N3O Age Of Empires and Starcraft 2 Clan

[quote=""Highlander999""][quote=""deadhanddan""] well yes , the job of a gun is to deter or kill. but also about the right of personal protection. in USA , its a right that many of us hold dear because it enables the ppl to be self reliant and also defend themselves when neccesary. americans dislike the thought of big government dictating every aspect of thier lives ( including self protection ) have to consider that there are many ppl out there whom are disturbed and that every american is entitled to defend and protect their private property as well as their loved ones such as family from threats


guns are not only made to kill people. farmers / ranchers often need the use of firearms to protect their investments from predation as well as hunting.


you would be surprised to know what exactly can go bump in the night in the ol USA i have personally witnessed bears , mountain lions , coyotes , feral dogs , bob cats, even a damned lion that escaped from the Columbus airport and is curently on the loose in my state ( i didnt see this lion mind you , just know that it hasn't been found yet lol )[/quote]

I understand the "right to bear arms" and all that, but is it really relevant in 2009? I don't think so. As you pointed out, the only time I see a need for guns is for farmers in keeping wild animals at bay. The argument that it is for protection and deterence is not applicable. I have a set of golf clubs and 3 cricket bats in my room, not to mention numerous other house hold items I could do damage with if someone attempted to attack me or family/friends. You can hurt an attacker with a cricket bat, but can you go on a killing spree with a cricket bat? Good luck with that lol.[/quote] as i said already , if someone has the desire to kill....they will do it - gun or no gun.



a gun used wrong is very bad , but so is an automobile :!:



i understand everyone's views on this but thinking that i a m some sort of gun nut is a bit biased. its my right , i am entitled to it and will use it if forced to do so. i also said firearms are used as a ''deterent''


guns do not kill people - people kill people

if guns are not used then some other method will be. it will never stop its as old as time itself

Another thing to take into consideration is the huge underground gun trade that exists over the entire country. Many of your casual gun shops do not sell the fully automatic weapons. Those shops that do have a very very strict procedure that you have to go through to acquire any gun, and an even stricter one for one that is semi-automatic or full. The biggest way that these lethal guns are being distributed is illegally through the underground market.

Clearly as many years have proven there is not much that legislation nor law enforcement can do to regulate this trade. The only thing they can do is making things more complex for those who legitimately buy guns for hunting/ protection from animals (in this case I'm referring to the 9mm that either myself or my dad has with us when we go fishing or other events in the woods in case of coyotes and such).

A further example if I wanted to get my hands on an AK-47 (which would be very simple even in my low populated state of Vermont) I would just find the right person on the street adverse to buying one from the gun shop where I do the majority of my business.

To add to Dan's quote I saw another that was similar to it.

"If guns kill people then:
Cars make people drive drunk
Pencils make people miss spel (intended) words
and Mac Donald's makes people fat"

After reading through that article there it seems I was mistaken in one thing I said, I didn't know you didn't need a permit for an AR-15. Making the illegal guns require permits and perhaps restricting the distribution of ammo supplies (including the tools for private manufacturing) would perhaps be a step in the right direction to get these automatic weapons out of the wrong people's hands while not hurting those of us who use them for legit purposes.

This is obviously a topic that people feel strongly about and I commend everyone for not getting too antagonistic towards those they disagree with. I would like to ask/point out a couple things regarding previous posts:

The evidence shows that elimination of guns from society increases violent crime.

Indy, could you please provide a citation for this claim, as I find it hard to believe. Everything I have read indicates that countries with heavy gun control (eg Canada) have much lower rates of violent crime and incredibly lower murder rates.

"If guns kill people then:
Cars make people drive drunk
Pencils make people miss spel (intended) words
and Mac Donald's makes people fat"

-Guns are designed for one physical purpose, to kill or cause injury. Proper use causes death. So does improper use. I'm not saying people buy them with the intent of killing, but is that not what they are for?
-Proper use of a pencil will not cause misspelling. Improper use of brain may.
-Cars are not designed for drunk driving. Improper use can cause death.
And IMO, McDonalds DOES make people fat
This is a cute quote Blayzer, but the logic is highly flawed IMO.

This is a tricky issue, and I agree that citizens should have the right to defend themselves from their government or outside oppressors, but in a country where freedom of speech is so highly touted, do you really want armed citizens at political rallies? Would you really feel comfortable expressing your dissent openly when the guy next to you has a rifle?

EDIT: After minimal research I discovered the following stats from the most recent reports I could find from USA (2005) and Canada (2007)

Murders per 100,000 people:

Canada 1.4
USA 5.6
Saskatoon, SK 3.6 (highest of Canada's cities)
Washington DC 35.8 (highest of USA's cities)

Wow

The crime rate in Canada is low because it's so darn COLD outside that no one dares venture out there.

The crime rate in Canada is low because it's so darn COLD outside that no one dares venture out there.

LOL, it was 30 C (~85 F) here today! But, LOL indeed.

american homicide isnt ''just'' committed with firearms. a high portion of those stats u listed are of ppl who had no personal protection and another portion of those stats involved no guns at all.



many factors all come together in american homicide rates, firearms are onlyinvolved in a portion of the total %

[quote=""ChrisTheMean""]

The crime rate in Canada is low because it's so darn COLD outside that no one dares venture out there.

LOL, it was 30 C (~85 F) here today! But, LOL indeed.[/quote]

In Norway it's damn cold, too, plus they have gun control. But get a Norwegian pissed and/or depressed enough and he'll ice pick you to death in that endless winter night

@ChrisTheMean: Dr. John Lott wrote a book - "More Guns Less Crime" which now has two editions (at last check) and documents the correlation in a very rigorous way.

The USA-UK comparisons are not apt for studying guns, although perhaps for studying societies. If you add guns or take them away and watch the murder rates for a given society, you will see the effect of the guns, if you can control for everything else which is, of course, quite difficult. Again, location and demographics will determine the murder rate more efficiently than anything. Rural areas of the USA (check Iowa, for example) have murder rates that are far lower than Britain, and yet have some of the highest firearm ownership rates in the world. The "and yet" is because I suppose some people would think that it is counter-intuitive, even though it makes perfect sense and so should say "of course".

I think a proper comparison for violent crime rate should be of cities of equal size, ethnicity, population and financial status. For example a town that I know of that is at least 85% white called Swampscott Massachusetts has a median income of roughly $100,000 (idk population or people per sq. mi). Find the violent crime rate of this town and compare it to one of similar number to one in Canada.

I think the chances to kill somebody without a gun are much smaller, and accidents can be prevented too. Under pressure or in stress situation, the trigger could easily be pulled unintensionally.

just learn some kungfu i you want to protect your dear ones

[quote=""I__CHAOS__I""]I think the chances to kill somebody without a gun are much smaller, and accidents can be prevented too. Under pressure or in stress situation, the trigger could easily be pulled unintensionally.

just learn some kungfu i you want to protect your dear ones [/quote]

This coming from the guy who can kill you with the vibrations set up in his left pinky. 8O

[quote=""deadhanddan""][quote=""Highlander999""]Why the need to own guns? I don't really see any need for it at all. There is only one job of a gun. That's to kill. Simple as that. Anyone one who says they believe they have the right to own a gun, is saying they feel they have the right to kill someone.[/quote] well yes , the job of a gun is to deter or kill. but also about the right of personal protection. in USA , its a right that many of us hold dear because it enables the ppl to be self reliant and also defend themselves when neccesary. americans dislike the thought of big government dictating every aspect of thier lives ( including self protection ) have to consider that there are many ppl out there whom are disturbed and that every american is entitled to defend and protect their private property as well as their loved ones such as family from threats


guns are not only made to kill people. farmers / ranchers often need the use of firearms to protect their investments from predation as well as hunting.


you would be surprised to know what exactly can go bump in the night in the ol USA i have personally witnessed bears , mountain lions , coyotes , feral dogs , bob cats, even a damned lion that escaped from the Columbus airport and is curently on the loose in my state ( i didnt see this lion mind you , just know that it hasn't been found yet lol )[/quote]

Americans dislike big government. I agree... but its dependent on your political views. You have the conservative demographic which, like what you said, supports the right to bears arms ( in a colonial militia in a time of war lol different argument) but the instant you tell conservatives that you are going to marry *** or going to remove censorship on the media(an infringement on the 1st amendment btw), they are like no way jose. An interesting prospect, they dont mind government absense in economics but they use god/moral gov't/ etc etc to rationalize social struggles.

Likewise, keep government out of my right to have an abortion or right to marry a same sex partner, but make sure you regulate the economic activity is the cry of the liberal.

The argument to bear arms is inherently flawed. You would support the right of individual to bear a weapon that has the capability of killing someone, but, you would also( the political right in general) would not support *** being married, which is the same concept empirically( government not allowed a freedom inherent, guns- 2nd amendment, *** rights- declaration of independence language.)

Also, on a bit of a site note, the united states has absolutely by far, bar none, the highest death rate due to firearms per capita.

[quote=""jazz""]Also, on a bit of a site note, the united states has absolutely by far, bar none, the highest death rate due to firearms per capita.[/quote]

A few years ago I remember hearing that in the city of Oakland they had more deaths due to firearms in a single month than Japan did in a year, maybe even more, I just can't recall the actual statistic.
Just amazing to me that this kind of stuff goes on, and I do believe it has a large part due to the second amendment, which makes guns more available in our country, blackmarket or not.

As a long time Republican, I got a call from the NRA (National Rifle Association) back during the Clinton administration trying to solicit donations. They were worried over some new gun control laws floating about in congress. I told the telemarketer that I supported gun control and even wished that all gun ownership was forbidden. She expressed surprise given my party affiliation. Then I explained that I was a fencing coach and master swordsman. If people didn't have guns, we would go back to swaggering about with swords at our sides and I would have alot more students! Needless to say, I never got another call from the NRA again.

Cheers!

[quote=""etrips888""][quote=""jazz""]Also, on a bit of a site note, the united states has absolutely by far, bar none, the highest death rate due to firearms per capita.[/quote]

A few years ago I remember hearing that in the city of Oakland they had more deaths due to firearms in a single month than Japan did in a year, maybe even more, I just can't recall the actual statistic.
Just amazing to me that this kind of stuff goes on, and I do believe it has a large part due to the second amendment, which makes guns more available in our country, blackmarket or not.[/quote] drug/gang related

one way to fix that particular problem is too abolish the amendment , but if that were done then the other 99% of the population (honest/law abiding ppl)
would be punished for something they are not even involved with. no secret that this type of violence is found predominantly among the minorities and ghettos of large cities that have drug epidemics and gang culture. taking away firearms may slow the violence but it won't end it and will only leave the law abiding portions of the population that more susceptible to violence.



only real solution is to enforce the existing laws and implement better and more modern security screenings to individuals obtaining firearms.