Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Gun control in the US

Posted May 13, '13 at 3:37am

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

Even if it's broken, it still works for 'armed' robbery, as the threat is still perceived. If everyone followed partydevil's plan, it wouldn't even have to be loaded.


hey hey, can you tell what my plan was? ive been posting in this topic for a while on all different kinds of subjects. but havn't followed it anymore since the other guy said it really was to hard for him to acknowledges it all can be printed in the not so far future.

however, of course does it still work in a robbery when it is a black painted water pistol. it is the thread such object applies that is enough.
(also the reason why real looking toy guns are banned here. (and no we do not have a outright ban on guns, it's just very hard to get one legally))
 

Posted May 13, '13 at 4:08am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,436 posts

can you tell what my plan was?

I didn't mean "plan" as in "x, y, and z should be done for gun control", but your procedure for complying with robbers. Sorry for not being clearer.
 

Posted May 13, '13 at 4:41am

Kasic

Kasic

5,734 posts

I'm not saying 'do nothing', but regulations alone will never erradicate the problem entirely.


Of course not. As nicho said above, measures all around need to be taken. Just putting a law into effect does nothing if it's not enforced and if other areas aren't likewise addressed.

How strict?


At the very least, some sort of firearms/safety training, along with a background check. As for what said check would look for, any sort of criminal record, history of anger issues or serious mental illnesses, which could then be investigated further if present.

Not any and everyone should have a gun. Responsibility is a key part, and unfortunately a great many people are irresponsible, immature, impulsive, and irrational.

If someone wants to own a potentially lethal weapon for any given reason, they should first have to prove they know what's what about it, how to keep it away from children/safe storage, when to use it and what to use it for. A handgun in the side-drawer which you keep loaded is -not- okay, unless perhaps you live alone. There are other methods for self defense which are non-lethal which work perfectly well.

Can you give me any good reason why we should let any and everyone have firearms in their houses? Without any checks over who? The freedom argument is bull**** when thousands are dying every year from morons misusing guns or their vast prevalence making it easy for criminals to attain them.
 

Posted May 13, '13 at 4:50am

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

9,436 posts

Can you give me any good reason why we should let any and everyone have firearms in their houses? Without any checks over who?

Locally it may work as a deterrant. Knowing that breaking into any house in the town could easily mean a hole in your head is a bit of a downer. Knowing that you're 100% able to waltz in and get what you want without resistance is attractive.
 

Posted May 13, '13 at 8:09am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,239 posts

Knight

Just thought I'd blow your whale crap out of the water


Time to blow your own crap out of the water.

Stats from WHO2012 and UNODC 2012
Total UK deaths by firearms per 100,000, 0.04

In the US? 3.20


The often quoted statistic of 2k violent crimes per 100,000 in the UK, versus that of 466 in the US is one of unbelievable facade and lying. Why? What most people don't know is that, is that the definitions for âviolent crimeâ are very different in the US and Britain. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports defines a "violent crime" as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all "crimes against the person," including simple assaults, all robberies, and all "sexual offenses," as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and "forcible rapes."

When you look at how this changes the meaning of violent crime, it becomes clear how misleading it is to compare rates of violent crime in the US and the UK. You're simply comparing two different sets of crimes. In 2009/10, for instance (annual data is from September to September), British police recorded 871,712 crimes against persons, 54,509 sexual offenses, and 75,101 robberies in England and Wales. Based on the 2010 population of 55.6 million, this gives a staggeringly high violent crime rate of 1,797 offenses per 100,00 people.

But of the 871,000 crimes against the person, less than half (401,000) involved any actual injury. The remainder were mostly crimes like simple assault without injury, harassment, 'possession of an article with a blade or point,' and causing 'public fear, alarm, or distress.' And of the 54,000 sexual offenses, only a quarter (15,000) were rapes. This makes it abundantly clear that the naive comparison of crime rates either wildly overstates the amount of violence in the UK or wildly understates it in the US.

The lower rates of crime and violent gun homicide in France, Germany, Italy and Spain coincide somehow, for perhaps god knows what reason, with stricter and more restraining gun laws than America.

Perhaps if statistics were looked at with more critical analysis, one would find a deeper meaning underneath a thin veneer of poor lies.
 

Posted May 14, '13 at 11:23pm

JeffK3

JeffK3

642 posts

All these gun regulations are stupid. You think that taking away the right to won firearms is going to help the people? DO YOU really think that will stop psycopaths from getting hands on guns? If we can't own guns how are we going to protect ourselves if lets say pscyopath McGee broke into your house with an assault weapon. How would you protect yourself? It even says in the constitution's 2nd amendment, and I quote,

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
.
So the government cannot interfer with our ability to own firearms.

Also, you know what tyrannical dictators and Tyrannical states take away first? Firearms.

Think about this next time you say the government should take away guns.
 

Posted May 14, '13 at 11:35pm

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,239 posts

Knight

All these gun regulations are stupid. You think that taking away the right to won firearms is going to help the people? DO YOU really think that will stop psycopaths from getting hands on guns? If we can't own guns how are we going to protect ourselves if lets say pscyopath McGee broke into your house with an assault weapon. How would you protect yourself? It even says in the constitution's 2nd amendment, and I quote,


Yes it will. Dozens of nations have proven that for the last century or so. Gun control does not only entail stricter gun background checks, banning of certain guns, or stricter inter-state control that will affect legal buyers, sufficient steps have to be undertaken to stamp out illegal sources of guns. Otherwise, that'll be a self-harming policy.

How would I protect myself? In such a case, the number of assault weapons would be drastically reduced and prevented from falling into the hands of psychopaths.

Also, you know what tyrannical dictators and Tyrannical states take away first? Firearms.


I'm very sure that your small arms would be effective against the world's most powerful military. And no, I disagree. Look at Iraq, where guns were legal under Saddam.

So the government cannot interfer with our ability to own firearms.


The Constitution is not a magical slab of stone with a list of Commandments. It is a list of laws that was considered prevalent, necessary, just for it's time. Fast forward 200 years, times have changed wildly. Guns have evolved, society has metamorphosed. If the whole Constitution is merely taken as infallible, you live in an archaic society with archaic rules. It is bound up in a romantic mythology, which though well deserved for time immortal, should not grant it the status of ''worship'' and regarded as untouchable. If a constitution no longer meets the exigencies of a society's "evolving standard of decency", and the people wish to amend or replace the document, there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the manner which was envisioned by the drafters: through the amendment process.
 

Posted May 15, '13 at 6:33am

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

How strict?

i would say that no1 needs a gun unless they can give a good reason why they need a gun. (beside the background checks and training befor actually getting one.) and also allot of bureaucracy to stop people from trying to get one when they do not need one.
+ these checks and trainings should be repeated once in the 2 year or so.
 

Posted May 15, '13 at 11:32am

JeffK3

JeffK3

642 posts

The Constitution is not a magical slab of stone with a list of Commandments. It is a list of laws that was considered prevalent,


For the laws of a country the constitution is supposed to be such a thing. A country couldn't be the same it just throws out it's constitution. So your saying if I was the prime minister of Great Britain I could just be like "Out with the old laws, its my way now"? New laws cannot be in violations of a country's constitution.

I'm very sure that your small arms would be effective against the world's most powerful military. And no, I disagree. Look at Iraq, where guns were legal under Saddam.


Did you ever consider that the video of Saddam allowing guns to be purchased wasn't staged? Also in North Korea you can't exactly own guns,and if you do your in the military. Also what was something Hitler and Stalin did? They took away guns. Also if the U.S. was invaded by ground forces they would have a hell of a time trying to conquer. There are ~88 people who own guns out of every 100 people. All things aside a hunting rifle is essentially a sniper rifle that is legal.

In such a case, the number of assault weapons would be drastically reduced and prevented from falling into the hands of psychopaths.


If you didn't realize this, bad people don't play by the rules. Syria used chemical weapons agaisnt their own people. North Korea broke all the restrictions to what the UN said they couldn't do. So what makes you think it is 100% possible that someone could not find an illegal means to obtain one of these weapons.
 

Posted May 15, '13 at 12:26pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,119 posts

For the laws of a country the constitution is supposed to be such a thing. A country couldn't be the same it just throws out it's constitution. So your saying if I was the prime minister of Great Britain I could just be like "Out with the old laws, its my way now"? New laws cannot be in violations of a country's constitution.

a constitution is not holy scripture.
as the world changes, ethics and morals changes. and so should a constitution be open for changes.
if the constitution isn't open for changes then your laws are walking behind on reality after some time.
and indeed new laws can't be made when they violate the constitution. thats why the constitution has to be updated from time to time.

Syria used chemical weapons agaisnt their own people.

proof it... if they are being used, they can just aswell have been used by the "rebels".

North Korea broke all the restrictions to what the UN said they couldn't do.

ever thought of the option that NK just doesn't care about the UN?
 
Reply to Gun control in the US

You must be logged in to post a reply!