Heavycola, I have a compromise. The US will give up guns....

[Snorri1234]

More debate out guns!

[MeDeFe]

Coca-Cola is delicious.

Only if you add whiskey.

Or vodka.

Or root beer.
What?

how have you quoted so many times?

You're allowed 5 embedded quotes.

[pimpdave]

Guns vs. Milk

[GabonX]

I think that he is less concerned with the fact that owning guns isn't hip anymore and more with the fact that allowing every moron to own a gun for no other reason but because he really, REALLY wants to own a gun, significantly increases mortality rate. Unless you have a reason to believe that people in GB or Norway are getting killed by their form of government.

First off we don't allow any moron who wants a gun to have one. Any moron who wants one can easily get one by illegal means but in order to legally own one you have to have a clean record. Whether or not guns are legal to purchase will not and cannot at this point make it difficult to obtain them as there are already a great number in circulation.

Also your assertion that gun ownership increases the mortality rate is incorrect and obviously unresearched as gun ownership in the United States is at an all time high while gun violence is at a 30 year low.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets ... spx?ID=126

Isn't our argument based more on the fact that the more people you give guns the more likely one of them is to go on a firearm assissted killing spree with one? Isn't our argument more about pointing out the absurdities of the "Ah needs mah gun faw pro-tech-tin mah familah... aginst guns. Its tha only way" school of thought? Isn't it usually based on pointing out that there's no compelling and logical reasons for owning guns at all, and that therefore the huge risks associated with their proliferation ought to dictate some form of severe restrictions upon their availability?

Your argument is fundamentally flawed as the assertion that the state of having guns be illegal to purchase would somehow disable people from committing acts of violence or to obtain guns is short sighted to say the least. There are enough unregistered guns in circulation that it would be foolish to think that banning the legal purchase and ownership of firearms would disable people from going on an "assissted (check your spelling next time) killing spree." If anything, it is the current status of people not carrying guns which enables killing sprees to occur for if even one out of every ten people carried a weapon it would be very difficult for someone to successfully kill a large number of people before they were shot. Such legislation would simply make it so that by default all gun owners would be criminals, and potentially violent ones at that.

While you may not believe that being able to defend your life is a compelling or logical reason to carry a firearm it is somewhat arrogant and absolutely oppressive to contend that everyone would share such a philosophy and that it should be forced upon them. Whether or not an individual chooses to possess and carry firearms is a personal choice but to contend that a person should not be able to exercise their right to self defense is a violation of that person's civil liberties on par with forcing a person to convert to a given religion or abridging freedom of speech. On top of that, in order to obtain guns from people who had them when such legislation would be passed it would be necessary to violate everyone's right to be free of unwarranted search and seizure.

I sympathize with all of you who are made uncomfortable by guns being present in a society. It would be better if guns did not exist but unfortunately that world is a fantasy. The reality is that there are violent people who may confront upstanding individuals at any time who can obtain weapons whether or not they are legal and in order to be prepared for such an occurrence it is necessary to take precautions which may include carrying a fire arm.

[Snorri1234]

Your argument is fundamentally flawed as the assertion that the state of having guns be illegal to purchase would somehow disable people from committing acts of violence or to obtain guns is short sighted to say the least.

It does stop people from obtaining guns here though. Sure, they can still commit crime but just less deadly.

There are enough unregistered guns in circulation that it would be foolish to think that banning the legal purchase and ownership of firearms would disable people from going on an "assissted (check your spelling next time) killing spree."

Obviously it's extremely stupid to ban guns now in the US. The US has a big gunproducing industry so guns will not dissappear in the near future if ever. But the point is not that guns should be banned in the US, but that a society without guns easily available is safer.

The notion that more guns=more safety is just false. That's the only thing we disagree on. (Oh and possibly on more restriction on obtaining guns and installing heavier punishments for illegal ownership though I don't know about that.)

If anything, it is the current status of people not carrying guns which enables killing sprees to occur for if even one out of every ten people carried a weapon it would be very difficult for someone to successfully kill a large number of people before they were shot. Such legislation would simply make it so that by default all gun owners would be criminals, and potentially violent ones at that.

Killing sprees with guns happen far less in Europe, simply because obtaining a gun is very hard. Back in highschool I had no idea how to get one and I doubt anyone else would've. (Only reason I know now is that I live in a sort of bad neighborhood/awesome neighborhood.)

Ofcourse, with so many guns available as it is in the USA the problem lies more in bad response. Though I'd say that stricter restrictions on getting guns is the better solution.

[pimpdave]

Killing sprees with guns happen far less in Europe,

It's good to know you're going to do something about that.

Good luck.

[Snorri1234]

Killing sprees with guns happen far less in Europe,

It's good to know you're going to do something about that.

Good luck.

What do you think; the 9mm with the sneakers, or the Uzi with the suede?

[jonesthecurl]

Altogether, now -

"Shoots you, sir!"

[Jenos Ridan]

If the UK, Japan, Sweden and all other "first world" nations that have monarcies, abolish the crown and their hereditary aristocracies (no more kings, dukes, barons, knighted people, etc.). Since, according to your vaulted exhortations, gun ownership is a barbaric anachronism, it is disgustingly hypocritical that you would allow the Crown to go unchalledged. This means, specifically for Britain; the forced abdictation of the Royals, abolishment of the House of Lords (in favor of a legislative house that fills the same role, if it is needed. If not, Britain can get along fine without it), the formal change of name from the United Kingdom to simply Great Britain and the removal of the term "royal" from such things as the British Royal Marines and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. Similar actions are expected from other monarchial states. It is only under these conditions that the US will enact gun polices identical to those practiced in the nation of Switzerland.

Yeah, guns and monarchies are basically the same thing. I'm sure that you would no more mind being shot then I would living under a monarchy.

Next topic: Should delusional patients be allowed net access?

Read the bolded part, should help you figure out my intent.

By way of Heavycola's reasoning, anything can be made to seem a barbarity.

I think that he is less concerned with the fact that owning guns isn't hip anymore and more with the fact that allowing every moron to own a gun for no other reason but because he really, REALLY wants to own a gun, significantly increases mortality rate. Unless you have a reason to believe that people in GB or Norway are getting killed by their form of government.

Wow, you are obtuse. Heavycola insists that Guns = Murdur. He even once made the statement that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished as it is an anachronism, an obsolete portion of the US Constitution.

By the logic of that second part, I say that it is hypocritical to say that my nation is rife with outdated laws when his nation still has hereditary aristocrats. As for the first part, as he would say, Bollocks; Switzerland allows people to own military grade weapons (keeping fully automatic rifles in their homes and can buy ammo at any target range, which is not always used on the range, some is taken home) and yet they are not having too many massive battles between drug lords and the police.

The old "cliche", People kill People, is not a cliche, it is the truth. Russia has gun violent inspite of a strict ban on the ownership of guns by citizens, as does Austrialia. In fact I recall hearing that the rate of gun violence in Austrialia went up after the gun ban was enacted.

But whatever, 'we simply cannot allow sane, law-bidding citizens the right to defend their property and loved ones at the risk that there might be some nutjob that might kill someone.' Give me a break; there are already background checks and waiting periods on handguns and some states have 'assault' weapons bans. What more can be done without making the problem worse? Or creating new problems as well? What people fail to realise is that bans only fuel the black market demand: example, Prohibition.

[Frigidus]

As for the first part, as he would say, Bollocks; Switzerland allows people to own military grade weapons (keeping fully automatic rifles in their homes and can buy ammo at any target range, which is not always used on the range, some is taken home) and yet they are not having too many massive battles between drug lords and the police.

The old "cliche", People kill People, is not a cliche, it is the truth. Russia has gun violent inspite of a strict ban on the ownership of guns by citizens, as does Austrialia. In fact I recall hearing that the rate of gun violence in Austrialia went up after the gun ban was enacted.

Ah, but you forget that Switzerland isn't full of entitled assholes. As you pointed out, it's the man that kills not the gun, but a gun sure makes the killing easier.

But whatever, 'we simply cannot allow sane, law-bidding citizens the right to defend their property and loved ones at the risk that there might be some nutjob that might kill someone.' Give me a break; there are already background checks and waiting periods on handguns and some states have 'assault' weapons bans. What more can be done without making the problem worse? Or creating new problems as well? What people fail to realise is that bans only fuel the black market demand: example, Prohibition.

Sure, its too late for us at this point. We should have banned handguns before we let them into the hands of the populace. No matter what we do at this point, we're stuck with the incredibly high violence rates. Our bad. However, in retrospect, if we'd kept semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of random people in the first place we'd likely be more comparable to Britain.

[jonesthecurl]

Can we get back to the cultural potlach? I was enjoying that.

If the US burns McD's, the brits will ban faggot and peas.
If the US will stop calling cakes "muffins", the UK will agree to call crisps "chips".

[MeDeFe]

The old "cliche", People kill People, is not a cliche, it is the truth. Russia has gun violent inspite of a strict ban on the ownership of guns by citizens, as does Austrialia. In fact I recall hearing that the rate of gun violence in Austrialia went up after the gun ban was enacted.

Yeah, I remember someone saying that in a recent thread, turned out it went up from, like, 3 cases to 12 cases in one year for all of Australia. Somewhere around those numbers.

[Snorri1234]

By the logic of that second part, I say that it is hypocritical to say that my nation is rife with outdated laws when his nation still has hereditary aristocrats. As for the first part, as he would say, Bollocks; Switzerland allows people to own military grade weapons (keeping fully automatic rifles in their homes and can buy ammo at any target range, which is not always used on the range, some is taken home) and yet they are not having too many massive battles between drug lords and the police.

That's because there are no drug lords in Switzerland. Neither are there many minorities/poor people, big urban areas or untrained gunowners. (Military training is mandatory.)

[Neoteny]

The old "cliche", People kill People, is not a cliche, it is the truth. Russia has gun violent inspite of a strict ban on the ownership of guns by citizens, as does Austrialia. In fact I recall hearing that the rate of gun violence in Austrialia went up after the gun ban was enacted.

Yeah, I remember someone saying that in a recent thread, turned out it went up from, like, 3 cases to 12 cases in one year for all of Australia. Somewhere around those numbers.

But that's a 400% increase!

By the logic of that second part, I say that it is hypocritical to say that my nation is rife with outdated laws when his nation still has hereditary aristocrats. As for the first part, as he would say, Bollocks; Switzerland allows people to own military grade weapons (keeping fully automatic rifles in their homes and can buy ammo at any target range, which is not always used on the range, some is taken home) and yet they are not having too many massive battles between drug lords and the police.

That's because there are no drug lords in Switzerland. Neither are there many minorities/poor people, big urban areas or untrained gunowners. (Military training is mandatory.)

I heard somewhere that it was illegal in Sweden to have those weapons even assembled unless in some wartime situation. Is there a similar type deal in Switzerland?

[jiminski]

If the UK, Japan, Sweden and all other "first world" nations that have monarcies, abolish the crown and their hereditary aristocracies (no more kings, dukes, barons, knighted people, etc.). Since, according to your vaulted exhortations, gun ownership is a barbaric anachronism, it is disgustingly hypocritical that you would allow the Crown to go unchalledged. This means, specifically for Britain; the forced abdictation of the Royals, abolishment of the House of Lords (in favor of a legislative house that fills the same role, if it is needed. If not, Britain can get along fine without it), the formal change of name from the United Kingdom to simply Great Britain and the removal of the term "royal" from such things as the British Royal Marines and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. Similar actions are expected from other monarchial states. It is only under these conditions that the US will enact gun polices identical to those practiced in the nation of Switzerland.

Yeah, guns and monarchies are basically the same thing. I'm sure that you would no more mind being shot then I would living under a monarchy.

Next topic: Should delusional patients be allowed net access?

Read the bolded part, should help you figure out my intent.

By way of Heavycola's reasoning, anything can be made to seem a barbarity.

I think that he is less concerned with the fact that owning guns isn't hip anymore and more with the fact that allowing every moron to own a gun for no other reason but because he really, REALLY wants to own a gun, significantly increases mortality rate. Unless you have a reason to believe that people in GB or Norway are getting killed by their form of government.

Wow, you are obtuse. Heavycola insists that Guns = Murdur. He even once made the statement that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished as it is an anachronism, an obsolete portion of the US Constitution.

By the logic of that second part, I say that it is hypocritical to say that my nation is rife with outdated laws when his nation still has hereditary aristocrats. As for the first part, as he would say, Bollocks; Switzerland allows people to own military grade weapons (keeping fully automatic rifles in their homes and can buy ammo at any target range, which is not always used on the range, some is taken home) and yet they are not having too many massive battles between drug lords and the police.

The old "cliche", People kill People, is not a cliche, it is the truth. Russia has gun violent inspite of a strict ban on the ownership of guns by citizens, as does Austrialia. In fact I recall hearing that the rate of gun violence in Austrialia went up after the gun ban was enacted.

But whatever, 'we simply cannot allow sane, law-bidding citizens the right to defend their property and loved ones at the risk that there might be some nutjob that might kill someone.' Give me a break; there are already background checks and waiting periods on handguns and some states have 'assault' weapons bans. What more can be done without making the problem worse? Or creating new problems as well? What people fail to realise is that bans only fuel the black market demand: example, Prohibition.

are you really basing your defense of the right to bear arms on paralleling it with hierarchical anachronisms endemic to European Governance?

good lord! that is the most tenuous defense of anything i have ever heard ... ... hmmm ever.

the 'development' of your argument into the prohibition defense is also facile. You can not compare the banning of alcohol: A tool which throughout history has been culturally accepted to all but the most prudish of zealot. Primarily a tool of enjoyment and release, not directly responsible for anything but self-harm.

You can not compare that with prohibition of the Gun: A tool which has been culturally isolated by all but the most extreme of societies. Primarily a tool of the cessation of life, directly responsible for self harm and murder.

[heavycola]

If the UK, Japan, Sweden and all other "first world" nations that have monarcies, abolish the crown and their hereditary aristocracies (no more kings, dukes, barons, knighted people, etc.). Since, according to your vaulted exhortations, gun ownership is a barbaric anachronism, it is disgustingly hypocritical that you would allow the Crown to go unchalledged. This means, specifically for Britain; the forced abdictation of the Royals, abolishment of the House of Lords (in favor of a legislative house that fills the same role, if it is needed. If not, Britain can get along fine without it), the formal change of name from the United Kingdom to simply Great Britain and the removal of the term "royal" from such things as the British Royal Marines and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. Similar actions are expected from other monarchial states. It is only under these conditions that the US will enact gun polices identical to those practiced in the nation of Switzerland.

Yeah, guns and monarchies are basically the same thing. I'm sure that you would no more mind being shot then I would living under a monarchy.

Next topic: Should delusional patients be allowed net access?

Read the bolded part, should help you figure out my intent.

By way of Heavycola's reasoning, anything can be made to seem a barbarity.

I think that he is less concerned with the fact that owning guns isn't hip anymore and more with the fact that allowing every moron to own a gun for no other reason but because he really, REALLY wants to own a gun, significantly increases mortality rate. Unless you have a reason to believe that people in GB or Norway are getting killed by their form of government.

Wow, you are obtuse. Heavycola insists that Guns = Murdur. He even once made the statement that the 2nd Amendment should be abolished as it is an anachronism, an obsolete portion of the US Constitution.

By the logic of that second part, I say that it is hypocritical to say that my nation is rife with outdated laws when his nation still has hereditary aristocrats. As for the first part, as he would say, Bollocks; Switzerland allows people to own military grade weapons (keeping fully automatic rifles in their homes and can buy ammo at any target range, which is not always used on the range, some is taken home) and yet they are not having too many massive battles between drug lords and the police.

The old "cliche", People kill People, is not a cliche, it is the truth. Russia has gun violent inspite of a strict ban on the ownership of guns by citizens, as does Austrialia. In fact I recall hearing that the rate of gun violence in Austrialia went up after the gun ban was enacted.

But whatever, 'we simply cannot allow sane, law-bidding citizens the right to defend their property and loved ones at the risk that there might be some nutjob that might kill someone.' Give me a break; there are already background checks and waiting periods on handguns and some states have 'assault' weapons bans. What more can be done without making the problem worse? Or creating new problems as well? What people fail to realise is that bans only fuel the black market demand: example, Prohibition.

wow. A thread with my name in it. Pity it's so laughable.

Yes the 2nd amendment is an anachronism.
No, guns do not equal murder. Handgun proliferation in the US is correlatable to gun homicides, however. Bit different.

And why you think i am a) a royalist or b) give a toss about hereditary titles...

Sure, lawmaker, strip them all of their hereditary titles, end the monarchy. No problem with that. Don't care much either way. Do try and research the house of lords' function and recent history before you start banging on about it, however.

[Hologram]

I'll up the stakes - We will get rid of Miley Cyrus if Britain stops Hugh Grant from making any more movies. Everyone wins

Hey. Hugh Grant is a sexy piece of man candy.


yum

[Jenos Ridan]

Austrialia had a FOUR-HUNDRED PERCENTincrease in gun violence as result of a ban? I've heard stories but that just takes the cake!

Strike one for the 2nd Amendment.

Ok, I'll admit, comparing titles of nobility to the 2nd Amendment is rather spacious. But you left that open for me to run with, to mostly hilarious results (It was a very silly idea when I came up with it, but I figured, what the hay, my reputation is about as bad as it'll ever get).

I'll end with this; I have no problem with background checks, among other forms of regulation (short of whole catagorical bans). No one in their right mind wants some felon or clinically insane person getting his or her hands on a gun. Should people have to take safety classes? Common Sence should have been enough, I think an IQ test (or some certifiacation thereof) would be more effective. Waiting periods, ok, I can see this.

However, bear in mind: any body at any age, with daddy's credit card, can buy a cannon and powder (black powder, sold at any sporting goods store, commonly used for big game hunting with muzzleloaders. Also can be bought online, and in massive quantities) for it. As for shot, several big rocks or handfulls of loose gravel will do. With that, one can kill dozens of people in one blow; a good shooter can only expect seven to eight kills from a standard 9mm (even then he/she would have to be something of an expert). Also, one can buy black-powder 'cap-and-ball' revolvers at 18, which will kill someone just the same as a modern pistol, yet one has to be 21 to buy a modern handgun?

My point is, the Gun-Control (or in HC's case, flat-out gun bans) lobby has a few good points, but on the whole, there are already other issues that need to be addressed before one can start slamming down hard and fast rules.

[heavycola]

let me share a secret with you:
Communism will win.

[MeDeFe]

Austrialia had a FOUR-HUNDRED PERCENTincrease in gun violence as result of a ban? I've heard stories but that just takes the cake!

Nah, not quite that bad, but for homicides we're dealing with mostly double digit numbers.

Gun related homicide cases by year.
1994: 76
1995: 67
1996: 104 (gun ban enacted, buyback of weapons began in September)
1997: 79
1998: 57

Total population is about 21M.

Here's the full paper where I got those numbers from if you're interested.
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269.pdf

[Jenos Ridan]

let me share a secret with you:
Communism will win.

Sure it will...............










Over my rotting corpse.

[MeDeFe]

let me share a secret with you:
Communism will win.

Sure it will...............

Over my rotting corpse.

So in... 50 years tops? How old are you anyway?

[Jenos Ridan]

let me share a secret with you:
Communism will win.

Sure it will...............

Over my rotting corpse.

So in... 50 years tops? How old are you anyway?

I ment to imply that the Bolshevics would have to kill me first (as in rotting on some battlefield somewhere, different context than the normal usage of that expression).

[luns101]

I meant to imply that the Bolsheviks would have to kill me first (as in rotting on some battlefield somewhere, different context than the normal usage of that expression).

The Mensheviks, on the other hand, would be patient enough to wait around for your demise.

They should not be confused with the Chicksheviks, who vowed to bring about the revolution of society through shoe sales, cheesy romantic movies, and usually all went to the bathroom together.

[Jenos Ridan]

I meant to imply that the Bolsheviks would have to kill me first (as in rotting on some battlefield somewhere, different context than the normal usage of that expression).

The Mensheviks, on the other hand, would be patient enough to wait around for your demise.

Until their losses become unacceptable.

They should not be confused with the Chicksheviks, who vowed to bring about the revolution of society through shoe sales, cheesy romantic movies, and usually all went to the bathroom together.

Huh?