Guilty_Biscuit wrote:The UK gun laws really tightend up after the shock of the Dunblaine school shootings in '96. I'm lost for reasons why America won't tighten up their laws
'Cause when you live in a rural area and the cops are a good thirty minutes away, you're vunerable to an armed attacker. Especially one with a gun.
Guns aren't the problem.
Movies aren't the problem.
Games aren't the problem.
Music isn't the problem.
The problem is bad parents, mentally unstable kids and a school system that fails to notice the symptoms.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark
"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
im gonna regret this, and im sorry if it honestly offends anyone, but i just dont know how else im ever gonna be able to post this by find the subject... and it be related..
I am slowly going insane, thanks to Jay, Brandon (the douch tool) and sammy gags for his pic of bubba....
millej11 wrote:Having gun laws would have made no difference whether or not that kid got a gun.
Read my above post...
Why have we not had school shootings in the UK???
We have guns, but stricter gun laws...
You still have school beatings, racism, stabbings...
I remember hearing about Australia after they abolished guns in THEIR country... It stopped good folks from having guns, and instead old men and women could be raped and robbed at knife point... or with a pair of scissors... Guns were what helped those people to protect themselves...
For every ONE of these incidents, there are ten incidents of people being saved by reponsibly using guns.
Look dude, he's not saying we should abolish guns. Get that through your rock hard skull. And can you give me one example where an old man or woman was and robbed? And can you give me another where the old man/woman defended him/herself with a gun? Didn't think so.
Guilty_Biscuit wrote:The UK gun laws really tightend up after the shock of the Dunblaine school shootings in '96. I'm lost for reasons why America won't tighten up their laws
'Cause when you live in a rural area and the cops are a good thirty minutes away, you're vunerable to an armed attacker. Especially one with a gun.
Guns aren't the problem.
Movies aren't the problem.
Games aren't the problem.
Music isn't the problem.
The problem is bad parents, mentally unstable kids and a school system that fails to notice the symptoms.
England has plenty of rural land, actually a higher percentage of it than America. They also have far less violent crime.
Guilty_Biscuit wrote:The UK gun laws really tightend up after the shock of the Dunblaine school shootings in '96. I'm lost for reasons why America won't tighten up their laws
'Cause when you live in a rural area and the cops are a good thirty minutes away, you're vunerable to an armed attacker. Especially one with a gun.
Guns aren't the problem.
Movies aren't the problem.
Games aren't the problem.
Music isn't the problem.
The problem is bad parents, mentally unstable kids and a school system that fails to notice the symptoms.
England has plenty of rural land, actually a higher percentage of it than America. They also have far less violent crime.
I'm talking about private residences. In the US, rural areas tend to border totally undeveloped land (at least, in the western states). Many serial killers have hidden in the deep woods and escaped capture for long periods of time.
YOU try keeping a gun-toting psycopath from robbing you blind, then raping your wife and kids (maybe even YOU) then murdering everybody and burning the house down. Dramatic, yes. Any less true, I think not.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark
"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
Although home protection was a factor (since we had already pissed off the indians) in making the right to bear arms a part of our constitution, it was not the main one. The main reason is so that the government cannot forcefully take over the populace and impose their will. Personally i feel much safer, with wankers like Bush in charge, if i'm well armed. I still believe in the old axiom "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
b.k. barunt wrote:Although home protection was a factor (since we had already pissed off the indians) in making the right to bear arms a part of our constitution, it was not the main one. The main reason is so that the government cannot forcefully take over the populace and impose their will. Personally i feel much safer, with wankers like Bush in charge, if i'm well armed. I still believe in the old axiom "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
I concur. The Founding Fathers were a smart bunch of "country bumpkins", as the Brits of the time said.
"There is only one road to peace, and that is to conquer"-Hunter Clark
"Give a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life"- Something Hunter would say
im not sure if its been mentioned but Australia has very strict gun laws, these were put into place after the Port Arthar massacre where 35 where killed im not sure how many wounded. no fully automatic weapons (honestly it puzzles me as to why one would need them) im fairly certain there is no semi automatic rifles either. I havent really looked into it as i have no desire to own a gun but im certain that hand guns are also fairly difficult to obtain, crossbows are also illegal yet bows are not, i have a 65-80 pound draw compound bow and i do target shooting.
I understand people want guns to protect themselves but i believe they must be at least harder to obtain i was watching the news im not sure if its true or not but they were saying that the state the guns were purchased in have no waiting period no background checks etc. that is madness in my opinion. obviously there is no way to remove guns from america as there is already so many there, but if there werent so many guns people wouldnt need them as much for protection? (obviously this is far too late to enstate, but just my thoughts on the matter)
why would u worry about a monk with an AK i dont think they would ever in the entireity of their exsitence use a gun even the shaolin monks use non-lethal force
Anarchy Ninja wrote: no fully automatic weapons (honestly it puzzles me as to why one would need them) im fairly certain there is no semi automatic rifles either.
Thats what I wonder as well. How can you say self defence or hunting with something that can easily kill dozens if not hundreds (probably an exageration) of people a minute.
We own all your helmets, we own all your shoes, we own all your generals. Touch us and you loooose...
heavycola wrote:So one apparently love-crazed kid can murder 32 random students and kill himself before he is stopped. Could he have done this without his arsenal?
I thought he only had two handguns?
Either way, no, I still want mah guns, bucko. You'll have to pry them from my cold, dead hands. =P
I firmly believe in owning a gun. The problem is that yes the laws in the U.S. are a little lax and many of the ones that would make the country safer are not adequately enforced.
b.k. barunt wrote:Although home protection was a factor (since we had already pissed off the indians) in making the right to bear arms a part of our constitution, it was not the main one. The main reason is so that the government cannot forcefully take over the populace and impose their will. Personally i feel much safer, with wankers like Bush in charge, if i'm well armed. I still believe in the old axiom "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Again, you seriously think that the government would let you own guns if they seriously thought it was a threat to their power? Governments don't suddenly declare dictatorship and marshall law, its a gradual process... Remember everyone welcomed Hitler when he arrived on the scene!
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
millej11 wrote:Having gun laws would have made no difference whether or not that kid got a gun.
Read my above post...
Why have we not had school shootings in the UK???
We have guns, but stricter gun laws...
You still have school beatings, racism, stabbings...
I remember hearing about Australia after they abolished guns in THEIR country... It stopped good folks from having guns, and instead old men and women could be raped and robbed at knife point... or with a pair of scissors... Guns were what helped those people to protect themselves...
For every ONE of these incidents, there are ten incidents of people being saved by reponsibly using guns.
Look dude, he's not saying we should abolish guns. Get that through your rock hard skull. And can you give me one example where an old man or woman was and robbed? And can you give me another where the old man/woman defended him/herself with a gun? Didn't think so.
You can look in any magazine produced by the NRA...
So quit trying to act so high and mighty. He and I had already resolved our discussion, so butt out, kid.
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
A comment:
People were quoting http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/ earlier, claiming that crime went either up or down. Guys, make sure you talk about the same charts, will you?
Guiscard used the British Crime Survey Data for Violent Crime, which indeed DOES go down after '95, '96 is not on the chart. This is a survey where people are asked whether they were victims of a crime or not.
Aimless used the Long-term national recorded crime trend for Violent Crime which counts cases reported to the police. It remained stable until 98/99 when the recording was revised and other types of crime were included in the statistical data.
Get it? If you want to talk about charts, do yourself and others a favour and talk about the same charts.
In a blatant gerzan-esque copy-and-paste fest, In the Guardian today:
Deep-rooted gun culture threatens to stifle calls for reform
Ed Pilkington in New York, Richard Adams in Washington Wednesday April 18, 2007 The Guardian
They are calling it the "Bloomberg Gun GiveAway". Tomorrow two gun shops in Virginia will stage a competition: anyone spending more than $100 (£50) in either Bob Moates' stores or Old Dominion Guns and Tackle will be entered into a draw, first prize a free handgun or rifle worth $900.
The promotion has been devised as an act of defiance against the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who is suing two Virginian gun shops, including Bob Moates, as well as 25 stores in other states, for allegedly selling guns too freely and thus fuelling violent crime. In a sting operation last year, Mr Bloomberg sent undercover investigators into Bob Moates and other stores to expose how regulations on sales were openly being flouted.
Despite Monday's events, a clerk at Bob Moates said the draw would go ahead. It will underline the unbending adherence of many Virginians to the right to bear arms - the state has been ranked the second easiest in the country in which to buy guns - in the face of renewed calls for tighter gun control....
[article continues with a general rundown of current gun-control legislation]
How very sensitive of them. Makes me ever so slightly sick.[/quote]
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
millej11 wrote:Having gun laws would have made no difference whether or not that kid got a gun.
Read my above post...
Why have we not had school shootings in the UK???
We have guns, but stricter gun laws...
You still have school beatings, racism, stabbings...
I remember hearing about Australia after they abolished guns in THEIR country... It stopped good folks from having guns, and instead old men and women could be raped and robbed at knife point... or with a pair of scissors... Guns were what helped those people to protect themselves...
For every ONE of these incidents, there are ten incidents of people being saved by reponsibly using guns.
Look dude, he's not saying we should abolish guns. Get that through your rock hard skull. And can you give me one example where an old man or woman was and robbed? And can you give me another where the old man/woman defended him/herself with a gun? Didn't think so.
You can look in any magazine produced by the NRA...
So quit trying to act so high and mighty. He and I had already resolved our discussion, so butt out, kid.
O, becaue an article in a NRA magazine is going to be so unbiased isn it? You cant use that as a source of evidence, its like using a BNP manifesto to prove that black people are all evil, dangerous, violent criminals.
Guiscard, that article is shocking. If America had any sense they would backlash and make those shops pay. 33 people shot dead in the same state, then your having a prize draw for a gun! It is definately sickening.
O, becaue an article in a NRA magazine is going to be so unbiased isn it? You cant use that as a source of evidence, its like using a BNP manifesto to prove that black people are all evil, dangerous, violent criminals.
You can not show bias on a blatant factual account. The stories are gathered from law enforcement agencies around the country. They are factual accounts of real events, without any spin put on them...
virus90 wrote: I think Anarkist is a valuable asset to any game.
O, becaue an article in a NRA magazine is going to be so unbiased isn it? You cant use that as a source of evidence, its like using a BNP manifesto to prove that black people are all evil, dangerous, violent criminals.
You can not show bias on a blatant factual account. The stories are gathered from law enforcement agencies around the country. They are factual accounts of real events, without any spin put on them...
They may be factual but they exagerate the events in their favour, and leave out key details which do not help. Just like the 9/11 conspiracies, they only include the parts that they want to, and leave out other parts.
If you are going to take stories from an extremist gun lobbying group seriously and will believe every word in that magazine, then you need to get a reality check.
Bill Hicks (i forget the year) talking about gun deaths:
"England, where no one has guns; fourteen deaths. United States -- and I think you know how we feel about guns, whoo! I'm getting' a stiffy -- 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one."
heavycola wrote:Bill Hicks (i forget the year) talking about gun deaths: "England, where no one has guns; fourteen deaths. United States -- and I think you know how we feel about guns, whoo! I'm getting' a stiffy -- 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one."
RIP Bill
Indeed. I believe Bill hicks made more correct statements than Christ...
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
heavycola wrote:Bill Hicks (i forget the year) talking about gun deaths: "England, where no one has guns; fourteen deaths. United States -- and I think you know how we feel about guns, whoo! I'm getting' a stiffy -- 23,000 deaths from handguns. But there's no connection, and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one."
RIP Bill
Indeed. I believe Bill hicks made more correct statements than Christ...
i dont think they would ever in the entireity of their exsitence use a gun even the shaolin monks use non-lethal force
