Moderator: Moderators
But wait! One ak-47 can get you many camels.adin_panther wrote:Woa, that is way overpriced for an ak-47 ... last time i checked they went for around 150 euro/180 Dollar. Camels are expensive ...
For that matter, we might as well ban clothing.Gota wrote:the fact this is a huge industry in the us should play as a counterweight to any pro gun argument.
Fact is an industry that large,making so much money is sure to come up with plenty of reasons for people to carry a gun and spend plenty of cash to make sure people remember those reasons by heart.
If guns are prohibited it is much easier to track down the origins of guns used in any crime since guns are rare.
Except that this is entirely untrue because the public market contains basically no gun advertisement at all except in hunting magazines, and the lobby groups that are pro gun are primarily hunting hobbyists and collector hobbyists, not industry members.Gota wrote:They dont need to tell us but they do try to encourage us and repress voices that will say otherwise thus slowly changing public opinion.
Yes, neverous and scared people all with guns is a recipe for a happy ending. I think if everyone in that school had a gun, the resulting confusion would have resulted in far more lives being lost.Snipawolf wrote:It really is simple. Like several have stated, if EVERYONE carries a gun and (preferably) knows how to use it, you will be deterred severely in your efforts to commit your crime. You won't get nervous and anxious halfway through. You will be nervous before you even begin when you know you aren't the only person packing heat.
People always say this, but if access to guns is difficult, most petty criminals, at the very least, won't have one. Gun laws aren't some magical thing which put guns into the hands of every criminal.Snipawolf wrote:It really is simple. Like several have stated, if EVERYONE carries a gun and (preferably) knows how to use it, you will be deterred severely in your efforts to commit your crime. You won't get nervous and anxious halfway through. You will be nervous before you even begin when you know you aren't the only person packing heat.
Just as well, criminals are by definition people who break laws. If someone wants a gun enough to gun down people in a school, they WILL get it.
It's fairly obvious from this statement that you have never fired a pistol.Wisse wrote: I can't imagine living in that kind of conditions. Yes, guns probably stop robbers but not suicidal ppl, because they want to die anyway. Someone with proper shooting skills and a plan would still take out 15 ppl before they stop him even if they all own a gun.
Yes, I do like that fact. Does the revolutionary war, or the civil war in America ring any bells? It also helps to understand what our country was founded upon. The US is a republic. We the people run the government, not the other way around (even though the hardcore left is trying to change that for over half a century).I don't get you Americans either. You guys actually like the fact that you can carry arms. You guys think that you need/will be able to overthrow government if something goes wrong. What the fuck. Seriously I don't get it, plz explain.
).@tombom, you don't truly understand how simple it is to obtain a non-registered handgun. "Tougher" gun laws won't change that. And it forces all those who are incapable of protecting themselves to simply run, giving said criminal immense power over the situation.http://www.usconstitution.net/ wrote:The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society, and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.
Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm.
Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, "Yes." The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790's than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.
Today, the state militias have evolved into the National Guard in every state. These soldiers, while part-time, are professionally trained and armed by the government. No longer are regular, non-Guardsmen, expected to take up arms in defense of the state or the nation (though the US Code does still recognize the unorganized militia as an entity, and state laws vary on the subject [10 USC 311]).
This is in great contrast to the way things were at the time of adoption of the 2nd Amendment. Many state constitutions had a right to bear arms for the purposes of the maintenance of the militia. Many had laws that required men of age to own a gun and supplies, including powder and bullets.
In the state constitutions written around the time of the Declaration of Independence, the right to bear arms was presented in different ways. The Articles of Confederation specified that the states should maintain their militias, but did not mention a right to bear arms. Thus, any such protections would have to come from state law. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, though it mentioned the militia, did not mention a right to bear arms ├óÔé¼ÔÇØ the right might be implied, since the state did not furnish weapons for militiamen. The constitutions of North Carolina and Massachusetts did guarantee the right, to ensure proper defense of the states. The constitution of Pennsylvania guaranteed the right with no mention of the militia (at the time, Pennsylvania had no organized militia). One of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates was that the new nation did not arm the militias, an odd argument since neither did the U.S. under the Articles. Finally, Madison's original proposal for the Bill of Rights mentioned the individual right much more directly than the final result that came out of Congress.
Perhaps in the 1780's, the rise of a tyrant to a leadership position in the U.S. was a cause for concern. Today, in my opinion, the voters are much too sophisticated to elect a leader whose stated aims would be to suppress freedom or declare martial law. For the leader whose unstated aim it was to seize the nation, the task would be more than daunting ├óÔé¼ÔÇØ it would be next to impossible. The size and scope of the conspiracy needed, the cooperation of patriots who would see right through such a plan ├óÔé¼ÔÇØ it is unfathomable, the stuff of fiction. There are some who fear the rise in executive power under the second Bush presidency is just such a usurpation, and in some ways it may be. But similar usurpations of power by the Congress and the President, such as the Alien and Sedition Acts, the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, or the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, were all eventually overturned or struck down and then condemned by history. My hope is that history can be our guide this time, too.
The defense of our borders had not been a cause for concern for nearly a century before the subject really came up again around the time of the turn of the millennium, in 1999. Concern with border defense again became an issue after September 11, 2001, when a series of terrorist attacks, both in the form of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings and anthrax-laced mail, made people realize that we do have enemies that wish to invade our nation, though not on the scale of an army. But while each state has its National Guard it can call up to guard the borders, the coordination needed is much more on a national scale, and special units of the regular army or border patrol are better suited for such duty than the Guard.
If this were actually founded in solid logic, you would realize that gun laws also aren't some magical thing that makes criminals want to stop using them.Gun laws aren't some magical thing which put guns into the hands of every criminal.
I wonder how other countries citizens manage to keep their goverments from enslaving them without a personal armoury in their house.Our country was founded upon the principles that our government is a slave to the people, as opposed to the people being enslaved by the government (Escape from England a'ringin any bells?
So youre saying that the state goverments are actively seeking to destroy your rights, and the only thing that stops it from happening is a gun in your hands, but the gun in your hands isnt really meant for violence, but other kind of "fighting?"The problem is when power is taken from state governments and given to the federal government. That's when you start watching your rights as a citizen going *poof*.
The fact is that the majority of americans love their country, and have no qualms about fighting for it (the word "Fighting" doesn't particularly refer to violence).
The victims were about 12 year old girls in a school, why would they need to have guns with them?This shooting in Germany for example. Exactly what could anyone do? The guy had a gun, it's not like they could do anything to stop it. Now take that same scenario, and imagine that 90% of the people there had handguns on their person. How long do you really think said killer would have lasted?
oh please....probably because the US is the only country where guns are an actual political issue with large numbers of people on each side and lots of meaningful debate.
Well I for one keep a V2 missile from the old days in my basement...I wonder how other countries citizens manage to keep their goverments from enslaving them without a personal armoury in their house.
I am 29.7x more likely to be killed with a firearm in america than in britanAcidd_UK wrote:Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence :
Firearm homicide rate per 100,000 pop.
0.12
2.97
This is stupid. Your last sentence doesn't even make sense and your first paragraph doesn't even attempt to link in with the topic. Unless you're trying to say that somehow people don't know that killing people is wrong because of the government, which is even stupider.reivanen wrote:I think these incidents are a direct consequence of our stricter government politics of babysitting the citizens and defining what they can and what the cannot do. People will never learn what is right and what is wrong, as the food is expected to be chewed when its put in their mouth.
My prediction is that these types of incidents will continue to happen, and increase in frequency, as long as the governments keep to restrict individuals rights to do what they want as long as it doesnt infridge on others eaqual right.
