Bought a Russian Saiga AK47.

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

But how can you seriously argue that taking guns completely away from the general population is going to lower crime?

If you haven't read my previous posts, please go back and read them...I think you'll find the answer to your question somewhere within. Even if you have to read between the lines a little bit, I believe I have explained my stance quite clearly--with links, logic, evidence, hypothetical (but very possible) situations and actual situations.

In response, I have received--at best--circumstantial or sketchy evidence or NRA rhetoric as to why everybody having guns would be so much better that everybody NOT having guns in terms of preserving lives. I believe any Tom, Dick or Harry being allowed to own a firearm is a detriment to any society. I always thought it was a pretty intuitive situation--especially considering that, after six pages of debate, I have not found one logical, realistic or empirical argument as to why the opposite would be better.

I also find it quite telling that the only person in this debate who had sack enough to touch on my two "Columbine" comments was Goose. Tell me, Hawk, how could the presence of guns made Columbine a better situation? Maybe we arm all the teachers? How's about arming all the students? How's about having armed guards at every entrance and exit? Now there's an America I want my kids growing up in! There's a phrase, "slippery slope", that you might want to consider before typing out your responses.

In any event, I think Andy put it best when he said "Neither of us will change the other's opinion. So be it." I can't repeat myself any more than I already have. If I can't sway you after all I've written here, I will never sway you. There's no point in me continuing to try.

[luke.w]

Originally Posted by Firehawk

But both those cases you mentioned seeing on the news may have been avoided if everyone had a gun...i.e., if you know I have a gun, you're less apt to draw yours on me for fear of your own life.

Would some idiot be waiving a gun around and shooting it at people on the highway if he knew everyone on the highway had their own gun? I doubt it.

I've agreed with this thinking before, however in those cases, gangbangers ALL carry and they ALL know it, thats why it's called a "drive-by" so the other guys can't shoot back, always the innocent get hit with strays here.

also ALL these guys no once they do such things retaliation is expected, firehawk gangbangers,snipers are idiots, what do you expect?

[Khaine]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

I also find it quite telling that the only person in this debate who had sack enough to touch on my two "Columbine" comments was Goose. Tell me, Hawk, how could the presence of guns made Columbine a better situation? Maybe we arm all the teachers? How's about arming all the students? There's a phrase, "slippery slope", that you might want to consider before typing out your responses.

It could be compared with the Virigina Tech shooting as well... And yes, in my opinion, teachers being allowed to carry on school premises would make it safer... Making guns ILlegal on campus ensures only the CRIMINALS are packing, leaving everybody else defenseless...

Now, I agree that a society COMPLETELY free of guns is preferable to any alternative... This is simple, because gun deaths would then never occur... Seeing, however, as how the number of firearms in the US rivals the number of people, this an impossibility... You might as well discuss a society without greed, or anger or hate... Or try banning cigarettes or alcohol... Life would be better without these things, but it's not going to happen...

I just don't see where you're going with this... You don't like people carrying guns... Alright... Taking into consideration the sheer number of firearms within the US and how easily attainable they are through illegal channels, would you rather only law enforcement and criminals carry...? Effectively ensuring regular citizens are alway defenseless against either group...?

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by Khaine

It could be compared with the Virigina Tech shooting as well... And yes, in my opinion, teachers being allowed to carry on school premises would make it safer... Making guns ILlegal on campus ensures only the CRIMINALS are packing, leaving everybody else defenseless...

Now, I agree that a society COMPLETELY free of guns is preferable to any alternative... This is simple, because gun deaths would then never occur... Seeing, however, as how the number of firearms in the US rivals the number of people, this an impossibility... You might as well discuss a society without greed, or anger or hate... Or try banning cigarettes or alcohol... Life would be better without these things, but it's not going to happen...

I just don't see where you're going with this... You don't like people carrying guns... Alright... Taking into consideration the sheer number of firearms within the US and how easily attainable they are through illegal channels, would you rather only law enforcement and criminals carry...? Effectively ensuring regular citizens are alway defenseless against either group...?

Thanks for proving my point of the "slippery slope", Khaine. Why stop at high schools and universities? Why not have armed guards in elementary and pre-schools? How about in day cares? Why not in bakeries, Wal-Marts and post offices? Where does it end? Can it ever end? That, in my opinion, is a scarier scenario than any alternative.

Furthermore, getting rid of all guns is a definite possibility. Could it happen overnight? No way. It would take years, if not decades to clean that up; but, given enough time and the right incentive$$, I'm sure all guns would get off the streets.

Also, once again, I ask you to consider the situations in other countries. Look up the statistics in the UK, where neither citizens NOR the police carry guns. How many gun homicides do they per year? A half a dozen? A dozen? Now compare that to how many there are in this country? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Who knows? So what's the main difference with gun ownership in the US and the UK? A dollar to the first person who answers correctly (and to answer correctly, see the second sentence of this paragraph)!

Now I know examining other countries and how things work there is an unpopular stance on this board--after all, "this is the good 'ol U.S. of A, and we don't need no other countries tellin' us what to do and we're not subjects" and all that nonsense...but c'mon. I have evidence right here in front of you showing you how gun control can work and will work. But I'm sure you'll try to refute that as well.

[LiftGirl]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

Furthermore, getting rid of all guns is a definite possibility. Could it happen overnight? No way. It would take years, if not decades to clean that up; but, given enough time and the right incentive$$, I'm sure all guns would get off the streets.

Kinda like we've managed to get all the cocaine and heroin off the streets?

Originally Posted by dandjdad

Also, once again, I ask you to consider the situations in other countries. Look up the statistics in the UK, where neither citizens NOR the police carry guns. How many gun homicides do they per year? A half a dozen? A dozen? Now compare that to how many there are in this country? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Who knows? So what's the main difference with gun ownership in the US and the UK? A dollar to the first person who answers correctly (and to answer correctly, see the second sentence of this paragraph)!

Now I know examining other countries and how things work there is an unpopular stance on this board--after all, "this is the good 'ol U.S. of A, and we don't need no other countries tellin' us what to do and we're not subjects" and all that nonsense...but c'mon. I have evidence right here in front of you showing you how gun control can work and will work. But I'm sure you'll try to refute that as well.

But how many people are killed in the UK by other methods such as stabbing, etc. Someone that really wants to kill somebody will always find a way. So let's ban all the knives to prevent stabbings. You don't really need it; you can just buy everything presliced.

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by LiftGirl

Kinda like we've managed to get all the cocaine and heroin off the streets?

Well, getting all illegal drugs off the streets has really been kind of a half-assed attempt, hasn't it? Not to say that "trying" to get all guns off the streets wouldn't be any less of a half-assed attempt, though. The NRA lobby is too strong, and they'd never allow such a thing to happen.

Originally Posted by LiftGirl

But how many people are killed in the UK by other methods such as stabbing, etc. Someone that really wants to kill somebody will always find a way. So let's ban all the knives to prevent stabbings. You don't really need it; you can just buy everything presliced.

Are you for real? Do you really need me to answer this question for you, or are you just being a wise guy? Ohhh-kaaaayy, I'll answer...

There aren't even a FRACTION of all the homicides COMBINED in the UK as there are GUN HOMICIDES in the US (see the "International Comparison" section, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio...ates#Homicides for further evidence). And--to me at least--it makes perfect sense; after all, guns are probably the easiest, most impersonal way to commit a homicide. Think about it...you can be far enough away so you never have to see your victim's face. Not only is it much harder physically to kill somebody in hand-to-hand with a knife, but you actually have to get close to and touch the person. I would think somebody wouldn't have to give so much as a second thought were he or she to plan a murder using a gun, whereas they'd have to think about it long and hard were they to commit a homicide with a knife.

[Khaine]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

Thanks for proving my point of the "slippery slope", Khaine. Why stop at high schools and universities? Why not have armed guards in elementary and pre-schools? How about in day cares? Why not in bakeries, Wal-Marts and post offices? Where does it end? Can it ever end? That, in my opinion, is a scarier scenario than any alternative.

Right, you can't see the the difference between allowing guns on site, and placing 'armed guards' (WHAT! WHERE did I mention anything of the sort?) at pre-schools? Honestly? Besides, I'm fairly certain a wal-mart employee can carry if he has the appropriate permit... Again, the ridiculous 'armed guards' "argument" is taking it to an illogical extreme, much like the rest of your points... We're talking about NOT denying civilians the means to protect themselves by making sure ONLY criminals are carrying weapons...

Originally Posted by dandjad

Furthermore, getting rid of all guns is a definite possibility. Could it happen overnight? No way. It would take years, if not decades to clean that up; but, given enough time and the right incentive$$, I'm sure all guns would get off the streets.

Also, once again, I ask you to consider the situations in other countries. Look up the statistics in the UK, where neither citizens NOR the police carry guns. How many gun homicides do they per year? A half a dozen? A dozen? Now compare that to how many there are in this country? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Who knows? So what's the main difference with gun ownership in the US and the UK? A dollar to the first person who answers correctly (and to answer correctly, see the second sentence of this paragraph)!

Now I know examining other countries and how things work there is an unpopular stance on this board--after all, "this is the good 'ol U.S. of A, and we don't need no other countries tellin' us what to do and we're not subjects" and all that nonsense...but c'mon. I have evidence right here in front of you showing you how gun control can work and will work. But I'm sure you'll try to refute that as well.

What makes you think I'm american...?

Clearly, you have no EVIDENCE... Finding examples of countries where gun deaths are lower than in the US is the simplest of exercises, but you don't WANT to look at reasons, because your mind is made up... Not that you actually provided any stats, but rather a ludicrously underestimated number (half a dozen gun deaths in the UK? get real) and a similarly unresearched number (who knows? the least you could do is actually look up these numbers before you make your statements)...

Now, in MY country, like in the UK, not civilians nor police (except task forces) are allowed to carry guns on their person, but you can own them, provided you have the right certifications... Now, we have about 1,5% of the population the US does, and not even 0,1% of the number of registered guns, so direct number comparisons would be useless... However, illegal guns are abound... A couple years back, the government issued a firearm amnesty, meaning people could hand in their unregistered weapons at their local police office, and no questions would be asked... This to get the unregistered weapons off the streets... They got next to nothing... Not because the guns aren't there, but because they're kept by criminals... Right now, this issue is a priority, and is making some headway, but not in comparison with the money they're throwing at it... With all the guns present in the US, compared to here, I see no way it can realistically be done there...

Just to sum up, cus that **** was kinda long-winded, I see the NUMBER of guns present in the country as the main threat, NOT the right to bear arms...

[dandjdad]

Originally Posted by Khaine

Right, you can't see the the difference between allowing guns on site, and placing 'armed guards' (WHAT! WHERE did I mention anything of the sort?) at pre-schools? Honestly? Besides, I'm fairly certain a wal-mart employee can carry if he has the appropriate permit... Again, the ridiculous 'armed guards' "argument" is taking it to an illogical extreme, much like the rest of your points... We're talking about NOT denying civilians the means to protect themselves by making sure ONLY criminals are carrying weapons...



What makes you think I'm american...?

Clearly, you have no EVIDENCE... Finding examples of countries where gun deaths are lower than in the US is the simplest of exercises, but you don't WANT to look at reasons, because your mind is made up... Not that you actually provided any stats, but rather a ludicrously underestimated number (half a dozen gun deaths in the UK? get real) and a similarly unresearched number (who knows? the least you could do is actually look up these numbers before you make your statements)...

Now, in MY country, like in the UK, not civilians nor police (except task forces) are allowed to carry guns on their person, but you can own them, provided you have the right certifications... Now, we have about 1,5% of the population the US does, and not even 0,1% of the number of registered guns, so direct number comparisons would be useless... However, illegal guns are abound... A couple years back, the government issued a firearm amnesty, meaning people could hand in their unregistered weapons at their local police office, and no questions would be asked... This to get the unregistered weapons off the streets... They got next to nothing... Not because the guns aren't there, but because they're kept by criminals... Right now, this issue is a priority, and is making some headway, but not in comparison with the money they're throwing at it... With all the guns present in the US, compared to here, I see no way it can realistically be done there...

Just to sum up, cus that **** was kinda long-winded, I see the NUMBER of guns present in the country as the main threat, NOT the right to bear arms...

I never meant to imply you were American...if you noticed, that post was in reference to this thread as a whole, because other posters who are American made statements like the one I bolded. I knew you weren't an American--or at least assumed as much--because a previous post of yours indicated as such. Also, your profile indicated you lived in Norway. I've known that since the first time you posted in this thread, so no surprise there. Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.

As far as me not having evidence, it seems to me that I am the only person on this thread interested in providing anything even resemlbling evidence. Bu everything that I do provide with backup articles and statistics is questioned even more. It's an exhausting exercise--especially when it's not reciprocated on the counter argument side. And that's the real irony; I see nothing else on here besides rhetoric and idealology from the people doing the questioning. On top of that, every other piece of so-called "backup information" that has been provided by everybody else has been quite easily refuted by me after maybe thirty seconds worth of research.

Now, in regards to my link provided in my response to LiftGirl's post, admittedly that is high level evidence--but it is evidence nonetheless, which is more than I can say anybody here chose to provide up until your last post (although, Khaine, for the record you did provide that information without any reference materials or research links). If I chose to waste more time on this thread than I already have, I'm positive I could come up with even more hard and fast statistical evidence to further prove my point. But, as I've said numerous times before, I've already wasted enough time on this thread.

So I'll tell you what, Khaine, only because I'm sick of beating my head against the same brick wall...I'll make a deal with you. Seeing you seem not to believe any of the info I've provided, prove me wrong. Why don't you do a search for evidence that refutes anything I've written (besides the "dozen gun deaths"--that was meant to be a bit of an exaggeration, but apparently wasn't taken that way)? Try to find anything at all. I'll gladly admit if I'm wrong.

Finally Khaine, in regards to your next to last paragraph, I daresay that I would call what you wrote to be almost a good reason for gun ownership.

So you see that? If an argument is properly presented, I am willing to listen to it, and perhaps even accept it--unless, that is, I can dig up additional "evidence" to refute what you wrote. (See how easy that is? You didn't provide me any backup or source materials to your story above. Why should I believe you? If I were a lesser person, I'd say, "Oh that's all nonsense. That's fabricated by the liberal media or the anti-gun faction or blah blah blah." See how that works?)

However, since I'm pretty burnt out on this whole thing--and since I know virtually nothing about Norwegian gun laws, nor do I care to investigate further--I doubt I'll bother looking into your claims further. So I'm afraid I'll just have to take you at your word and move on with the rest of my life.

[Firehawk]

Check this out, just happened in Detroit...

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...0328001/&imw=Y

For those who don't want to read the short article, a pizza delivery guy had a CCW license and was delivering a pizza to a 14 and 16 year old who tried to rob him when he got there. The Pizza guy drew his gun in self defense and shot them.

Who knows what would have happened to the pizza guy if he weren't allowed to carry that gun...hmmm.

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by luke.w

I've agreed with this thinking before, however in those cases, gangbangers ALL carry and they ALL know it, thats why it's called a "drive-by" so the other guys can't shoot back, always the innocent get hit with strays here.

also ALL these guys no once they do such things retaliation is expected, firehawk gangbangers,snipers are idiots, what do you expect?

I do'nt think anyone is claiming crime goes away completely, dude. I think the argument is that crime will go up if all guns were made illegal...

[Firehawk]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

Furthermore, getting rid of all guns is a definite possibility. Could it happen overnight? No way. It would take years, if not decades to clean that up; but, given enough time and the right incentive$$, I'm sure all guns would get off the streets.

Your statement here is why those of us who disagree with you will never be swayed by your arguments. You're living in la la land if you seriously believe this can happen. Law Enforcement can't even keep all the guns out of an apartment complex...man come on.

I mean it ranks right up there with "Why can't we all just get along"? It's never going to happen and you are using that 'fairy-tale logic' in your arguments. But that's ok, it is an enjoyable discussion.

[Firehawk]

Here's some stats that dispute the fact that the UK has 12 gun related deaths a year lol...and stats on many other countries. Read the article as well, it is interesting and talks about those stats not really meaning a whole lot if you are arguing what we are arguing in this thread.

Long and short of that article is it's possible that I, being an American, hate my neighbor alot more than a British Fellow hates his...lol

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

[Firehawk]

This is an interesting commentary:

VI. GUNS AND HOMICIDE


Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.
Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this accounts for the murder rate being lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada. However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5%. US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 -- at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun. Statistics-gathering may have been less thorough at that time -- and few people had the money or interest to buy guns. But American gun supply (including handguns) doubled from the 1973-1992 period, during which homicide rates remained unchanged (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4-Aug-2000, p.A10). Politicians in Massachusetts have cited the State's tough gun control laws as the reason for its low murder rates. However, the adjacent states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have some of the least stringent gun control laws in the US, yet the first two have lower murder rates than Massachusetts and the murder rates in Vermont are comparable to those in Massachusetts. Murder rates in Boston increased 50% in 2004 over the previous year, while murder rates in Los Angeles, Miami, Washington and many other major cites saw murder rates decline.

Source: http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

[westside24]

Originally Posted by dandjdad

I saw two stories that proved my point--one about a three year old girl who was paralyzed from a stray bullet, and another about a sniper who was randomly shooting at vehicles on the highway.

I could go on and on...but I feel as though I'm just being redundant now.

I bet those people had those guns illegally man, people who go thru the troubles of getting there guns legally are not going to be the ones you see on the news.

Im being redundant too homie

[westside24]

Originally Posted by luke.w

firehawk gangbangers,snipers are idiots, what do you expect?

LOL why is fire hawk an idiot??? hey man dont take that sh!! from him Fhawk. Shoot his ass!