<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Dec 3 2003, 02:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Dec 3 2003, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but more knives, which is still an improvement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not an improvement when you can't defend yourself against a knife either. How are YOU, being robbed, in any better a position just because their weapon is different? Out of the frying pan and into the fire there- didn't help you much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure it helps. You can't really run away from a bullet, can you?
Still, let's assume you are being attacked by someone wielding a knife, and you are unarmed. You can still somewhat defend yourself. Even if you take damage to your arms from defending yourself, the chances of those wounds being fatal are tiny. Survive until help arrives, and somebody will patch you up. Nobody dies.
Compare that with a gunfight: how are you going to stop those bullets from hitting you in the chest or head? Gonne take it in the hands? Good luck.
<!--QuoteBegin--MrMojo+Dec 3 2003, 06:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MrMojo @ Dec 3 2003, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> * When citizens use guns for protection from criminals, the criminal is wounded in about 1 out of every 100 instances, and the criminal is killed in about 1 out of every 1000 instances. (3) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Interestingly, the site doesn't mention the number of those instances in which the citizen (or a citizen's family member) is wounded or killed.
I really don't get people's fascination with killing/not getting killed. If you were meant to die/become crippled/wounded, it WILL happen, no matter what you do.
What's the big hoopla with guns anyway? It's just a fad; people did fine with clubs/daggers/poison/water for a couple hundred years.
If you'd really wanted to kill someone you wouldn't use a gun, it leaves a bullet, casing, gun, blood, body, and all sorts of nasty evidence that you'd have to deal with. You'll be better off knocking the person out (preferably with a taser), followed by asphyxiation (of said subject), then burn the clothes/personal items and dump hydrochloric/sulfuric acid/lime over the body. Finish it all off by dumping whatever's left into the closest body of water (landfills work too). You can get all of the items you need pretty easily (easier than a gun that is) and there would be very little evidence, if any, leftover. But that's just me.
Burncycle - the "200" figure came from very rough maths. I figured that only 1/1000000 people would ever find themselves in a situation in which they would die if they did not have a firearm right on hand - and only a firearm (nothing else) could save them. I'm not sure how many yankee's there are - but I took a poke at around 200 million. Divided that by a million - came up with around 200. Not hard statistics there <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Anyway - be it saving the life of one person - or 24,000 people - its still worth it. Posters between then and now have brought up a few points - mainly rehashes that I'm not going to reply to. I think my point has been made - the bunker solution isnt perfect, it would require a lot of work and there would be mistakes, but anything's gotta be better then the current situation.
People still suggesting changes to the public mentality - but no-one has presented me with a theory as to how this should be changed. None of you even know if its possible.
Face it my American friends, you have rampant paranoia and stunning irresponsible use of firearms. Trevelyan is the classic case of paranoia. If the government goes crazy and starts trying to suppress the citizens - then you are already screwed guns or no guns. For the Govt to pull that stunt they will need the support of the military, and at least a majority of the population. Its laughable that you even consider it a possibility. You dont trust your police - you dont trust your own countrymen, and you sure as hell dont trust the government.
I useda wonder why you had "In God We Trust" written on your money - and now I know why. Because if you didnt have God, then you wouldn't trust anything, period.
Well - thats it for me and this thread. Until the next gun control thread - enjoy the holidays. Have a lovely christmas, be kind to your mother. But keep an eye on her - cause she might have a gun. Matter of fact, you should prolly get yourself one too - just in case she goes crazy and you need to defend yourself, and then there is always your little siste......
Definately agree with the above. Give someone a gun and they are going to get trigger happy. Guns are meant more for offense than defense. There is a reason you need a liscene to own one, but of course people decide they are above the law or the ones who do get them legally leave 'em lying around or just shoot any one who comes knocking at their door.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How can you say "feeling safe" when guns are around is not a good excuse to have them when your reason to NOT have them is because you "dont feel safe" when there are guns around? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No the issue isn't "feeling safe." It is being safe. Having a gun makes you feel safe, but you aren't safer. Not having a gun doesn't make you feel safe, but you are safer. Preferably, I'd rather BE safer than just feel safer.
In regards to the constitution argument, the most important clause in Constitution that our forefathers wrote in addition to the "firearms" amendment, there was also a clause that wrote that the constitution can and *should* be changed if necessary. I think this is the most important thing our forefathers wrote in the Constitution. Not only does it keep stupid laws like "Can't smuggle badgers across state borders except on Tuesdays" from existing when it no longer should, it also allows the laws as we know them to change. We'd be naive if we thought things should be as they were when our forefathers made laws. Many changes like removing slavery were done out of the good of America. Without being able to change the Constitution, it wouldn't be a Constitution but an obsolete piece of paper worthy of firewood. JUST BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULDN'T BE CHANGED!
I believe the burden of proof is on the gun supporters on why they should KEEP guns. I've heard that it makes you "feel safer," but I dare say this isn't a good enough argument. Give us all a good argument on justifying the deaths of thousands by firearms. I would like to hear it.
Burncycle, np. We're all adults here. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
step 1: Yes... yes.. give us your guns, you don’t know what you’re doing. Its for your own protection.
step 2: Ok well, things are still bad, so follow our curfew, no one out past dark. For your own protection!
step 3: Well, since things are so bad, give us your valuables, we'll keep em safe for you. You don’t want to lose them do you?!
step 4: We figured out who is causing all the trouble, if your skin is color A and you believe in God B get on the train. Its for the good of all the people around you. The train will take you to a place where you will be safe.
Step 5: Well we cant just keep sending you to these places, so why don’t you just get in that room over there and don’t try and hold your breath.
Step 6: Ohh I'm sorry, you wanted to resist? Well too bad you have nothing to do it with.
1935 - 1944
Satire I know, but not too far from the truth, if you want a more serious viewpoint refer to my earlier post in this topic.
So the cost of being prepared to defend yourself against a possible unjust government is 25,000 a year?
Obviously we need to try and reduce that number, if not eliminate it. Certainly Banning guns alltogether is one way (it'll at least reduce it probably). Stricter laws and enforcement of those laws is another way. Education and relief of the poor community is yet another way.
But I think that trying hard to take the guns out of the citizens hands, in fear of **** a criminal off, isn't really going to reduce gun crime to the point we want. It can only reduce the number of deaths by those who have guns and fail to defend themselves (again, mostly caused by those who've never seen a range or practiced in their life). You may live (or not) if the government forbids you to ever carry a gun under any circumstance, but they will still have robbed you with a gun- so while the death statistic may drop _somewhat_ crime with guns would still be rampant. Especially considering some gun crime isn't from robbers, it's from criminals who just want to pop a cap into a fellow criminal. They're out to kill, not to rob or let them go. And banning guns from the general populace would hardly scratch that aspect.
So how do we take the guns out of _criminals_ hands? Thats the only true way to reduce the number of deaths to near zero, and is a subject that few anti-gun advocates have touched upon. They are the whole point of the problem- Accomplishing that would make that number tiny- a few hundred country wide if that. Coupled with one of the other options given near the beginning would help even more.
Perhaps a really harsh punishment for criminals found with unlicenced guns? Death on the spot? Probably too harsh, but I GARUNTEE it'll reduce the number of criminals comitting crimes with guns, regardless of whether or not you take guns away from law abiding citizens or not. It'll fix yer problem.
Highway crashes claimed a total of 42,815 lives in 2002, up from 42,196 in 2001. ( stats from <a href='http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/healthmedical/a/aacrashdeaths.htm' target='_blank'>clicky</a> )
Is that cost worth driving? I dont see any major legislation trying to ban cars.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Dec 4 2003, 01:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Dec 4 2003, 01:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I useda wonder why you had "In God We Trust" written on your money - and now I know why. Because if you didnt have God, then you wouldn't trust anything, period. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If you're going to generalize, try to come a little closer to the truth. The US has lots of atheist or otherwise non-christian-god-follwing citizens. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the christians are disproportionately represented in government.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Highway crashes claimed a total of 42,815 lives in 2002, up from 42,196 in 2001. ( stats from clicky )
Is that cost worth driving? I dont see any major legislation trying to ban cars.
Education = Gun Control<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We've discussed this already if you would turn back a few pages.
Death is death. You can't put "death by automobiles" and "death by firearms" on a scale and figure out which needs more tending to. There is much more to these two things than just number of deaths. Besides, there is a big difference with an accidental death in a car accident vs shooting someone in the face. What's the difference? We could prevent the firearms. Whether this means educating the people or removing the guns entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to drive more carefully isn't going to necessarily work.
They already do something about cars: they remove the priviledge to drive one to people who can't drive safely. They don't remove cars completely because people needs it.
Same thing with guns. Some people needs it for collecting, hunting or target shooting. Why removing all guns whhen you can remove it from unfase persons only?
the problem is that some people consider owning a gun is a right, but it is a priviledge. But don't remove this priviledge to everybody. Remove it just to irresponsible persons who are intentionally or non-intentionally dangerous with their guns. (I'm talking about criminals and morons who lets their gun loaded on a table without supervision when there is a kid in the house)
<!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 4 2003, 05:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 4 2003, 05:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We could prevent the firearms. Whether this means educating the people or removing the guns entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to drive more carefully isn't going to necessarily work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We could prevent the car accidents. Whether this means further educating the people or removing the cars entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to shoot more carefully isn't going to necessarily work.
<!--QuoteBegin--Trevelyan+Dec 4 2003, 10:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Dec 4 2003, 10:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Hawkeye+Dec 4 2003, 05:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Dec 4 2003, 05:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We could prevent the firearms. Whether this means educating the people or removing the guns entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to drive more carefully isn't going to necessarily work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We could prevent the car accidents. Whether this means further educating the people or removing the cars entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to shoot more carefully isn't going to necessarily work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Is this a guns thread or a flame war? If it is a flame war, excuse me, because I think I'm the wrong thread. If you'll direct me to the adult threads...
thats a flame? hrmmm... i am simply showing your arguement goes both ways <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
hrmmm... well i was first going to post "That could go either way"
but then i thought this would point out what i was trying to say better. I dont understand why people look so deep into Internet forum posts... after all, we should be happy right? we all love and enjoy the GREATEST FREKIN GAME EVAR!!!! So i dont understand why you would consider that a ha ha laughing at you type post. Perhaps i was born a few decades to late? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
With basic machining tools (like the kind in many personal workshops) I could build a fully automatic rifle. In less than 24 hours.
Lets say we somehow ban all firearms. How long will it be until the Mafia sets up underground firearm factories? Nothing required to make a firearm is illegal (unless you banned metal lathes and drill presses) How would you stop this? Heck. The UK cannot stop organized crime from smuggling cars past customs and it is an island. How are you going to stop something the size of a wallet?
Once you drive a product to the black market, you lose all control of it.
Comments
Not an improvement when you can't defend yourself against a knife either. How are YOU, being robbed, in any better a position just because their weapon is different? Out of the frying pan and into the fire there- didn't help you much. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure it helps. You can't really run away from a bullet, can you?
Still, let's assume you are being attacked by someone wielding a knife, and you are unarmed. You can still somewhat defend yourself. Even if you take damage to your arms from defending yourself, the chances of those wounds being fatal are tiny. Survive until help arrives, and somebody will patch you up. Nobody dies.
Compare that with a gunfight: how are you going to stop those bullets from hitting you in the chest or head? Gonne take it in the hands? Good luck.
Interestingly, the site doesn't mention the number of those instances in which the citizen (or a citizen's family member) is wounded or killed.
What's the big hoopla with guns anyway? It's just a fad; people did fine with clubs/daggers/poison/water for a couple hundred years.
If you'd really wanted to kill someone you wouldn't use a gun, it leaves a bullet, casing, gun, blood, body, and all sorts of nasty evidence that you'd have to deal with. You'll be better off knocking the person out (preferably with a taser), followed by asphyxiation (of said subject), then burn the clothes/personal items and dump hydrochloric/sulfuric acid/lime over the body. Finish it all off by dumping whatever's left into the closest body of water (landfills work too). You can get all of the items you need pretty easily (easier than a gun that is) and there would be very little evidence, if any, leftover. But that's just me.
Anyway - be it saving the life of one person - or 24,000 people - its still worth it. Posters between then and now have brought up a few points - mainly rehashes that I'm not going to reply to. I think my point has been made - the bunker solution isnt perfect, it would require a lot of work and there would be mistakes, but anything's gotta be better then the current situation.
People still suggesting changes to the public mentality - but no-one has presented me with a theory as to how this should be changed. None of you even know if its possible.
Face it my American friends, you have rampant paranoia and stunning irresponsible use of firearms. Trevelyan is the classic case of paranoia. If the government goes crazy and starts trying to suppress the citizens - then you are already screwed guns or no guns. For the Govt to pull that stunt they will need the support of the military, and at least a majority of the population. Its laughable that you even consider it a possibility. You dont trust your police - you dont trust your own countrymen, and you sure as hell dont trust the government.
I useda wonder why you had "In God We Trust" written on your money - and now I know why. Because if you didnt have God, then you wouldn't trust anything, period.
Well - thats it for me and this thread. Until the next gun control thread - enjoy the holidays. Have a lovely christmas, be kind to your mother. But keep an eye on her - cause she might have a gun. Matter of fact, you should prolly get yourself one too - just in case she goes crazy and you need to defend yourself, and then there is always your little siste......
No the issue isn't "feeling safe." It is being safe. Having a gun makes you feel safe, but you aren't safer. Not having a gun doesn't make you feel safe, but you are safer. Preferably, I'd rather BE safer than just feel safer.
In regards to the constitution argument, the most important clause in Constitution that our forefathers wrote in addition to the "firearms" amendment, there was also a clause that wrote that the constitution can and *should* be changed if necessary. I think this is the most important thing our forefathers wrote in the Constitution. Not only does it keep stupid laws like "Can't smuggle badgers across state borders except on Tuesdays" from existing when it no longer should, it also allows the laws as we know them to change. We'd be naive if we thought things should be as they were when our forefathers made laws. Many changes like removing slavery were done out of the good of America. Without being able to change the Constitution, it wouldn't be a Constitution but an obsolete piece of paper worthy of firewood. JUST BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN THE CONSTITUTION DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULDN'T BE CHANGED!
I believe the burden of proof is on the gun supporters on why they should KEEP guns. I've heard that it makes you "feel safer," but I dare say this isn't a good enough argument. Give us all a good argument on justifying the deaths of thousands by firearms. I would like to hear it.
Burncycle, np. We're all adults here. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
step 2: Ok well, things are still bad, so follow our curfew, no one out past dark. For your own protection!
step 3: Well, since things are so bad, give us your valuables, we'll keep em safe for you. You don’t want to lose them do you?!
step 4: We figured out who is causing all the trouble, if your skin is color A and you believe in God B get on the train. Its for the good of all the people around you. The train will take you to a place where you will be safe.
Step 5: Well we cant just keep sending you to these places, so why don’t you just get in that room over there and don’t try and hold your breath.
Step 6: Ohh I'm sorry, you wanted to resist? Well too bad you have nothing to do it with.
1935 - 1944
Satire I know, but not too far from the truth, if you want a more serious viewpoint refer to my earlier post in this topic.
Obviously we need to try and reduce that number, if not eliminate it.
Certainly Banning guns alltogether is one way (it'll at least reduce it probably).
Stricter laws and enforcement of those laws is another way.
Education and relief of the poor community is yet another way.
But I think that trying hard to take the guns out of the citizens hands, in fear of **** a criminal off, isn't really going to reduce gun crime to the point we want. It can only reduce the number of deaths by those who have guns and fail to defend themselves (again, mostly caused by those who've never seen a range or practiced in their life).
You may live (or not) if the government forbids you to ever carry a gun under any circumstance, but they will still have robbed you with a gun- so while the death statistic may drop _somewhat_ crime with guns would still be rampant. Especially considering some gun crime isn't from robbers, it's from criminals who just want to pop a cap into a fellow criminal. They're out to kill, not to rob or let them go. And banning guns from the general populace would hardly scratch that aspect.
So how do we take the guns out of _criminals_ hands? Thats the only true way to reduce the number of deaths to near zero, and is a subject that few anti-gun advocates have touched upon. They are the whole point of the problem- Accomplishing that would make that number tiny- a few hundred country wide if that. Coupled with one of the other options given near the beginning would help even more.
Perhaps a really harsh punishment for criminals found with unlicenced guns? Death on the spot? Probably too harsh, but I GARUNTEE it'll reduce the number of criminals comitting crimes with guns, regardless of whether or not you take guns away from law abiding citizens or not. It'll fix yer problem.
Is that cost worth driving? I dont see any major legislation trying to ban cars.
Education = Gun Control
Owch...
If you're going to generalize, try to come a little closer to the truth. The US has lots of atheist or otherwise non-christian-god-follwing citizens. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the christians are disproportionately represented in government.
Is that cost worth driving? I dont see any major legislation trying to ban cars.
Education = Gun Control<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've discussed this already if you would turn back a few pages.
Death is death. You can't put "death by automobiles" and "death by firearms" on a scale and figure out which needs more tending to. There is much more to these two things than just number of deaths. Besides, there is a big difference with an accidental death in a car accident vs shooting someone in the face. What's the difference? We could prevent the firearms. Whether this means educating the people or removing the guns entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to drive more carefully isn't going to necessarily work.
Same thing with guns. Some people needs it for collecting, hunting or target shooting. Why removing all guns whhen you can remove it from unfase persons only?
the problem is that some people consider owning a gun is a right, but it is a priviledge. But don't remove this priviledge to everybody. Remove it just to irresponsible persons who are intentionally or non-intentionally dangerous with their guns. (I'm talking about criminals and morons who lets their gun loaded on a table without supervision when there is a kid in the house)
We could prevent the car accidents. Whether this means further educating the people or removing the cars entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to shoot more carefully isn't going to necessarily work.
We could prevent the car accidents. Whether this means further educating the people or removing the cars entirely, something CAN be done, whereas telling people to shoot more carefully isn't going to necessarily work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is this a guns thread or a flame war? If it is a flame war, excuse me, because I think I'm the wrong thread. If you'll direct me to the adult threads...
but then i thought this would point out what i was trying to say better. I dont understand why people look so deep into Internet forum posts... after all, we should be happy right? we all love and enjoy the GREATEST FREKIN GAME EVAR!!!! So i dont understand why you would consider that a ha ha laughing at you type post. Perhaps i was born a few decades to late? <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
In less than 24 hours.
Lets say we somehow ban all firearms. How long will it be until the Mafia sets up underground firearm factories? Nothing required to make a firearm is illegal (unless you banned metal lathes and drill presses) How would you stop this? Heck. The UK cannot stop organized crime from smuggling cars past customs and it is an island. How are you going to stop something the size of a wallet?
Once you drive a product to the black market, you lose all control of it.