Whats Up With America?!?

[Chuuuuck]

The real point the two of you are failing to agree on in your differences of opinion is the lack of need of the guns for any usefulness that can not be fulfilled by other, more appropriate, less dangerous products.

I think we all agree that lead based paint should be banned because there are products that can do exactly what it does without the down side.

But there is no product that can replace the positives of having a gun. If you want to argue just automatic and semi automatic guns then there is still no product that can replace their usefulness for what most American's (that believe in the right to bear arms) believe is the reason we should have them, and that is the fact they can be used to protect ourselves from our own government if need be, any other government that tries to start a war with us, or to protect ourselves in a time of any national disaster where the nation or just our local area falls into a period of lawlessness. I don't think there is any argument that a non semi-automatic pistol or rifle can protect you just as much as an assault rile and/or semi automatic pistols could and that is why I keep both of them in my house.

Oh I don't actually think guns serve no purpose, I was just saying that a lack of need when something is dangerous is in fact a very good reason to ban that thing.

If you're gonna go with a flawed comparison, I'm gonna point out that flaw. My intention is to give the pro-gun side an actual legitimate and strong stance. Most people on forums I've seen arguing in favour of guns in my time have repeated the same flawed arguments over and over, and it in fact took a liberal who wasn't particularly fond of guns to convince me that there are legit reasons to have guns be legally available.


Case in point: The "I want to protect myself against the government"-argument is going to get you laughed at by most people. It would be a smart idea to acknowledge that you and your rifles are going to have a hard time defeating the US military.

True, if the US army was at my door knocking, I would be screwed. But, in the case of a temporary (or long term) lawlessness and 3 rogue gang members who decided to make my neighborhood their play ground decided they wanted to take my possessions or do harm to me or my family, I would bet my automatic rifles and I can make them sing a different tune very quickly.

[Chuuuuck]

Also, you hinted at your reasons for thinking we need guns as taught to you by a liberal. Will you share these?

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, but if you outlawed guns, gangs wouldn't have them either!

[silvanricky]

Yeah, but if you outlawed guns, gangs wouldn't have them either!

Just outlaw gangs and you'll get rid of almost all crime. Hell, just outlaw crime.

[Snorri1234]

Oh I don't actually think guns serve no purpose, I was just saying that a lack of need when something is dangerous is in fact a very good reason to ban that thing.

If you're gonna go with a flawed comparison, I'm gonna point out that flaw. My intention is to give the pro-gun side an actual legitimate and strong stance. Most people on forums I've seen arguing in favour of guns in my time have repeated the same flawed arguments over and over, and it in fact took a liberal who wasn't particularly fond of guns to convince me that there are legit reasons to have guns be legally available.


Case in point: The "I want to protect myself against the government"-argument is going to get you laughed at by most people. It would be a smart idea to acknowledge that you and your rifles are going to have a hard time defeating the US military.

True, if the US army was at my door knocking, I would be screwed. But, in the case of a temporary (or long term) lawlessness and 3 rogue gang members who decided to make my neighborhood their play ground decided they wanted to take my possessions or do harm to me or my family, I would bet my automatic rifles and I can make them sing a different tune very quickly.

Probably, the lawless apocalypse thing is actually where I could see the benefit fo automatic rifles. That situation is however fairly unlikely to happen and at that point shit just got so messed up it's silly to think about.

That said, automatic rifles being banned or not is such a non-issue. It's like someone sat down and thought about the most inefficient way to reduce violence possible. Their effect on crime-statistics is quite frankly almost zero.

Also, you hinted at your reasons for thinking we need guns as taught to you by a liberal. Will you share these?

Well he showed me my misconceptions and those of the pro-gun americans. (I not being an American never cared much anyway, I just thought having guns around was silly) It was not so much that he convinced me of the need for guns, but more that the problem isn't guns per se. They're catalysts, not the reason.

Also, I kind of forgot where it was but I'll post a few things about guns and the real problem with them in the US if you want.

[Snorri1234]

Yeah, but if you outlawed guns, gangs wouldn't have them either!

This is true. At least, they will certainly have far fewer guns and will use them sparingly.

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, but if you outlawed guns, gangs wouldn't have them either!

This is true. At least, they will certainly have far fewer guns and will use them sparingly.

Um... it's true? I was just kidding.

[Woodruff]

I agree. The only reason you need an automatic weapon is if you intend to kill many people in a short period of time. They're worthless for hunting and home defense. Semi-automatic weapons with a large clip are pretty much the same.

I see your location is the US... and so I will make the assumption you are a Citizen of this great nation.

That being the case you certainly have the right to speak your mind on our shared Constitution.

Good luck trying to get it changed.
NOT!

I'm not a politician, so I won't worry about that. Besides, pointing out that something is law doesn't constitute an argument. Law is fallible.

Anyways, can someone cite a responsible reason outside of killing on a large scale that you would need to own an automatic weapon.

The one that comes to mind for me is the gun collector. Some people just collect the freaking things because they love them (the same way I collect baseball cards and crappy computer games). Now, that's not a NEED, per se...but it is a solid reason.

[Woodruff]

I agree. The only reason you need an automatic weapon is if you intend to kill many people in a short period of time. They're worthless for hunting and home defense. Semi-automatic weapons with a large clip are pretty much the same.

I see your location is the US... and so I will make the assumption you are a Citizen of this great nation.

That being the case you certainly have the right to speak your mind on our shared Constitution.

Good luck trying to get it changed.
NOT!

I'm not a politician, so I won't worry about that. Besides, pointing out that something is law doesn't constitute an argument. Law is fallible.

Anyways, can someone cite a responsible reason outside of killing on a large scale that you would need to own an automatic weapon.

It's not a "law". It is codified in the Constitution. There is a big difference.

... and yes I know the Constitution may also be fallible. That is why it can be changed.

Reasons for killing on a large scale...
-> US being invaded.
-> US being infested with Zombies
-> Major economic meltdown and/or large scale natural disaster... roving gangs attempt to steal my food or harm my family.
-> Gov't goes completely wacko.

As someone who lived through Hurricane Katrina and it's aftermath...natural disasters (and the roving gangs associated with that, sadly).

[Woodruff]

Guns keep people peaceful and respectful.

No one was more respectful than 2Pac.

Yeah, how'd that work out for him? Maybe if he wasn't such a piece of shit he'd still be alive.

i just lost all respect for you

1) You JUST lost all respect for bedub1?
2) You don't consider sexual assault to be the action of a "piece of shit"?

I don't even think the original poster of this thread was that serious about the subject. Looks more like a ruse to get the usual people to argue against each other.

It Worked!

We are so damn predictable.

[bedub1]

Oh, by the way, I'd be very happy if they invented a Phaser that I can set to "knock the person out for 8 hours". And down to "just hurts a bit" and all the way up to "vaporizes the guy". Can you imagine going hunting, and not having to clean lead/shot out of the animal? You could just taze the animal, it would be knocked out, then you could kill it perfectly humanly and cleanly. Oh, and for cleaning up crowds and rioters on the streets....you don't have to do gas that hurts, or rubber bullets etc, you just knock them all out for 8 hours and clean up the mess later. Nobody is injured etc...they just loose a couple hours of their life due to unconsciousness. It's not GUNS that we like, it's that we like tools that can be used to defend ourselves.

[Snorri1234]

Yeah, but if you outlawed guns, gangs wouldn't have them either!

This is true. At least, they will certainly have far fewer guns and will use them sparingly.

Um... it's true? I was just kidding.

Essentially the problem is that you are making guns. Every gun owned by any criminal started it's life as legal. Unlike drugs, making guns isn't easy. You can't very well start making guns in your basement to supplement your income.


You still have gun-smuggling of course, but that is limited. Even in Europe most guns used for illegal purposes come into it perfectly legal.



The question of whether criminals would have guns is rather unimportant though, the real question is whether crime would be reduced. And sadly, the answer to that is no. The effect on crime of a gunban is rather minimal, and in the US it would take a long time to even notice it. Eventually the crime-rate would drop, but it is probably not worth the effort and certainly not better than other ways of reducing crime.


In fact, this is what always bugs me anyway. People who don't get Bowling for Columbine. Michael Moore isn't saying that guns are neccesarily that bad, he's just saying that the American attitude towards guns is incredibly fucktarded. You have people who desperately try to link violence to the availability of guns, and you have people who desperately try to link violence to anything but the guns.

Canada and Finland for example manage to have guns and keep low crime. But instead of looking into how exactly they do that the whole debate goes on about guns, which ignores the whole problem and also makes both sides look like morons. (either redneck gunlover or tree-hugging hippie, take your pick)

[Pedronicus]

tree hugging hippie reporting for duty

[b.k. barunt]

I'm a redneck gun lover and a tree hugging hippy - does that mean i'm schizophrenic?

Ambidextrous?


Multifaceted Honibaz

[Symmetry]

I'm a redneck gun lover and a tree hugging hippy - does that mean i'm schizophrenic?

Ambidextrous?


Multifaceted Honibaz

It means, fairly typically, that you have no idea what the word "schizophrenic" means.

[thegreekdog]

To sort of echo Snorri, there are people who blame crime in American on the availability of guns, which ignores the actual problems behind crime in the United States (for example, the illegality of drugs, the plight of the poor, cultural factors, etc.) Man, I sound like Player.

[Snorri1234]

To sort of echo Snorri, there are people who blame crime in American on the availability of guns, which ignores the actual problems behind crime in the United States (for example, the illegality of drugs, the plight of the poor, cultural factors, etc.) Man, I sound like Player.

Yup, and those people are made fun of by the people who claim there is absolutely nothing wrong with guns in any way. Guns are a problem. It's just that they are a problem because of those things you mention. These people do what they do because for them guns are no problem. They disagree with background checks and permits (though less and less) because for them it is just silly. They are responsible gunowners, their friends are responsible gunowners, they don't see the crimes so they assume that crime is then unaffected by guns.

The whole problem with the debate is that both sides aren't actually talking about the same thing. That's why I like to tell the pro-gun people which way to argue, it makes both sides talk about the same issue instead of two very different issues.

[thegreekdog]

To sort of echo Snorri, there are people who blame crime in American on the availability of guns, which ignores the actual problems behind crime in the United States (for example, the illegality of drugs, the plight of the poor, cultural factors, etc.) Man, I sound like Player.

Yup, and those people are made fun of by the people who claim there is absolutely nothing wrong with guns in any way. Guns are a problem. It's just that they are a problem because of those things you mention. These people do what they do because for them guns are no problem. They disagree with background checks and permits (though less and less) because for them it is just silly. They are responsible gunowners, their friends are responsible gunowners, they don't see the crimes so they assume that crime is then unaffected by guns.

The whole problem with the debate is that both sides aren't actually talking about the same thing. That's why I like to tell the pro-gun people which way to argue, it makes both sides talk about the same issue instead of two very different issues.

For whatever this is worth, the gun violence problem in Philadelphia is directly related to straw purchases (i.e. the criminal's girlfriend goes out and buys a gun and gives it to the criminal and he goes out and shoots a cop). This was a problem targeted by the old District Attorney.

Another problem specific to Philadelphia is that judges rarely impose harsh sentence on criminals, including repeat offenders. This has been a problem targeted by the new District Attorney.

[jay_a2j]

Um hey so i have many problems with the USA but here is my major issue which i would like to be open for discussion.
The Right To Bear Arms
Now i agree with the Family Guy interpretation that every American has the right to hand a pair of bear arms on there wall.
But seriously does congress not realize the outdated nature of this American Revolution war era right.
The selling of rifles for hunting is one thing but handguns, semi automatic and fully automatic weapons is just outrageous. Do Americans not take notice of the rediculously high levels of death by guns or the fact that they are flooding mexico with guns or good forbid "southerners" owning guns. In australia guns are held only by criminal and gangs and they mostly use them on other criminals with guns there is rarely hold ups with guns and there is certainly no motherfucking emos running around killing 40 people or a disgruntled postal worker. The unavialbility of guns means that kind of shit doesnt happen.
What right to americans have to own pistols and automatic weapons is what i ask you?

Yeah, outdated. Imagine during the Revolutionary War the colonists were armed with nothing but sling-shots against the Red Coats muskets? THAT is what you would like us to "bear arms" with? If they take our guns except for hunting rifles and shotguns we would be NO MATCH for an armed military force patrolling our streets. Think man, THINK!

[DangerBoy]

Jay has now weighed in on this topic, which officially makes it epic.

There would be less Americans dead for one thing... now i dont like americans as a whole but there are some who deserve to live

I know who this actually is and that you're baiting all of us. You're a master at doing this. Wish they had never banned you.

[b.k. barunt]

I'm a redneck gun lover and a tree hugging hippy - does that mean i'm schizophrenic?

Ambidextrous?


Multifaceted Honibaz

It means, fairly typically, that you have no idea what the word "schizophrenic" means.

Oh niggaplease! Are you that stuck on yourself and your "i'msomuchsmarterthaneverybodyelse" pseudointellectual posturing? I'm well aware of the difference between multiple personality disorder and dementia praecox, now referred to as "schizophrenia", which is Latin for "split mind". Split mind - get it?

It was a joke, you ridiculous strutting poseur.


Honibaz

[jimboston]

Essentially the problem is that you are making guns. Every gun owned by any criminal started it's life as legal. Unlike drugs, making guns isn't easy. You can't very well start making guns in your basement to supplement your income.

Actually it would be pretty easy to buy the machine tools necessary to manufacture guns on a small scale in a basement or reasonably sized garage.

Sure the guns wouldn't be as high-tech or fancy as some of the better guns manufactured today, but they would still be quite effective and quite lethal.

Guns have been around for hundreds of years in some form... low end machine tools way outclass manufacturing methods from the past.

... and even before we got to that point people would begin cannabilzing and repairing guns in ways that are not done today.

So no... making guns illegals would NOT make them go away.
===

but it's all moot anyway... since we still have our Constitutional Rights.

[jimboston]

I'm a redneck gun lover and a tree hugging hippy - does that mean i'm schizophrenic?

Ambidextrous?


Multifaceted Honibaz

Trees are great... for target practice.

(kiddin')

[jimboston]

Yeah, outdated. Imagine during the Revolutionary War the colonists were armed with nothing but sling-shots against the Red Coats muskets? THAT is what you would like us to "bear arms" with? If they take our guns except for hunting rifles and shotguns we would be NO MATCH for an armed military force patrolling our streets. Think man, THINK!

Moot point.

This just means we should be able to buy more and better guns... not less and less effective.

This argument proves the point and the need for increased gun ownership by 'regular' peeps.

[jimboston]

To sort of echo Snorri, there are people who blame crime in American on the availability of guns, which ignores the actual problems behind crime in the United States (for example, the illegality of drugs, the plight of the poor, cultural factors, etc.) Man, I sound like Player.

Yup, and those people are made fun of by the people who claim there is absolutely nothing wrong with guns in any way. Guns are a problem. It's just that they are a problem because of those things you mention. These people do what they do because for them guns are no problem. They disagree with background checks and permits (though less and less) because for them it is just silly. They are responsible gunowners, their friends are responsible gunowners, they don't see the crimes so they assume that crime is then unaffected by guns.

The whole problem with the debate is that both sides aren't actually talking about the same thing. That's why I like to tell the pro-gun people which way to argue, it makes both sides talk about the same issue instead of two very different issues.

The fact that criminals abuse the Right should in no way diminish or affect My Right.

if you abuse the Right and use a fire arm in the act of a crime you lose (or should lose) the Right. The penalty should be harsh.

If a person uses a steak-knife, bat, weed-whacker, car, etc... to assist in the act of a crime, does that then mean that I should lose my right to these tools?

Of course not.

BTW... Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
(Well if I had one... I don't... but I am considering it.)