hmm, why don't we just convert the entire U.S. into a military, give everyone complete armor and complete arsenal... along with necessary training... i guarantee that would cut down on crime... i mean, lets say someone tries to hold up a bank orsomething... every bystander pulls out their weapon of choice and slaughters the poor bank robber and goes back to their businessnice visual

now that sounds like a cool place to live

Well people better not piss each other off. Imagine the horrible gunfight...

I agree with Prime, I'll live nice and comfy in good ol' Canada.

Luke, can I live with you?

Sure why not. I have an empty room that needs an occupant.

yeah, all you guys in canada will be sorry when the rest of the world is dead or dying...:confused:

Ok...so the rest of the world dies and?

thats it... then you will be all alone... who will be sorry then?

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Yeah, it's too bad we have violence of any sort. And that we have guns to help engage in violence. But those are the facts. We as a species are not able nor ready to lay down our arms. So we won't. It's that simple. With or without guns, people will engage in, and fall victim to violence. If you simply must have a big cause to champion and crusade against, try doing something about violence. Your chances of getting rid of that are as realistic as getting rid of guns. [/B]

Then how do you explain that gun-free western countries have far less violence and murders than the US?

If we in Europe can make a pretty much gun-free society with few murders, why shouldn't you guys in the States be able to?

Originally posted by Breton
Then how do you explain that gun-free western countries have far less violence and murders than the US?

If we in Europe can make a pretty much gun-free society with few murders, why shouldn't you guys in the States be able to?

Excuse me? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the area marked as the former Soviet Union counted as Europe? Didn't you guys just have an assload of people die in a school taken over by armed gunmen? Yeah, it really sounds like you people have the whole gun ban and violence thing under wraps.

Originally posted by Breton
Then how do you explain that gun-free western countries have far less violence and murders than the US?

If we in Europe can make a pretty much gun-free society with few murders, why shouldn't you guys in the States be able to? actually, smart***, per capita, the US doesn't have that many more murders or violent crimes than those in gun-free or strict gun-control countries, we have a murder-per-capita og .035 per 1000 population, whereas, the uk has .015 per 1000

sure, we have more, but not significantly more, not enough to base a claim on

actually, smart***, per capita, the US doesn't have that many more murders or violent crimes than those in gun-free or strict gun-control countries, we have a murder-per-capita og .035 per 1000 population, whereas, the uk has .015 per 1000Sorry Lieutenant, but even quoting your figures, over twice as many is quite a difference.

Personally I believe that the excessive gun-violence in America stems not from gun ownership, but from American culture and the fear inherent in it. But whatever the cause you cannot deny that there is a huge amount of gun-violence in America.

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Excuse me? Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the area marked as the former Soviet Union counted as Europe? Didn't you guys just have an assload of people die in a school taken over by armed gunmen? Yeah, it really sounds like you people have the whole gun ban and violence thing under wraps.

Those were foreign terrorists, who didn't get their guns in Russia...
Besides, Russia isn't a western country.

actually, smart***, per capita, the US doesn't have that many more murders or violent crimes than those in gun-free or strict gun-control countries, we have a murder-per-capita og .035 per 1000 population, whereas, the uk has .015 per 1000

As Spider said, more than twice as many murders is actually a quite enormous difference.

Also, the murder-per-capita rate in Norway (where I live) is .0087...

and i will freely admit i think norway is the coolest place in the world(no pun intended), but i don't think twice as many murders is a lot more, when you consider countries in the mid-east and north-eastern africe with murder rate, up to 30 times that of the us

Sigh.

Those middle-eastern countries don't claim to be the bastion of freedom, beacon of democracy and leader of the free world now, do they? You're sidestepping frantically.

Compare the US with countries that are democratic, western, industrial, in short, LIKE THE US... except that gun ownership is more restricted. BANG! Less deaths. You CANNOT dispute this. We can dispute the reasons FOR the quantity of gun-deaths, but we can't ignore their EXISTENCE.

and what about Japan(yes, I know, not western), Japan has a lot less gun deaths than America.

Gun violence in a country is the result of several factors.

General culture, psyche, media, gun control, etc.

In the case of Japan, I suppose that it's in their psyche though we do know they are plagued with a suicide and depression problem, especially in teens due to the very demanding conditions of school, family, etc.
Japan doesn't seem to like to watch "Japan's most wanted" or "Cops: In Japan". Those kind of shows are only there to scare people. Those shows DO affect people because they're non-fiction.
Being in Canada, I've watched America's most wanted once to see what it looked like. After the show, I was wondering who the hell would want to live in such a country...

Japan also has really violent media. There's no real proof but it's a good supposition to think they would relieve their violent urges by watching violent movies and playing gore-fest video games.

it may be true that the reason for less gun deaths in u.s. like countries is less than in the u.s. because of stricter gun laws. personally, i don't think we need stricter gun laws i think that if we are going to have gun laws, they need to be more strictly enforced, and that will cut back on gn-related crime

ok, my turn.

assault rifle bans: a very good thing. and i believe thats the general consensus around here. moving on...

shotgun bans: would be a good thing, but i still sleep with a 12-gauge under my bed. not to mention they are used for hunting purposes.

high-caliber rifles: another good thing(why would you need one of those things to begin with???)

low-caliber/hunting rifles: needs limitations, but do not ban hunting rifles.

high-caliber pistols/magnums: definately a good thing

low-caliber pistols: needs limitations, but definately not a complete ban

i believe that a gun is only as deadly as the person weilding it. therefore, if you can successfully limit who owns a gun, then you can limit gun-related deaths. i'm also a believer in making anyone that owns a gun have a license for it. if you're caught with a gun and no license, then you can lose the gun and pay a hefty (and i do mean hefty) fine. that has to be a serious crime, or no one will pay attention to it. this would also give lawmakers an opportunity to come up with restrictions on who can and cannot recieve a license to own a gun. would it stop all gun related deaths?? heck no, people are too incredibly stupid to stop that. but it would reduce the number of deaths.

alas my turn on bans :
assault rifles: no
shotguns: no
high caliber rifles: no
low-caliber rifles: no
high caliber pistols: no
low calbier pistols: no

you see, the constitution gae us the right to bear arms, we should uphold that, sure, i think it is ok to restrict the use of firearms, but not the ownership of firearms, and that , my friend, is the difference.

so, its okay for someone to own an assault rifle, but not to use it??? then, what the heck is the point of owning it??? the only reason assault rifles exist is to kill people. just look at its history.

the first assault rifles came into being in world war II whenever the germans began using mp40 and later the mp44. assault rifles are overkill for hunting(who is really gonna want to fill a deer with 20+ 7.62mm rounds), so what then is its purpose??? to kill people.

banning the ownership of guns to those that do not have licenses makes sure that the government has tabs on exactly who has a gun and thus who can use a gun. of course people would try to find ways around it, but if you enforce it well enough, then it wouldn't be a major problem.

and yes, the second amendment of the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. however, if the right to bear arms inflicts on someone's unalienable right to live, then someone's rights is going to be violated. by limiting the right to bear arms to those that can be trusted to uphold the right to live will limit the number of deaths caused by gun users. plain and simple.

the point is, anyone over 18 can currently legally own a gun(at least in my state), but you have to apply for a license to use it, or carry it, etc. so the thing is, there was a time when we drastically cut back on gun use permits, but we were still allowed to buy guns
the point is, the constitution gives us the right to own the guns, and we need to uphold that constitution.
the point is, assault rifles were actually created for defensive purposes, do a little more research. they were designed to allow a soldier to defend hisself against multiple attackers without lugging around a heavy-MG

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
the point is, assault rifles were actually created for defensive purposes, do a little more research. they were designed to allow a soldier to defend hisself against multiple attackers without lugging around a heavy-MG
point granted, but you are forgetting that a gun's ultimate design purpose is to kill. defense and prevention of attack with a gun is based entirely on the situation. an assault rifle drastically improves the user's ability to kill, no matter what the situation is.

Originally posted by stingerhs
point granted, but you are forgetting that a gun's ultimate design purpose is to kill. defense and prevention of attack with a gun is based entirely on the situation. an assault rifle drastically improves the user's ability to kill, no matter what the situation is.

point taken, however, don't you think that if the constitution allows us to own something, we should be allowed to own them? i can understand limiting their use, but not banning them

edit: not that i think we should limit their use, but i can understand why people say it

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
point taken, however, don't you think that if the constitution allows us to own something, we should be allowed to own them? i can understand limiting their use, but not banning them
Originally posted by stingerhs
and yes, the second amendment of the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. however, if the right to bear arms inflicts on someone's unalienable right to live, then someone's rights is going to be violated. by limiting the right to bear arms to those that can be trusted to uphold the right to live will limit the number of deaths caused by gun users. plain and simple.

i understand what you wrote to mean limit the purchase and ownership of arms, which is what bearing arms is. however, i don't think we should limit that, only those who use them

okay here's the short version:

first, you must assume that a gun can be used by anyone, reguardless of their ability to accurately use it.

assault rifles should be banned because anyone that uses one has a far greater capability to inflict on someone's right to live than any all other small arms weapons except for fully automatic machine guns. this is due to its ability to fire many rounds with the single pull of a trigger.

for just about the same reason, shotguns should probably be banned. they fire dozens of pellets with a single pull of a trigger. although, these weapons are used for hunting purposes, and thus should be controlled more than other weapons, but not banned.

high caliber rifles and pistols should be banned. although it is a single shot, the lethality of that shot is far greater than a shot fired from a smaller caliber rifle/pistol. for this same reason, magnum pistols should be banned.

i'm looking at all of this from the standpoint that guns inherently can infringe on someone's right to live. its just that some guns can and do infringe on the right to live at a much higher rate than other weapons. that is why they should be banned.

the only problem with your logic is this: a high caliber pistols is no more deadly than a low caliberpistol, if you get shot in the abdomen by either, you will probably die, same for heart, lung, head, etc. as far as your appendages go, neither will probably kill you. you have a possible point in thatt ARs are more deadly, but not shotguns. shotguns have a very limited range if using buck-shot, and if you are using slugs, then they fall into the same category as the other rifles which is this: all rifles are equally deadly, their accuracy is what makes them more powerful than pistols, and the fact that they are usually a stronger force than a pistol, all 5 of those weapons (high and low cal pistols, high and low cal rifles, and shotguns) are all used for hunting purposes too. ARs are a different breed of weapon, and the only thing that makes them more feared is their rate of fire, which, truthfully, some people can do with a quick trigger finger on a semi-auto, i have shot most of these weapons(exception of the high caliber rifle), and through their use, i know that they are all equally deadly, but all should still be legally owned

not in every case. being shot by a 9mm as opposed to a .45 cal is quite different, even if your shot in the exact same place. a .45 cal has more weight behind it, and according to the laws of physics, thus has much more penetrating power. and also more damage inflicted. a 9mm doesn't have the same weight behind it, and thus will not cause as much damage.

a magnum, even whenever it is the same caliber will cause more damage simply because it has a much higher velocity, and thus more force on impact.

a shotgun, even when fired at a distance, still carries the potential to hit a target due to the sheer number of pellets in the shot. of course, slugs should be banned, period (forgot to mention that earlier). and, as you also mentioned, a shotgun with buck shot is extremely deadly at close range, thus, under that notion alone, a shotgun should be banned.

i will concede to your point that a close range shotgun is more deadly ad medium- close range(15-25ft0, but at very close range(less than 15 ft), all guns are equal essentially

and a 9mm is no less deadly than a .45, because even though the .45 is heftier, the 9mm is a lot faster, thus giving them compareable force and penetrating power, and magnums are more powerful than their countrparts, and i neglected to mention them in my earlier tirade. however, magnums are the equivalent of pistols as a high-velocity(sniper-rifle) is to rifles, though they may shoot the same caliber bullet, they are much faster and more accurate, giving them more force, however, seing as how i don't think there is any magnum under .357, anything that large is gonna hurt a lot anyway

Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
seing as how i don't think there is any magnum under .357, anything that large is gonna hurt a lot anyway

There are 22 magnums.

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
There are 22 magnums.
then i stand corrected

The reason pistols are a consideration is because they are faster in close quarters and easier to conceal, thus making them easier to commit crimes with.

That's one reason that in the military officers carry handguns, while the regular grunts carry rifles. If one of your men goes nuts and you need to put him down (insubordinate in a combat situation, say) you've got a quicker draw than he does. Plus you don't have to lug around a heavy weapon that you won't be using as often. I'm not in the military myself, but it seems logical to me.

Concealment, quicker in close quarters.

That's why "sawed off" shotguns are illegal (modifying the gun so its easier to conceal and use at close range, ideal for committing crimes with).

Frankly I'm undecided on the issue, however I don't think it's as cut and dried as some people have made it out to be (I'm not singling anyone here out of course), that either we ban all guns or do nothing or that banning guns will remove all gun related crime.

hehe, sawing-ff shotguns is funny, but yeah, ever since guns have been in use, people have been modding them, my favorite has to be the "slip-trigger", in which simply rubbing the trigger or hammer will set off the gun(many criminals accidentally hurt themselves with this)

but i think it is cut and dried, we should uphold the constitution, otherwise, what validity does it hold?

You should also modify it if it becomes obsolete.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
You should also modify it if it becomes obsolete.

Obsolete to you. American gun laws effect you in absolutely no way. So sure, it's easy for you to sit on high and look down on us "violent gun-toting redneck Americans" and scream ban at the top of your lungs. Just because you've been duped in your country into giving up your guns, doesn't mean you should spoil it for the rest of the "free" world. I however do own guns, and to add further relevance to my argument, I also happen to live in the United States. And I use guns in a lawfull manner, like I've stated a bazillion other times already. So why should I be disarmed and punished, if I'm not committing crimes or using firearms unlawfully? Because you can't have one? Come on...

You know very well it has nothign to do with him not owning one. I very highly doubt he cares to ever own a gun, (if you do, my mistake)

I live in american and I don't own a gun, and I really hope I never NEED to own a gun. I think the 2nd ammendment IS out of date and needs to at least be better defined, because it is far to general to really be an effective ammendment.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
You know very well it has nothign to do with him not owning one. I very highly doubt he cares to ever own a gun, (if you do, my mistake)

I live in american and I don't own a gun, and I really hope I never NEED to own a gun. I think the 2nd ammendment IS out of date and needs to at least be better defined, because it is far to general to really be an effective ammendment.

Well, this is getting repetitive. I don't mean to sound hostile when I say that. But the point isn't "need". I don't NEED to own a gun either. Hell, I don't need this computer I'm using to communicate with you on. They are things I enjoy, and WANT.

I think it's fine if you or anyone here doesn't want a gun, or feel like they need one. I however, enjoy guns. It's a hobby. I know they're used to commit crimes and kill. But not by everyone that owns one. In fact, I'd wager the number of gun owners who commit crimes with them is significantly lower than the number of gun owners that use them lawfully.

As far as the second ammendment goes, I really could care less what you did with it so long as it reads somewhere "Cap can have his guns, and continue using them."

Originally posted by ET Warrior
I live in american and I don't own a gun, and I really hope I never NEED to own a gun. I think the 2nd ammendment IS out of date and needs to at least be better defined, because it is far to general to really be an effective ammendment.
that was definately apart of my point. also consider that allowing anyone and everyone to carry whatever gun rolls off the assembly line is probably one of the worst ideas i've ever heard. for all we know, the person next to you in line for that .45 pistol or even better, the AK sitting on the rack could easily be a former convicted felon. by making guns available to everyone, you WILL endanger many, many more people.

that is why the 2nd amendment should not apply to certain people, which i have stated earlier. (dang it, why can't you people read!!!)

Originally posted by stingerhs
that is why the 2nd amendment should not apply to certain people, which i have stated earlier. (dang it, why can't you people read!!!)

And speaking of not being able to read, I thought that pretty much everyone already knew that "former convicted felons" are not allowed to legally buy or own guns. I guess not. Otherwise, I'd say you have a good point.

And while YOU are capable of handling guns without committing crimes, not everyone is.

Some people are able to smoke pot consistently without ever committing any crime(aside from the smoking pot...but were guns made illegal like pot is then your use of guns would also be illegal) and pot is banned, but not guns. In fact, fewer people commit pot-related crimes like murder than gun-related crimes, so pot should be more legal than guns.

The point is that SOMETHING has to be done, and I KNOW that making guns more readily available to the public is NOT going to help

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
And speaking of not being able to read, I thought that pretty much everyone already knew that "former convicted felons" are not allowed to legally buy or own guns. I guess not. Otherwise, I'd say you have a good point.
actually, that was more or less in response to this: Originally posted by Lieutenant_kettch
point taken, however, don't you think that if the constitution allows us to own something, we should be allowed to own them? i can understand limiting their use, but not banning them

edit: not that i think we should limit their use, but i can understand why people say it

i do read the previous stuff, i was originally posting my opinion. someone decided to debate me. go figure. ;)

Originally posted by ET Warrior
And while YOU are capable of handling guns without committing crimes, not everyone is.

Well would you, or would you not agree that the number of people that commit crimes with guns is lower than the number of people who own and use them lawfully? I am not the only one capable of handling guns and not committing crimes, I'm sure.

Originally posted by ET Warrior
Some people are able to smoke pot consistently without ever committing any crime(aside from the smoking pot...but were guns made illegal like pot is then your use of guns would also be illegal) and pot is banned, but not guns. In fact, fewer people commit pot-related crimes like murder than gun-related crimes, so pot should be more legal than guns.

The point is that SOMETHING has to be done, and I KNOW that making guns more readily available to the public is NOT going to help

Well as far as marijauna goes, I don't have a problem with it either. A few years ago (it may not be true now) there had NEVER been ONE traffic fatality that could be attributed solely to marijauna, yet people were dying by the fistfulls to alcohol related traffic deaths. Weird stuff. I happen to like marijauna, personally. Anyways, I don't think anyone wants to make "guns more readily available to the public". I agree there should probably be restrictions of some sort. The question is how do you make it hard for criminals or undesirables to obtain guns, and make it EFFECTIVE, and still keep law abiding (regarding firearms at least ;) ) citizens like myself happy? Quite a dilema, I'd say.

Originally posted by stingerhs
actually, that was more or less in response to this:

i do read the previous stuff, i was originally posting my opinion. someone decided to debate me. go figure. ;)

*AHEM* My bad...

guns are very powerful way of saying that we are a free country, to protect ourselves and such and I can tell you we won't be giving that right up any time soon :charric: :charric:

Wow. Freedom with guns...I wonder why all those other free countries in the world don't have so many guns and are still free...

Originally posted by CapNColostomy
Well would you, or would you not agree that the number of people that commit crimes with guns is lower than the number of people who own and use them lawfully? I am not the only one capable of handling guns and not committing crimes, I'm sure.

I'm not convinced that that's the point. The point is that we have a PROBLEM. a BIG one with gun violence in the US. We've seen it forever that a few bad apples can ruin things for everyone else, and if it means that law abiding citizens must give up their guns so that we can go out to parties or to the mall or to SCHOOL without the constant worry of some pissed off teenager/adult who thinks that they'll fix things by shooting a few innocent people, then so be it.


And I also don't have anything against Marijuana, I was merely pointing out that a LOT of people who are pro guns are very anti-marijuana, which is pretty hippocritical to me.

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad
Wow. Freedom with guns...I wonder why all those other free countries in the world don't have so many guns and are still free...

and oddly enough, everyone in iraq and affganistan had guns, but they weren't free....