Quake3World

I wonder how much gun crime is related to the drugs that so many of you like to use? I'm referring to the high volume traffickers and whatnot here...n

Ryoki wrote:

Nightshade wrote: No, he's not. Guns do not make people kill each other, and it's almost as easy to kill someone with a knife as it is with a gun. If you're a psycho that's inclined to kill someone when you lose your temper, you'll do it with whatever's at hand.

See, i just don't agree with that. I think it's much harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. And of course any proper psycho would find other creative means to solve his problems when no gun is handy, but then most gun violence is not the work of psychos, is it.

The way i see it weaponry has evolved around one thing: the amount of distance between the user and the soon to be wasted. It's not pure practicality, it's also to overcome that basic instinct 95% of us have that says not to kill other people, which is stronger when the act of killing itself is more physical and intense. Hit someone over the head wth a large rock repeatedly and watch him die slowly and you'll be haunted more than if you kill more than 200 people from your plane several kilometers above the earth and watch the whole thing from your little tv screen.

I believe the same applies to guns vs knives (maybe to a somewhat lesser extent haha).

We can debate which is easier all day, but the bottom line is that the weapon does not make people violent. Do you think people used to scream about needing more crossbow regulation?
And the distances are VERY similar between shootings and stabbings. There aren't a whole lot of snipers roaming around popping people.

Ryoki wrote:
It is not, really: i bet you Canadians have more gun related violence than say Sweden or Norway.

Not exactly. Sweden's gun death stats are only slightly lower than Canada's and Norway's stats are actually higher.

Click for some stats on international gun violence.

No one should have any-type of gun.

rifles are just okay, if youre hunting for food.

CokeMachineGlow wrote:No one should have any-type of gun.

rifles are just okay, if youre hunting for food.

Way to contradict yourself dumbass.

Ryoki,
you wont get many (if any) americans to understand your logic - its a cultural thing for them.
Secondly, I wonder what the stats are in the middle east where every second adult owns an ak47 or some other semi auto weapon.
Yanks just dont get it, nor do their close neighbours seemingly.

its not a matter of not getting it. its a matter of disillusionment...on both sides. Thats why I like middle of the road.

Tormentius wrote:

CokeMachineGlow wrote:No one should have any-type of gun.

rifles are just okay, if youre hunting for food.

Way to contradict yourself dumbass.

A gun and a rifle are 2 different things. :icon26:

CokeMachineGlow wrote:
A gun and a rifle are 2 different things. :icon26:

Yeah...sure :icon27:. Here's what Merriam-Webster's dictionary has to say on the matter:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gun

Main Entry: 1gun
Pronunciation: 'g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gonne, gunne
1 a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b : a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) c : a device that throws a projectile
2 a : a discharge of a gun especially as a salute or signal b : a signal marking a beginning or ending.

Holy crap...where to start with this now.

Let's go bit by bit...

Ryoki wrote: "I merely pointed out the type of reasoning you use. You choose to ignore the obvious larger implications of this law (less restrictions = more guns = more shootings, any fool can figure that out) and make your decision on the issue by reducing it to a black and white hypothetical situation that appeals to fear."

You didn't point out my reasoning. You misconstrued it. This law has nothing to do with the numbers of guns on the streets. By what I've read, it states that a gun owner is not legally required to try and retreat while being attacked - that they can use their gun to protect themselves and be legally protected in doing so.
The "larger implications" that you envision (that supposedly any fool could figure out, and by the looks of it, many have) are actually based on a very black and white hypothetical situation roote in fear. The hypothetical is that this SPECIFIC LAW will result in more guns on the streets and therefore more shootings. But what we should be looking at is will it result in MORE CRIME? That it will directly result in more shootings cannot be demonstrated save through time. If it did indeed result in more shootings, I would argue that what we would see is MORE CRIMINALS BEING SHOT. I'm not losing sleep over that one, but, again that this will even be a result of the law is hypothetical. As for an appeal to fear...what in the fuck do you think you are appealing to? Fear. Fuck, reefsurfer was the one who was shitting himself in fear at the beginning of this whole thing. So you constructed a straw man argument to play on this fear and garner more support for a position based on a misrepresentation of the issue.

Next one:

Ryoki wrote: "Explain to me how this is different from the reasoning that has brought us the Iraq invasion, the the PATRIOT act, or the 'let's torture terrorists if we suspect they know something' line of thinking"

Good fucking God. First of all, see my straw man argument statement. Let's see where you are going here - A person having the right to use a gun to defend himself WHILE BEING ATTACKED (its that little stipulation you love to ignore) is on par with Bush's pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation that had not acted in a violent or aggressive manner towards us directly? This isn't about shooting someone because you *think* they are going to attack you. This is about protecting yourself while being attacked. The legal system here has protected the criminal for too long, and there is nothing wrong with giving a citizen the right to defend himself or herself from a violent attacker.

People who want guns are already carrying them. There are not thousands, even hundreds, of people who are sitting at home saying "Alright, they passed that self-defense law...I'm getting me a gun now so I can shoot some bad guys."

It amazes me how people get all pissed off when politicians make those exaggerated claims about the effects marijauna has on society yet turn around and make the same type of exaggerated claims about guns and the United States.

Tormentius wrote:

CokeMachineGlow wrote:
A gun and a rifle are 2 different things. :icon26:

Yeah...sure :icon27:. Here's what Merriam-Webster's dictionary has to say on the matter:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/gun

Main Entry: 1gun
Pronunciation: 'g&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gonne, gunne
1 a : a piece of ordnance usually with high muzzle velocity and comparatively flat trajectory b : a portable firearm (as a rifle or handgun) c : a device that throws a projectile
2 a : a discharge of a gun especially as a salute or signal b : a signal marking a beginning or ending.

Quoting the Dictionary is Highschool.

If youre gonna quote something, quote:

Full Metal Jacket:

"This is my Rifle this is my Gun, This is for shooting, this is for fun."

My point is, a hand gun is a gun. A hunting Rifle is a Rifle.
A hand gun is made to kill humans. You dont hunt Deer with a .38. ( See Deer Hunter)
A Rifle is made to kill AnimalsAnything,( including humans).
But made mostly to kill animals.

I dont think handguns should be made available to the public.

You can hunt deer with a .44 mag.

i hunt .44 mags with chuck norris.
hahashahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

CokeMachineGlow wrote: My point is, a hand gun is a gun. A hunting Rifle is a Rifle.
A hand gun is made to kill humans. You dont hunt Deer with a .38. ( See Deer Hunter)
A Rifle is made to kill AnimalsAnything,( including humans).
But made mostly to kill animals.

A hand gun is a gun, you're right. So is a rifle as defined by the English language. Don't try to defend an argument this pathetic, it just makes you look stupid.

btw, there are people who hunt with handguns or use one as a backup when bowhunting.

tnf wrote:People who want guns are already carrying them. There are not thousands, even hundreds, of people who are sitting at home saying "Alright, they passed that self-defense law...I'm getting me a gun now so I can shoot some bad guys."

...not that you can back that assertion up

I think you're slightly misunderstanding the euros in this argument - we haven't got a problem so much with this new law as the whole gun edifice.

I think if you and NS want to defend this with "logic", you really ought to quote some stats which show guns being effective defensive weapons - i.e. situations in which average joe in the street had a gun and used it in defence effectively. I bet we're talking in terms of tens of cases a year in the entire continent.

Otherwise we'll just have to assume you guys are compensating for basic insecurity....

Tormentius wrote:

CokeMachineGlow wrote: My point is, a hand gun is a gun. A hunting Rifle is a Rifle.
A hand gun is made to kill humans. You dont hunt Deer with a .38. ( See Deer Hunter)
A Rifle is made to kill AnimalsAnything,( including humans).
But made mostly to kill animals.

A hand gun is a gun, you're right. So is a rifle as defined by the English language. Don't try to defend an argument this pathetic, it just makes you look stupid.

btw, there are people who hunt with handguns or use one as a backup when bowhunting.

Actually he's got a point there, you're just getting hung up on language. Plus, what fuckhead goes hunting with an assault rifle?

tnf wrote:i hunt .44 mags with chuck norris.
hahashahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Lol.

if you have a legality saying it is legal to carry a concealed weapon in your state as long as you pass the test and get permission, what is the point of doing that if and or when you get put in the position to employ your shooting iron to defend your life, you must first run away with your back to your assailant?

you gotta protect the person protecting himself. it's not a law allowing carte blance for people to start blowing holes in other people and believe me it won't happen. the people to be scared of already have their stolen guns and are at this very moment shooting someone and they don't give a shit if there is a law preventing it. other than that it is as safe in this country as the safest place in the world. everyone has bad neighborhoods.

I thinks making handguns available to the public is not a matter for anyone to decide, they are available.

most of the arguements in this thread that want to seem anti-crime are really only anti-gun, IMO.

Prove that guns actually protect people, and you'd have a point.

Geebs wrote: Actually he's got a point there, you're just getting hung up on language. Plus, what fuckhead goes hunting with an assault rifle?

He completely contradicted himself before finally making some kind of point based on a made up meaning of a word.

I definitely agree with your assault rifle comment. Assault rifles aren't legal in Canada and handguns are heavily restricted.

Tormentius wrote:

CokeMachineGlow wrote: My point is, a hand gun is a gun. A hunting Rifle is a Rifle.
A hand gun is made to kill humans. You dont hunt Deer with a .38. ( See Deer Hunter)
A Rifle is made to kill AnimalsAnything,( including humans).
But made mostly to kill animals.

A hand gun is a gun, you're right. So is a rifle as defined by the English language. Don't try to defend an argument this pathetic, it just makes you look stupid.

btw, there are people who hunt with handguns or use one as a backup when bowhunting.

Youre right,

I should dilute my positon.



No one should have a gun.

Every gun ever made sucks.

Fuck Guns.

Thats just the way I feel about it.

Geebs wrote:

tnf wrote:People who want guns are already carrying them. There are not thousands, even hundreds, of people who are sitting at home saying "Alright, they passed that self-defense law...I'm getting me a gun now so I can shoot some bad guys."

...not that you can back that assertion up

I think you're slightly misunderstanding the euros in this argument - we haven't got a problem so much with this new law as the whole gun edifice.

I think if you and NS want to defend this with "logic", you really ought to quote some stats which show guns being effective defensive weapons - i.e. situations in which average joe in the street had a gun and used it in defence effectively. I bet we're talking in terms of tens of cases a year in the entire continent.

Otherwise we'll just have to assume you guys are compensating for basic insecurity....

Again, not a representation of my argument. I haven't said that guns are the best self-defense options...to be honest, I agree completely that a lot of folks who carry guns are going to be safre if they don't have them with them. That isn't what I am getting at here...

I am saying that if a person with a gun, who is trained in its use, is attacked and decides to defend himself with it...he should have every legal right to do so.

That's it.

And if we're only talking tens of cases a year...please give me the number of cases per year of innocent people killed by someone defending themselves with a gun while being attacked. Not saying it doesn't or hasn't happened, but I also think we are talking low numbers overall.