TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Americans need to give up their guns
Pages (8): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Lock your doors?? Do you really think that the people worried about protection already don't do this? The main reason I responded was to ask what you mean by "use a gun?" Do you mean actually fire at someone, or do you mean brandish the weapon as a deterrant? If you click the first link I posted above, you'll learn that 95% of the time, just brandishing is enough of a deterrant and it's not necessary to shoot. Not by the time I'd started replying and got a few links. I wouldn't have needed to do anything if you either knew your own country's laws or didn't comment on the topic at all.

Just gonna hit the lexicon for 'brandishing'. Apperantly it means:
"sv�nga, svinga {s�rskilt vapen och ofta p� ett hotfullt s�tt} (verb; transitivt)".

which in turn means: "swing (especially guns and often in a threatfull way)"

So, yeah, brandishing would be considered 'using' imo. I do not define using in the term of cleaning maybe, but even that would be rare for most americans. Unless you count the army guys who just won't leave guns behind...

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Not by the time I'd started replying and got a few links. I wouldn't have needed to do anything if you either knew your own country's laws or didn't comment on the topic at all.

Well I am so sorry sir, I mistook another law for one that applied to guns. Since it really isn't a prominent topic of concern for myself, I am not all that well read in the subject.

i'm going to buy theresa a carrot for protection. she can poke the intruder in the eye

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa The problem with your "brandishing gun" idea is that not only can regular Americans get their hands on guns, so can the criminals. Who is more likely to get hurt in that case? A joe-shmoe who has never shot a gun before, and is scared shitless, or the guy who is looking for his next fix? Guns should be banned altogether. They are an awful invention. Don't you think it is a little fucked up that as a society you are arming yourselves from your own kind? I mean... what the hell have we turned ourselves into?

Yeah, because criminals have such a hard time acquiring illegal things. In the US, criminals aren't allowed to own guns, but they gt their hands on them anyway.

In the case you referenced, why did you assume the joe shmoe had never shot the gun before? Who the hell buys a gun but doesn't learn how to use it? If he didn't learn, but owns it, then decides to brandish it, and he gets shot, it's his own damn fault.

Guns were hardly an awful invention. Your life would be a hell of a lot different without the invention of guns, whether they were used peacefully or for war. Hell, without guns, half of your country would be uninhabitable due to the number of bears and wolves.

Lastly, even if you don't like guns, you have to admit that they're already here. You're not going to completely disarm an entire nation. At this point, you'll just disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving the criminals to run rampant on a disarmed society. It'd be nice if police could do it all, but they can't, as shown by the crime rates in both of our countries. BTW, did you read any of the links I posted before? If you did, you'd realize that less than 1/3 of homicides are committed with guns anyhow.

quote:

Originally posted by PutBoy Just gonna hit the lexicon for 'brandishing'. Apperantly it means: "sv�nga, svinga {s�rskilt vapen och ofta p� ett hotfullt s�tt} (verb; transitivt)". which in turn means: "swing (especially guns and often in a threatfull way)" So, yeah, brandishing would be considered 'using' imo. I do not define using in the term of cleaning maybe, but even that would be rare for most americans. Unless you count the army guys who just won't leave guns behind...

I consider "using" a gun to be firing it, that's why I asked.

Groundhog Boy, with that logic you can just skip all of your laws: the criminals will break them anyway, right?

Not the best comparison though, agreed...

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Yeah, because criminals have such a hard time acquiring illegal things. In the US, criminals aren't allowed to own guns, but they gt their hands on them anyway. In the case you referenced, why did you assume the joe shmoe had never shot the gun before? Who the hell buys a gun but doesn't learn how to use it? If he didn't learn, but owns it, then decides to brandish it, and he gets shot, it's his own damn fault. Guns were hardly an awful invention. Your life would be a hell of a lot different without the invention of guns, whether they were used peacefully or for war. Hell, without guns, half of your country would be uninhabitable due to the number of bears and wolves. Lastly, even if you don't like guns, you have to admit that they're already here. You're not going to completely disarm an entire nation. At this point, you'll just disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving the criminals to run rampant on a disarmed society. It'd be nice if police could do it all, but they can't, as shown by the crime rates in both of our countries. BTW, did you read any of the links I posted before? If you did, you'd realize that less than 1/3 of homicides are committed with guns anyhow. I consider "using" a gun to be firing it, that's why I asked.

Why do you assume that everyone who owns a gun knows how to use it? Wasn't it you who just said a couple posts back that a lot of people who own guns are a shitty shot?

I am not sure what your point was about criminals being able to get guns... that was my point.

Anyway, agree to disagree. You like guns, I don't. I still believe they are a terrible invention.

well im kinda curious how you would explain us having more guns per person than you guys, but yet have a violent crime rate nowhere near yours.No one says total disarmament, but you must admit that the amendmant in your constitution that grants the right to bear arms is way too vague and open to multiple interpretation.Shits already gone mad on your side of the fence, and this is one example of your constitution hindering forward progress.Hmmm the vice president of the united states is associated with one of the worlds biggest manufacturers of weapons, i wonder if he would make an effort to save the innocent lives being lost daily to this problem by sacrificing profits

No I dont own a gun, but I plan on owning several soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Don't you think it is a little fucked up that as a society you are arming yourselves from your own kind? I mean... what the hell have we turned ourselves into?

humans haven't turned themselves into anything, they've been killing eachother and everything else since caveman times.

Why dont you look at the demographics involved with injury and death by gunshot wounds. Youll find its a fairly narrow band of the population that has high %s within.

quote:

Originally posted by Danny Ocean humans haven't turned themselves into anything, they've been killing eachother and everything else since caveman times.

Acctually no. The first cavemen did battle over territory (caves, spots and so on), yes, but they mostly fled as soon as someone in their tribe was even mildy wounded. They didn't dare lose anyone, because they were so small groups they couldn't afford it.

Later on, when we bacame more and we could afford losing people we fought each-other. Badly.

However. If a man lives to be a hundred, don't you think wiseness should let him see the errors of killing people? Shouldn't we as a speicies grow.

That's not a 'save-the-world'-argument, that's more of a reason why your argument just quite don't suffice in my eyes.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa Why do you assume that everyone who owns a gun knows how to use it? Wasn't it you who just said a couple posts back that a lot of people who own guns are a shitty shot? I am not sure what your point was about criminals being able to get guns... that was my point. Anyway, agree to disagree. You like guns, I don't. I still believe they are a terrible invention.

I agree to disagree with you, but I do want to point out that I didn't say that a lot of people who own guns are shitty shots. That was igottaknow. I wouldn't say that, because I don't believe it. I used to shoot competitively, and while that may not be the norm, I think anyone who owns a gun but doesn't know how to use it is a moron. What good is a gun if you can't use it? While I would rather just use it as a threat if someone attempted to harm me, I'd sure as hell never threaten if I couldn't follow through.

Lastly, as an example, I want to add that my father, while in college after Vietnam in the early 70's, had two cars attempt to carjack him and his friend. It was late at night and they were at a light, one guy stopped short and the other jammed him in from behind, a common ploy. The guys got out, one with a chain, the other with a knife. My dad, not sure about his friend, was carrying a pistol under his seat. When one guy came up to his window and asked, "Does this knife scare you?," my dad responded by saying "Not as much as this .38 should scare you," while raising it to the guy's face through the window. As a result they got into their cars and sped off. No shots were fired, but had he not had the gun, who knows what would have happened.

quote:

Originally posted by PutBoy Acctually no. The first cavemen did battle over territory (caves, spots and so on), yes, but they mostly fled as soon as someone in their tribe was even mildy wounded. They didn't dare lose anyone, because they were so small groups they couldn't afford it.

My point is murder has always existed, and im sure a caveman murdered another caveman at some point in time.

btw saying guns are bad because you can do bad things with them is somewhat of a logical fallacy.

quote:

Originally posted by Danny Ocean My point is murder has always existed, and im sure a caveman murdered another caveman at some point in time.

Yeah, well, it was more intended as curiosa rather than discussion though.

quote:

Originally posted by Orbax btw saying guns are bad because you can do bad things with them is somewhat of a logical fallacy.

Yes. It is. But saying that everyone should carry a gun so you can protect yourself from people carrying a gun is too.

a shotgun and a hand gun

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak well im kinda curious how you would explain us having more guns per person than you guys, but yet have a violent crime rate nowhere near yours.No one says total disarmament, but you must admit that the amendmant in your constitution that grants the right to bear arms is way too vague and open to multiple interpretation.Shits already gone mad on your side of the fence, and this is one example of your constitution hindering forward progress.Hmmm the vice president of the united states is associated with one of the worlds biggest manufacturers of weapons, i wonder if he would make an effort to save the innocent lives being lost daily to this problem by sacrificing profits

Please see the links I put up a few pages ago. The Wikipedia article mentions these aspects to help

quote:

Historians point out that Canada's lower firearm related offences may not be related to Canada's current gun control laws, as Canada's murder rate was lower than that of the United States for many years, when gun control measures were similar and in some cases less stringent. Likewise, the murder rate in the US is skewed badly by the murders in those urban areas where gun ownership is effectively banned, such as Washington, D.C., New York City, and Chicago, IL.

While I hate to say it, maybe the reason is simply the culture of violence is more persistent in the US. I feel that Americans are more competitive overall, so that may play a factor. Also, I don't think I'm off in saying that our poverty rates are higher, but I might be. That's a major factor, too.

That said, if you ignore a lot of areas with really high crime rates, like the ones above, I don't think our numbers are as drastically different.

the difference between canada and the us is that the us is a society driven by fear.Levels of tolerance towards others are lower, and honestly the value put on human life by the us gov is not very high
Please dont think im bashing the usa, but these are some huge problems i saw with my own eyes while living there.There are many solutions that could help control the situation a bit better, but lets face it, even black market firearms put $$$ in the manufacturers pockets.Last time i checked the weapons industry in the us is regulated by the gov

im not into conspiracy theories really, but with my own impressions as well as what i read in this thread you can almost say the us gov is arming its poor indirectly so they can kill each other while making $$$.
A little far fetched for sure, but not as much as you might think.

all this combined with severe lack of social and medical assistance to the aging and poor its almost like a government sponsored method of desirable population control.

yes mulder
the truth is out there

ps, we are just as competitive as americans.The only difference is that our violence can be handled with fistcufts.Sure its dumb, sure people get hurt....but they live.

we invented hockey and the toothless smile...dont fuck with my beaver or else mang

as far as having comparable stats...ummm no.If my memory serves me right there were more murders in baltimore last year than all of canada...hmmm all of out major cities are bigger than baltimore.
take a look at the comparison when you add all urban centers and do the average comparison in population.not even close.

the poor that dont die in the streets get sent off to die in iraq...wtf

quote:

Originally posted by all-nite-freak the difference between canada and the us is that the us is a society driven by fear.

As much as I hate to use buzzwords like such, This is the fundamental principle of conservative ideology. Hence why Canada is always described as America's socialist neighbour. Conservative cultures are simply more pessimistic towards others, while socialist cultures are optomistic in the face of human potential. For instance, people here tend not to like guns, because we're not afraid of eachother, so all that we see on this issue are the accidental deaths related to personal gun ownership. On the other hand, if you go into the rural areas and the prairies, you'll find alot of people who adhere to the principle that guns should be kept as self defense.

Some sociologists theorise that this gap in ideology could be due to the fact that "city people" have been forced to live with each other for a long time, and consequently, have grown more tolerant of others.

Aquarian, well spoken.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian As much as I hate to use buzzwords like such, This is the fundamental principle of conservative ideology. Hence why Canada is always described as America's socialist neighbour. Conservative cultures are simply more pessimistic towards others, while socialist cultures are optomistic in the face of human potential. For instance, people here tend not to like guns, because we're not afraid of eachother, so all that we see on this issue are the accidental deaths related to personal gun ownership. On the other hand, if you go into the rural areas and the prairies, you'll find alot of people who adhere to the principle that guns should be kept as self defense. Some sociologists theorise that this gap in ideology could be due to the fact that "city people" have been forced to live with each other for a long time, and consequently, have grown more tolerant of others.

Pretty well put.

Also, I'd add another reason why people in rural areas want guns is because of the remote location of police protection. If the closest station is 15 miles away and someone breaks into your home, you can't really hide, call the cops, and rely on them to show up before it's too late, which is different than if you live in the suburbs or city, where there # of police per square mile/km is pretty high and a cop can be at your door in 2 minutes.

quote:

Originally posted by Aquarian As much as I hate to use buzzwords like such, This is the fundamental principle of conservative ideology. Hence why Canada is always described as America's socialist neighbour. Conservative cultures are simply more pessimistic towards others, while socialist cultures are optomistic in the face of human potential. For instance, people here tend not to like guns, because we're not afraid of eachother, so all that we see on this issue are the accidental deaths related to personal gun ownership. On the other hand, if you go into the rural areas and the prairies, you'll find alot of people who adhere to the principle that guns should be kept as self defense. Some sociologists theorise that this gap in ideology could be due to the fact that "city people" have been forced to live with each other for a long time, and consequently, have grown more tolerant of others.

kudos man
you hit it on the head.
i was saying the same thing, but my drug use prevents me from phrasing things so eloquently.

Yes I own a Glock. Just sold my mossberg shotty.

Theyre great for stress relief at the range. I don't intend to shoot a person

In Britain a farmer called Tony Martin was jailed for life (served three years though) for killing an unarmed robber in his home with a shotgun.

I saw a TV program that showed a gunclub in a state in America that gave substantial financial rewards to anyone that shot a robber dead!!!

I haven't contemplated this long enough to decide which one I agree with more. Anyone know of this club and what state it is in, I can't remember?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.