The "guns are awesome" thread

[comic boy]

I actually as offended by that, before I checked your profile. Then I noticed that your from a nation that's like a fricken' protectorate of ours. So, come on'...

*hands over Howitzer*
*Bang Bang!!!*

Nobody would ever guess you had next to no education

[Juan_Bottom]

Hahahaa
First, you still owe me an apology for calling me a liar(I'm educated enough in manners), secondly.... ARGENTINA! HA!

*BANGY-BANGY-BANG-Bang!!!!*

Anyway, PIMPDAVE, I wasn't speaking of the projects. I'm just saying that guns aren't exactly the problem, and I'm kinda going in the same direction as you on this. It's cultural. This country has worse problems than guns...

Bumped into this, I wonder how true it is...
http://www.kma-clan.com/article-topic0-page2.html

[black elk speaks]

maybe snorri is on to something about the big cities and poverty. i have a permit to carry and i do often. i believe in the individuals right to protect him/her self. if the individual believes that involves owning a firearm, then it becomes their responsibility to learn best practices and use them when owning and using a gun. in addition to my gun(s) i also maintain attendance bi-weekly in a self defense class. my intention is to never have to use my gun. i would much rather use unarmed self defense. Mustard is correct when he suggests the conflict of escalation. the objective should be prepared to out escalate your opponent before they get the drop on you. if an assailant has a knife, i would rather let them think that they have the upper hand by projecting fear and submission, and when they have confidence that they are in control, take that knife from them, take them to the ground and pin them there till authorities arrive. failure to comply can lead to a broken arm. but the gun is always there as a last resort.

[Thor Son of Olaf]

Look at the Swiss: the entire male population is required to undertake military training and to keep automatic rifles in their homes. And ammo is easily obtainble from any firing range, subsidized by the Swiss government. And yet, in spite of the prevailence of these dangerous firearms, the swiss rate of gun-related crime and accidents is rather low. Why?

Uhm....because they don't actually have any of the factors that lead to crime? They also have very tight community-control, as they live in small communities.

They're basically like those small villages in the US, except that the whole country is like that.

His premise is a little off, but he still makes a good point; guns are not the problem. Banning them really does address the deeper issue.

Answer: responcibility.

No no no. The answer is destroying all really big cities and eradicating the poor people.

I take it you do not believe that hard-working, upright men and women exist?

A few questions to the gun-ban lobby: how long does is take the police to respond to a call? How long does such a call take? Are such calls made in the moment or after the fact? How well covered are certain areas by police (are there hourly patrols)?

Shit if I know. I do know though that someone getting shot in this country is so rare that any instance of it is immediately on television or in the paper. Criminal bussiness is rarely dealt with by shooting eachother.

To the first one, I heard in the US, something like thrity minutes for rural areas, probably worse in the big cities in spite of the fact that the police forces have higher densities in the urban centers.

Also, again, most calls are short, but are made after the fact and it takes time to dial in and leave a message of any length to be of value to police.

In America, there are cultural as well as practical (to say nothing if the legal precidents, largely their 2nd Amendment)reasons why they still allow people to own firearms with minimal restrictions. This will probably never change, not in this or any soon to come life time.

[Juan_Bottom]

Hey, did anyone check out that link I posted?
Claims that for every 100 Americans that there are 90 guns....

[mrjd1863]

Hey, did anyone check out that link I posted?
Claims that for every 100 Americans that there are 90 guns....

i can account for......... .45, .44 revolver, SKS, AK-47, 12ga side by side ok so thats 5 for me right there....... i think i may own some one elses guns lol

[Juan_Bottom]

Sweet.... wish I could own a gun......
My grandfather probably has about thirty.... though none registered.... so does that count?

[black elk speaks]

Hey, did anyone check out that link I posted?
Claims that for every 100 Americans that there are 90 guns....

i can account for......... .45, .44 revolver, SKS, AK-47, 12ga side by side ok so thats 5 for me right there....... i think i may own some one elses guns lol

spot on. i own a .22 mag, 9 mm sig, 12 gauge, and a 30/30 lever action. thats 9 guns between just 2 people.

[black elk speaks]

Sweet.... wish I could own a gun......
My grandfather probably has about thirty.... though none registered.... so does that count?

depending on where you live, you don't have to register guns. I am a registered gun owner. i have never registered my guns.

[Juan_Bottom]

We are in Illinois.... so you're definitly supposed to register... But no one in my whole family owns a registered gun. Most of them are hand me downs though. Half my grandpas stock are six shooters.

Though, he does have a sweet elephant gun.....
Anyway, the link said that only about 12% of privately owned guns are registered...

[Snorri1234]

Answer: responcibility.

No no no. The answer is destroying all really big cities and eradicating the poor people.

I take it you do not believe that hard-working, upright men and women exist?

Oh I believe they do exist. It's just that the only way to make sure guns don't bring problems is getting rid of the areas where guns are a problem because having guns freely available in those areas increase crime.

If the crime-raising factors are eliminated and the community is tight-knit with plenty of social control over eachother (people paying attention to what other people do) then guns aren't a problem. But if none of that happens then having guns avialable is very bad.

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd383.htm

Teachers, bring your guns to class today!

[Grooveman2007]

Anyway, for reasons which have already been pointed out at great length in many other threads, your argument is wank. Almost all of the available evidence points towards precisely the opposite conclusion, as does basic common sense and rationality.

You're full of it.
Texas legalized the ability to carry conceled weapons, and crime rates did drop a small percentage(8?), and stay there. It's the first thing Gun lobbies point out.
Plus there are whole parts of our country where everyone does own a gun, and there is virtually no crime.

And when D.C. banned handguns the crime rates went up. Fancy that?

[Juan_Bottom]

Duh....
As I have already said, it's cultural. It depends on where you live. Mustards blanket statement was completely innaccurate.

[Snorri1234]

Duh....
As I have already said, it's cultural. It depends on where you live. Mustards blanket statement was completely innaccurate.

Yes it depends on where you live. And if you ban handguns from DC without banning it from the whole country it ofcourse opens the route for smugglers which are almost impossible to stop when they're in the same country. If you can just drive over the state or city-border and get a few guns and go back ofcourse the ban has no effect.

[pimpdave]

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... on-the-nra

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/ind ... with-a-gun

[Dancing Mustard]

As I have already said, it's cultural. It depends on where you live. Mustards blanket statement was completely innaccurate.

Actually, it wasn't. But it's good to see the gun-huggers leaping through their rectums in blind panic as they howl and stomp and desperately try to shout it down.

Anyway, to explain why you're wrong (again): My original proposition was a general statement which stated that it was true in most cases, your couple of isolated examples (a redneck state which managed to shave a small percentage off of its gun crime figures but continues to have gun-crime figures far higher than European nations; and a notoriously class-divided city that banned handgun ownership while leaving its doors wide-open to illegal proliferation) of the opposite happening, doesn't actually prove it wrong (it just reminds us that I was only making a general statement). Not only are your examples few and far between (and obviously flawed with only a little analysis) but because my proposition was a general one, it's not undermined by a small handful of contradictory cases, and your gleeful proclamations of your victory are both premature and unfortunately exaggerated.

[bbqpenguin]

i don't own a gun, and probably never will, however there are several reasons that i wish to have the right to
1. i may want to go hunting. innocent enough (well, to most people anyways)
2. for fun/sport, again innocent enough just shooting at targets and such
3. to protect myself and my loved ones
4. because otherwise it's just one more instance of the government telling me to do
5. because, if i see the need to, i would like the ability to violently overthrow my government. this would be difficult without a gun

[pimpdave]

i don't own a gun, and probably never will, however there are several reasons that i wish to have the right to
1. i may want to go hunting. innocent enough (well, to most people anyways)
2. for fun/sport, again innocent enough just shooting at targets and such
3. to protect myself and my loved ones
4. because otherwise it's just one more instance of the government telling me to do
5. because, if i see the need to, i would like the ability to violently overthrow my government. this would be difficult without a gun

All of those, except for number 5, don't require what I like to call "crazy guns", like assault rifles, or a .50 cal sniper rifle. Besides, it's not like you can beat the standing army's tanks and bazookas with an assault rifle anyway.

Point being, I think most anti-gun people aren't really speaking out against the Second Amendment, they are just speaking out FOR gun control. If you hunt, you don't need an AR-15 illegally modified to fire fully automatic. You don't need an Uzi to face a duck or a deer.

Yet the NRA is always trying to get more powerful guns into the hands of the people, and I for one can't jive with that. If we were still in a time when people had to load their muskets or rifles with a ramrod, the best and most highly trained gun users would only be getting off between 3-4 shots per minute. Compare that even with the firing power of a semi-automatic handgun, and I think it's a bit self evident that we need to adapt the law to the conditions of the time.

Too many people get killed in America from stray bullets, something that wouldn't happen nearly so frequently if it took 20 seconds to reload, aim and fire a weapon instead of the 20 seconds it takes to unload however many rounds are in the clip of the gun in question today. Plus, guns were so much more expensive to the individual consumer back then, it was uncommon to own more than one weapon.

Gun control is the best possible solution to the advancing technology, but too many people either confuse it with the all-or-nothing arguments about the 2nd Amendment or use those all-or-nothing arguments to justify having weapons there really is no reason to own for just sport.

[bbqpenguin]

i agree with you to a pretty heavy extent dave; i agree that assault rifles and the like certainly don't need to be passed around like stuffing at thinksgiving, though i do think the should be attainable through a rigorous and strict liscencing program. i still think that your basic rifle, handgun, etc. should be able to be held legally by those with a permit, though i wouldn't object perhaps to tougher permitting process or something like that

[Juan_Bottom]

Yet the NRA is always trying to get more powerful guns into the hands of the people, and I for one can't jive with that.

Full of crap. The NRA supports Congresses ban on many guns. In fact, the NRA is the reason that machine guns are illegal in many states.

All of those, except for number 5, don't require what I like to call "crazy guns", like assault rifles, or a .50 cal sniper rifle. Besides, it's not like you can beat the standing army's tanks and bazookas with an assault rifle anyway.

Are people off-ing each other with assualt rifles?

Actually, it wasn't. But it's good to see the gun-huggers leaping through their rectums in blind panic as they howl and stomp and desperately try to shout it down.

Anyway, to explain why you're wrong (again): My original proposition was a general statement which stated that it was true in most cases, your couple of isolated examples (a redneck state which managed to shave a small percentage off of its gun crime figures but continues to have gun-crime figures far higher than European nations; and a notoriously class-divided city that banned handgun ownership while leaving its doors wide-open to illegal proliferation) of the opposite happening, doesn't actually prove it wrong (it just reminds us that I was only making a general statement). Not only are your examples few and far between

Your examples are few and far between(literaly). I live here. We already rebuffed the figures earlier. Gun violence is only "commonplace" in the crappy cities. You all seem to have been propagandized into believeing that Americans use their guns to shut out the lights at night. That we all know someone who has been shot and killed. I've seen thousands of guns in my lifetime, and never once have I seen someone shot. You're a product of your enviroment, and so is any violence.

[Snorri1234]

Your examples are few and far between(literaly). I live here. We already rebuffed the figures earlier. Gun violence is only "commonplace" in the crappy cities.

...
That doesn't say anything against DM's statement though. The problem is that the only way to combat the rampant gun-crime in those cities is a state-wide ban.

All the other cities in the civilised world have less gun-violence because there are far fewer guns.

You're a product of your enviroment, and so is any violence.

Okay. There must be something you're totally not getting. Violence might be a product of your environment, but the way that violence is expressed is dependent on what is available. You have factors that lead to crime, and factors that escalate crime. Guns being available falls into that last catagory, along with faulty police, weak sentences and other things.

Guns don't cause violence, but when there is violence guns escalate it.




Sure if you turned into Switzerland there would be no problem, but you can't and therefore a ban on guns would be good. (Not that that will ever happen, but that's not the point.)

[Juan_Bottom]

That's not what I was saying.
I'm saying that just because you have guns, doesn't mean you have violence. It's not like America is descending into anarchy or anything, we're fine.

[Snorri1234]

That's not what I was saying.
I'm saying that just because you have guns, doesn't mean you have violence. It's not like America is descending into anarchy or anything, we're fine.

Well duh. But the opposite isn't what we're saying either.

[jonesthecurl]

We should have a thread about how most prople misunderstand the term "anarchy", and mistake it for nihilism.
Or you could ask me to air my views on the subject.