we try to stop crazy & dangerous people from acquiring guns.

    in my mind they do exactly the same thing. They kill people (with automatic weapons - many people) from a distance. Perhaps the numbers are greater, but after the first person (child/woman/man) what is the difference? It’s alright for a couple of innocents, but not for many? There is considerable hypocracy imbedded in this line of thinking. Basically America can have things its way, and Americans can have things their way, irrespective of the realities of its situation.
    As for your definition of “crazy and dangerous” - good job!! You invaded a country with NO sign of WMD, and you completely ignored North Korea’s claims that “Hey - we have WMD!!”. In the meantime, France, Israel and Russia, as well as the Ukraine all have nuclear armaments. At the same time, it doesn’t appear that the crazy and dangerous people in the US have successfully been relieved of their firearms. I think we could start a pool - which city/occupation/school is the next mass murder of citizens going to happen in? I would win by saying New York, as its weekend killing rate with handguns compares nicely with Canada’s annual rate. Good job.


  • in my mind they do exactly the same thing. They kill people (with automatic weapons - many people) from a distance. Perhaps the numbers are greater, but after the first person (child/woman/man) what is the difference? It’s alright for a couple of innocents, but not for many? There is considerable hypocracy imbedded in this line of thinking. Basically America can have things its way, and Americans can have things their way, irrespective of the realities of its situation.

    and in my mind, and reality, you are wrong. they both kill people, but so do knives, so do fireworks, so do appliances, so do cars, so animals, so does pretty much anything depending on how you use it. so called “automatic weapons” are seperate and distinct from regualr firearms, that is, handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. you also need to clarify what you mean by automatic weapons. there is condsiderable hypocrisy embedded in every line of thinking, including your own. personall, yes, i think one innocent or a few inncoents dying is more acceptable than many. thats why when we go to war, we still use guns, but not chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. the power difference is much greater than you seem to think.

    As for your definition of “crazy and dangerous” - good job!! You invaded a country with NO sign of WMD, and you completely ignored North Korea’s claims that “Hey - we have WMD!!”.

    No, no no. wrong. There have been plenty of signs of WMD in Iraq, inculding the testimony’s of many Iraqi’s, and the simple fact that none have been found means jack shit. There are miles of tunnels under Iraq, there are hidden palaces, bunkers, and military instillations, plenty of locations where they could be hidden. not to mention, the US didnt go about the prewar phase very intelligently, basically telling saddam we are coming to find WMD’s, so if you have any, your in trouble. i wouldnt be surprised if he smuggled them out of the country.
    also, wrong wrong wrong about North Korea. they were not ignored. I cant speak for the president, but in my mind, Iraq was a more immediate threat. while clearly neither country is exactly “stable” i think NK is much less of a threat. Saddam is a ruthless dictator, who murders his own citizens without care, and invades his neighbors, which is even worse among Arab nations. Kim Jong Il (sp?) is smarter than that. he wants to stay in power, and while hes not exactly a stable leader, hes not going to do something foolish, like attack anyone with his nuclear weapons, knowing he would be ousted and killed. if saddam had the missile systems, there is no doubt in my mind he would launch them immediately at the US and maybe others. Im happy that Bush went after Iraq first, because they are more of a threat, and they should have gone down 12 years ago, this was a long time coming.

    In the meantime, France, Israel and Russia, as well as the Ukraine all have nuclear armaments

    Im not sure what you are trying to prove with this.

    as i look back on the post, i realized i didnt break it up very well, but o well.


  • not to mention, the US didnt go about the prewar phase very intelligently, basically telling saddam we are coming to find WMD’s, so if you have any, your in trouble. i wouldnt be surprised if he smuggled them out of the country.

    Or more probably destroyed them.


  • @TG:

    not to mention, the US didnt go about the prewar phase very intelligently, basically telling saddam we are coming to find WMD’s, so if you have any, your in trouble. i wouldnt be surprised if he smuggled them out of the country.

    Or more probably destroyed them.

    So you do think that he had weapons? Maybe I’m preaching to the choire here, I know CC doesn’t think he did, but I can’t remember your position TG. 😞


  • Ummm… last time I checked, I supported this goddamn war and I still do.


  • oops sorry, thought we were talking about gun control 🙂


  • Settle down…I was just checking. 😛


  • @Deviant:Scripter:

    Becuase a 5 minutes response time isn’t always your best defense against someone trying to harm your family. 😞

    @Deviant:Scripter:

    Just as we try to stop crazy & dangerous people from acquiring guns.

    Who else but crazy and dangerous people threaten mz family? If they don’t have guns, why do i have to have one? How do they threaten me when they don’t have guns?
    Why is a good solid door not enough for these five minutes?
    And of course: I can think of much better weapons to fight in non-open spaces where i have the advantage of knowing the terrain by heart….


  • @F_alk:

    If they don’t have guns, why do i have to have one?

    If they don’t have guns, then you’re probably not going to need one either.

    How do they threaten me when they don’t have guns?

    If they’re crazy and dangerous, they’ll think of a way.

    Why is a good solid door not enough for these five minutes?

    It would be, if you could be sure they were going through the door.

    And of course: I can think of much better weapons to fight in non-open spaces where i have the advantage of knowing the terrain by heart….

    I’m sure you can. But the real question is, is there any reason for crazy and dangerous people to be attacking you and your family in the middle of the night? If there is, then wouldn’t you want to take every reasonable precaution?


  • Exactly. and gun control will not stop gun crimes. it will probably lessen it, i agree, but if a criminal wants a gun, they will get it. illegally, and then you will not have one. think about it. im not saying your going to be attacked in your home or anything, but it could happen, and if a criminal is in your house, would you rather have a gun, or no weapon? if you use gun control totally, you will not have a weapon, but he might. instead, use it to make the background checks stronger and more effective to keep the wrong people from getting guns. if they still want one enough, they will get one illegally, but at least you could have a gun as well to level the playing field.


  • @Grigoriy:

    I’m sure you can. But the real question is, is there any reason for crazy and dangerous people to be attacking you and your family in the middle of the night? If there is, then wouldn’t you want to take every reasonable precaution?

    Reason for crazy people…. doe they need reason?
    And of cause i would take every reasonable precautions. Guns are not reasonable.


  • For those untrainned to use them, maybe. But I much feel safer with a gun in my home, having been a victim to house robbery.


  • a gun is absolutely reasonable. if someone comes onto my property uninvited, break and enter my home, and threaten my or my familys lives, i would want to have a gun to get rid of them


  • But would you not also feel safe with Police Armed with Assault weapons patrolling the streets aswell? i know i would, but then again if you are undesired i would not lol

  • Moderator

    @NatFedMike:

    But would you not also feel safe with Police Armed with Assault weapons patrolling the streets aswell? i know i would, but then again if you are undesired i would not lol

    hey mat, something to think over….the swiss have kept out of both WW2 and WW1 and have some of the world’s lowest crime and firearm accidents rates… yet for some reason they have a Assault Battle Rifle in nearly every home… 😉

  • Moderator

    in contrast a military state has the same police patrolling the streets with Assault Battle Rifles… they though seem to have coups and mass murder on every turn(especially the “turn on” of CNN) 😉


  • Everyone on this forum seem focussed on the frequent occurrance of home-break-ins where the family gets shot up all the time. If you could convince me that this is even a minor problem, then ok - i could see a greater need for firearms ownership by the general populace. At the same time, this is a rare occurrance outside of “hits” and gutless kids attacking old people for money (less than 1/year).
    Yes TG, knives and cars and fireworks kill people. I’ll submit this:
    Knives - the stabbings i’ve seen in the ER required very minor surgery. No one died, everyone walked away. The fact is, you have to be very aggressive, very close, and very determined in order to kill someone with a knife. I think that the odd time you hear of someone dying of 20-odd stab wounds is because it was so difficult to damage someone seriously in the first throw (yes, it’s possible . . . ). At the same time you may be very passive, very far away, and simply pull a trigger in order to kill someone with a gun. If the bullet is anywhere around the abdomen or chest - immediate surgery, and much much higher chances of serious complications and death. And you don’t even have to work very hard to cause this much trouble. A child can do it to an adult very easily. Ridiculous.
    As far as cars killing people - true, and far too often. I am all for banning drunk-drivers, limiting alcoholics from driving, and a series of other moves designed to limit the carnage. Fireworks - well, i don’t think that people not trained in their use should be permitted to use them either, but firecrackers and 8 year olds go together like pie and ice cream.
    As far as Switzerland and other countries go - it is inappropriate for American society to measure itself up against these.


  • Everyone on this forum seem focussed on the frequent occurrance of home-break-ins where the family gets shot up all the time. If you could convince me that this is even a minor problem, then ok - i could see a greater need for firearms ownership by the general populace.

    Not at all (at least not me) I dont say that everyone should have a gun, neither do I say everyone should be able to have a gun. Nor do I think that home break-ins and defending the family are the primary reasons to own a gun (as in someone breaking into your home, not using it to break into someone elses). I think that people should be able to own a gun if they so choose, providing they meet the requirements (such as a “clean” criminal record, primarily no violent crimes), are legally sane, at least 18 years old, etc. Im not trying to make guns available at the corner store, Im just trying to keep them from only being available in the trunk of some guys car. And while defending the family is one of my main arguments, Its not the only reason (people familiar with guns make better soldiers, and like it or not, having a better military is always a good thing), people familiar with guns are less likely to cause an accidental death (their own or someone elses) because they understand how to use it safely, and among other things, frankly, guns are cool 😉 .

    Yes TG, knives and cars and fireworks kill people.

    I said that, not TG

    Knives - the stabbings i’ve seen in the ER required very minor surgery. No one died, everyone walked away.

    Im glad no one died, but they could have. A knife is not a great weapon, but when someone is threatening you with a knife, thats not a very comforting thought. Its easier to get a knife away from someone without suffering any injury, but Id say the majority of people would be too frightened for themselves, or loved ones to act on that knowledge.

    The fact is, you have to be very aggressive, very close, and very determined in order to kill someone with a knife.

    Not necessarily. The average criminal yes, but there are always those criminals who are trained to use a knife lethally, and those guys are badass. More commonly though, it is relatively more work to kill someone with a knife, but you dont have to kill them, often the presence of the knife threatens the victims into inaction, so even if they sustain no injury, their home is burglarized, or whatever else the crime may be occurs.

    I think that the odd time you hear of someone dying of 20-odd stab wounds is because it was so difficult to damage someone seriously in the first throw (yes, it’s possible . . . ).

    Again, even if they dont die, they are still stabbed, thats an injury that could have been prevented if they had a gun. If a criminal threatens you with a knife, and you have a gun, whose going to back down?\

    At the same time you may be very passive, very far away, and simply pull a trigger in order to kill someone with a gun. If the bullet is anywhere around the abdomen or chest - immediate surgery, and much much higher chances of serious complications and death. And you don’t even have to work very hard to cause this much trouble. A child can do it to an adult very easily. Ridiculous.

    I dont know about actual statistics, but I would think the majority of people who commit crimes with guns are not serious criminals, and arent very smart. They are petty thugs most likely, and are probably almost shitting themselves as they try to rob you (weve all seen the type in movies), again, this is speculation. these people also probably have an itchy trigger finger, and will be very jumpy, and likely a poor shot. If you have a gun, and any skill, you could put him down before he becomes a serious threat. serious criminals (badass guys that are good at what they do) probably are more likely to have a knife, because they can be just as effective with it, and its not a gun for legal purposes. you could put them down as well. as for those with guns, you could save yourself there too, but in that case, its probably best to let them do their business unless they directly threaten you.
    On the same note, while they can kill you easier with a gun, same goes for you. You have a much better chance of immobilizing them with a gun than with a knife, bat, etc, or unarmed.

    As far as cars killing people - true, and far too often. I am all for banning drunk-drivers, limiting alcoholics from driving, and a series of other moves designed to limit the carnage.

    I agree with that as well, though I was just using it as an example, and if you want to continue that discussion, thats another thread.

    Fireworks - well, i don’t think that people not trained in their use should be permitted to use them either, but firecrackers and 8 year olds go together like pie and ice cream.

    Again, just an example showing how many things are dangerous.

    As far as Switzerland and other countries go - it is inappropriate for American society to measure itself up against these.

    and in my opinion, its innappropriate for a canadian to comment on, and try to dictate american policy and society.

    To sum up, a gun is a dangerous weapon. Yes. So is a knife, so are some people, so is just about anything in the right hands, and used the right way. (My uncle could kill you easier with a knife than a gun, and he has plenty of em. luckily, hes not a criminal). I am not against taking efforts to lessen the violent use of guns, but fully disarming the public is not the way to go. IMO, if you take away a citizens right to bear arms (a Constitutional right) than I will take away your right to freedom of speech, or freedom from unlawful searches and seizures. It is along the same lines, and I personally have less problem with the right people owning guns than with the wrong people having the right to freedom of speech, or freedom from unlawful searches. And if you want to pursue that, please do so in another thread, because I will ignore it in this one.


  • As far as Switzerland and other countries go - it is inappropriate for American society to measure itself up against these.

    I don’t think what we’re trying to say is that each American household should have automatic weapon, but that a country without heavy gun-control laws does not equate into more inherent lawlessness and crime than a country with heavy gun-control laws. I think the problem lies with the society (ideology and psychology) themselves. Let’s look at Japan (with a no-gun policy) for example. They have much lower crime rates compared to America. Black and white, isn’t it? Yet, how come Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself? Hmmm… 😉

  • Moderator

    As far as Switzerland and other countries go - it is inappropriate for American society to measure itself up against these.

    why not??? 😉


  • Not in the current state we are in. 😉

  • Moderator

    @TG:

    Not in the current state we are in. 😉

    ummm… the Swiss still exist

Suggested Topics

  • 10
  • 2
  • 6
  • 16
  • 13
  • 6
  • 2
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

56
Online

15.2k
Users

36.2k
Topics

1.5m
Posts