Debate and Discussion

Guns, a necessary evil?
Anonymous at 5:44AM, April 9, 2006
(offline)
posts: 678
joined: 4-22-2006
Should guns only be reserved for the good guys? how do you stop guns being sold to anyone?
Apart from being a student i work part time for a bookies. Yesterday was the grand national, our busiest day of the year, and so instead of me being behind the safety screen i was on the shop floor, when two masked raiders came in with a gun and a sledge hammer and held me hostage while demanding money off the other staff. no one was hurt, but what should happen to the bastards who did this iff they get caught? We had been warning the police and our security that something like this was going to happen for weeks. Why didn't they listen? WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY LISTEN? Would it have taken me to be shot for them to pay attention? will we get extra security now? Doubtable.
We have a security screen thats meant to protect us, Ladbrokes (the company i work for) cut a hole in this screen so that a card reading machine could be passed out to the customers. NB this is not a credit card machine this is a special ladbrokes account. Last year someone in the same shop put a sawn off shotgun through this hole and held the cashier up and took all the money.
This screen is meant to be there for our saftey against things like this and it was destroyed by a sledge hammer.
The flats above our shop our being demolished by the council and on the day we were due to have a security audit someone upstairs flooded the shop by not switching the water off when taking out a bath. The security officer came and did the audit while the shop was closed, and proclaimed it safe. ON WHAT BASIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????? Arsehole.
so what do i do? do i accept this as something that will happen where i work or do i quit? I'm leaning towards the quiting as i only get £5.45 an our to get insulted abused and threatened by customers
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:53AM
chezz at 9:19AM, April 9, 2006
(offline)
posts: 55
joined: 1-9-2006
awww that just sux… you should quit and find another job that is more secure and pays better…. for me guns should be illegal and banned, no one is allowed to use guns except if they are police or in the military

people + guns = irresponsibility and abuse of the gun :shock:


:D :D :D :D
check out my new comic at http://www.drunkduck.com/Damned_Zan/
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:41AM
Anonymous at 12:34PM, April 9, 2006
(offline)
posts: 678
joined: 4-22-2006
thats my point. in order to stop the bad guys from having guns do we have to stop the good guys from having them as well?
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:53AM
ozoneocean at 1:56PM, April 9, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Take your employer to court and sue them for making your workplace unsafe. What they've done is akin to providing a high-rise window cleaner with a fake safety harness. Sue them, go to a union, or go to a government agency that's meant to deal with that sort of thing. Punish them for putting your life at risk!
It’s the most valuable thing you have and a shittiy job for uncaring employers isn't worth it. Your employers are robbing you even as the robbers are robbing them.

I wonder where you fellas THINK people get illegal guns from! Do you think they come from helpful aliens? Come on, this is what I really, really want to fucking know!

Do you know where most “illegal” guns come from in places like Britain? They're STOLEN from legitimate owners. If you reduced the LEGAL guns, then cracked down harshly on all guns in circulation (10 years in prison for possession of an illegal firearm), not many crooks would ever see one again.

Where else do you obtain weapons illegally? Well there's the big black-market of already stolen guns, but this is FINITE: there are only so many to go around.
Occasionally there will be a big haul stolen from a military arsenal, or gun supplier. There are always SMALL dribs and drabs dribbling into a country through smuggling in various ways, usually aboard container ships, in places with land boarders they arrive inside trucks. Some are even made… But by far the largest amount comes from legal sources (stolen). When that dries up, the cost of smuggled illegal firearms becomes prohibitive for criminals- that means your common street scum or small-time piece of shit burglar will never be able to obtain a gun; the gun becomes many times more precious than what they would steal with it.

Guns aren’t a necessary evil. We don’t need them at all. Ban all hand-guns and multi-shot weapons. People in the country should still be able to own double-barrel shotguns and high-powered single-shot bolt action rifles.
Those kinds of weapons are dangerous and can be used by criminals, but realistically, in the hands of common criminals they’re not much more dangerous than knives and sledgehammers. A small .22 revolver pistol is much more deadly than a .50 cal rifle in the hands of a common criminal.
-So, even though you don’t need a gun in the country, it’s still a useful tool and it doesn’t make any sense to ban the two the kinds of guns I mentioned.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Coydog at 4:24PM, April 9, 2006
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-6-2006
OK, I just gotta put my $0.02 in.

The technology of firearms isn't ever going to go away. There are peasants in Afghanistan who can turn out perfectly functional AK-47 knockoffs with little more than hand tools and crude backyard forges. If 3D printers ever hit the market, you could download a CAD/CAM file and voila, a Glock (or at least something like it)!

Banning all or most of them only forbids them to those who obey the law, thereby ensuring that the ones who get and use them are the ones who of all people shouldn't be anywhere near a peashooter, let alone a pistol. The UK is now having monstrous problems in that respect.

I am honestly disturbed by the magical thinking I perceive in many people in the “Gun Control” movement. A weapon it may be, but before anything else, a firearm is a tool, an inanimate object. It is neither good or evil in itself. There is something rather voodoo-ish in the idea that if you eliminate an entire class of objects or restrict them to an elite few (in effect creating a Samurai class over the rest of us peasants), violence will disappear. Even before the age of ranged weapons, people were stabbing, strangling and bludgeoning each other. The massacres in Rwanda were largely carried out with machetes and blunt instruments. Yikes.

Mao Tse-Tung was right about one thing: “Political power ultimately comes out the barrel of a gun.” When that power is diffused through the widespread ownership of firearms, notwithstanding the risk factor, that tends to be a restraint on wanna-be totalitarians. When only the state (and whoever controls it) may legally possess weapons, civil liberties are either nonexistent or reduced to priviliges that can be reduced or revoked at the master class's pleasure.

It's no joke when somebody gets hit in a drive-by, no joy to lose a loved one to violence, but there are an infinite number of ways for people to kill each other besides shooting.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:47AM
Inkmonkey at 5:07PM, April 9, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Now, this brings to mind a prison scenario.

In prison, of course, there aren't any guns. No gun stores, no black market full of handguns, no glocks, etc. The only guns are the ones the guards have, and the only way to get them is to do something very stupid and dangerous, and even then you're not going to get much use out of it before someone puts a window in your forehead.

But these are criminals, and things get done. Now, the black market on the inside deals in knives, pointed sticks, modified saws; whatever the little bastards can piece together in shop. Luckily the tighter security and the fact that there's really nowhere to go keeps people from stabbing eachother left and right, but the point is that even without guns handy people who feel like killing someone will find a way to do it.

I believe it was Chris Rock who said: “Never go to a party with a metal detector. Sure, it seems safer on the inside, but what about the guy who couldn't get in because of his gun? He knows you ain't got one”.


So, while removing guns from the global economy will decrease the number of weapons that can go off in your hand (unless they develop some kind of exploding knife) it's not going to stop crazy assholes who feel like puttting a few holes in people.

Though I have to admit; it would be a nice change of pace for criminals to be walking around with bow and arrows and machetes. I suppose those would at least be harder to conceal… (also conveniently much quieter, but that's a different discussion altogether).
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
ftsjee at 7:23PM, April 9, 2006
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 4-4-2006
I was sent an article a while ago I think might interest you Ozone:

EDIT: Boom times on underworld gun market

Gun parts are remarkably simple to manufacture if you have the know how. Most gun owners I know make their own ammunition (the most expensive part of owning a firearm). Disarming everyone is a wonderful thought, but it'll never happen. Johnny's little gun buyback last century effictively disarmed the honest people in this country, and if you read the above article you'll see how this has been benificial to the criminals of the country.

Lilika, what happened to you was truely disgusting, and I agree, you SHOULD sue your employer. I've heard shocking stories about gun crime in England (One involved the cast of the English drama “The Bill” getting shot at as they tried to film because they were in police uniform). Disarming to extremes is not the right idea.

Texas, and several other southern American states have laws allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms with a permit, and these states have low gun crime. New York and Washington on the other hand, have very strict gun laws and as a result gun crime is high.

I think that a suitable balance has to be struck with guns, because while disarming everyone is a wonderful thought, its never going to work, but gun laws that are too relaxed are pointless.

Automatic and semi-automatic rifles and handguns I feel should be restricted to military, police and security use. ANYONE employed in these areas should be subject to a full psychological test as well as having their criminal history open for examination by their employers.

Businesses that are high-risk areas (eg, places that handle/store large amounts of cash money) should be required to employ armed guards to protect staff during open hours to avoid situations similar to the one you were in Lilika.

And as for the useless security, I would consult your local Building Code and Standards (not sure what they would be called there …) to check whether it was up to current standards. If not, it would make your case a lot stronger if you should choose to sue your employer.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
ozoneocean at 9:07PM, April 9, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
ftsjee, You basically agree with all the points I was making there.
-disarmed my arse! The people with guns in Oz who wanted them still have them. My dad was a champion marksman, but he sold his guns when I was a little toddler. That was because he once showed me how to use a rifle when I was a tiny tot, and after that I knew exactly how to work them. I wanted to play with his rifle, so I went looking for the bolt, the right sized bullets and all the other parts to put them together and use. I climbed high and low in my search…. When he found out my fascination and knowledge he was scared into getting rid of them all. At least he taught me never to point a gun at anybody ever, even unloaded.
And I’ll tell you, that was the only lesson I ever had about firearms. Years and years later when I was 18 my dad took me to a rifle range on an open day, one of the guys handed me a rifle and bullets and I knew exactly what to do with it, every shot on target.
And that’s scary. Imagine if I’d found a pistol as a little kid (a very little kid), or a sub-machinegun or an assault rifle? (of course I wouldn't have, but that's not the point). Guns are designed so you don’t need a brain to be able to use them.

I see nothing wrong with retaining rifles and shotguns that are not semi or fully automatic. They are useful tools and no more dangerous than most things that can be used as a weapon. -except for sniping, but criminals don’t do much of that. In fact it’s the hand-guns that are much more dangerous than even sub-machineguns and assault rifles.
The article is sensationalist and a bit silly, but goes along with what I'm saying pretty well. Those prices quoted are expensive, even for the pistols. Loss of legal firearms would make those prices go even higher.

$4000 for an Uzi is amazingly high! You can buy Ak-47's for $300 US most places overseas. It proves my point. -Get the Uzis here out of circulation and tighten up on the smugglers and hey presto! They're collector’s items.
Look, even I could make an Ak-47 given the parts to work from as examples (like the Afghan tribesmen do), but it's skilled labour and not everyone can or will ever do it, people just don't think like that, that's why home built weapons will never account for much on the black market.
Those kinds of fabricators are too far of in my opinion, and even if we ever get them universal arming will not be any sort of a solution. Guns just don’t protect against other guns…. Not at short ranges anyway.

Gun crime only becomes a problem when they’re common, and as soon as you make it easier to get the dangerous guns, the sooner they become common. The fewer people with them the better. Seriously.

What happened in Rwanda wasn't about crime, that was war.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ftsjee at 10:41PM, April 9, 2006
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 4-4-2006
EDIT: For Tater


ozoneocean
My dad was a champion marksman, but he sold his guns when I was a little toddler. That was because he once showed me how to use a rifle when I was a tiny tot, and after that I knew exactly how to work them. I wanted to play with his rifle, so I went looking for the bolt, the right sized bullets and all the other parts to put them together and use. I climbed high and low in my search…. When he found out my fascination and knowledge he was scared into getting rid of them all. At least he taught me never to point a gun at anybody ever, even unloaded.
And I’ll tell you, that was the only lesson I ever had about firearms. Years and years later when I was 18 my dad took me to a rifle range on an open day, one of the guys handed me a rifle and bullets and I knew exactly what to do with it, every shot on target.
And that’s scary. Imagine if I’d found a pistol as a little kid (a very little kid), or a sub-machinegun or an assault rifle? (of course I wouldn't have, but that's not the point). Guns are designed so you don’t need a brain to be able to use them.

What your dad did seems … well, irresponsible to me. My father too, is a champion marksman and he taught us about firearms differently. He regularly sat with us kids in the afternoons with a disabled rifle sitting by his leg to get us used to seeing guns (we weren't allowed to pick it up), but he never taught me how to use a gun ‘til I was well into my teens. You don’t teach children how to have sex, how to mix a cocktail or how to drive and if you have any sense you don't teach them how to load and fire a rifle. They just don't understand what it does. Not a year passes when some kid doesn't accidently shoot a parent or a friend becuase they've been taught how to use a gun and think its cool to show off.

These days, in Australia at least, kids finding guns lying around is ridiculous. By law all firearms MUST be locked in a safe or secure cabinet and ammunition MUST be stored seperately and securely.

ozoneocean
The article is sensationalist and a bit silly, but goes along with what I'm saying pretty well. Those prices quoted are expensive, even for the pistols. Loss of legal firearms would make those prices go even higher.

Criminals don't bother stealing private firearms. Not only is it too time consuming, its also much easier and worthwhile to steal from from the police. So should we disarm police like has been done in England? In my last post I mentioned how bad gun crime is over there, hell, thats why this thread was created. So, by disarming our police we make it harder for criminals to get pistols … but its much more worthwhile, don't you think?

ozoneocean
$4000 for an Uzi is amazingly high! You can buy Ak-47's for $300 US most places overseas. It proves my point. -Get the Uzis here out of circulation and tighten up on the smugglers and hey presto! They're collector’s items.
Look, even I could make an Ak-47 given the parts to work from as examples (like the Afghan tribesmen do), but it's skilled labour and not everyone can or will ever do it, people just don't think like that, that's why home built weapons will never account for much on the black market.

The article we're quoting from also states:

…separate parts could be mailed to people and then reassembled in Australia.

I'm sure assembling a firearm doesn't require too much brainpower. And frankly, $4000 doesn't sound like much at all to me. I'm not rich, and I'm not a career criminal, but I don't have to be to know that $4000 for such a high power weapon is worth it. But you also stated that handguns are far more useful - and you're right. They're easier to conceal, lighter and more convenient all round. The Glock 19 mentioned in the article was only $2500.

… and you make it sound so easy to round up the ringleaders and chuck them in gaol. The illegal firearms trade is one of the three biggest illegal INTERNATIONAL trades. We can't deal with it on a national level. They have too much money, too much power and they're far to established for the police to just go “Hey ho, I'm bored! Lets go round up those nasty black market gents, shall we?”. Its easy to SAY what the police should do, but DOING it is another matter altogether.

You're absolutely right about universal arming - thats just inciting anarchy. You're right about guns not protecting us from other guns at short range; the same is true about knives. Swords are a completely different matter - now if we could swap all guns with swords the world would be a happier place.


ozoneocean
Gun crime only becomes a problem when they’re common, and as soon as you make it easier to get the dangerous guns, the sooner they become common. The fewer people with them the better. Seriously.

Now I don't agree with this at all. When guns are common, its harder to rob that little old lady walking down the road with a fistful of cash, simply because you don't know if she's packing. I've heard the old “but what if she shoots me just cause she wants to?” Hell, how many homicidal little old ladies do you know? I used Texas as an example of low gun crime and stated the reason - because they allow licenced people to carry conceal handguns. And anyone stupid enough to shoot someone just cause they can will probably be thrown in gaol or shot by someone with some sense (natural selection, yes?). Its much harder than you might think to kill someone with a gun, escpecially from a distance. Even close up, someone with good reflexes can punch you in the face a couple of times if you try to pull a gun on them.

When you start disarming as many people as you can what you get is a MASSIVE unbalance of power. That leads to the situation in England. Guns ARE a neccessary evil because they are HERE and they are COMMON and all we can do is make the power balance between the criminals and the honest people as even as we can.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
ozoneocean at 8:21PM, April 10, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
That was around 1978 when he showed me. He only showed me once and I knew. The bits weren't lying around either, but I found them anyway.

Criminals don't bother stealing private firearms
Yes they do. That is where most illegal guns originate from, then they end up in the black market. If you're talking about special weapons, those obviously come from the different sources that I mentioned before.
Yep, parts can be mailed and assembled, but like I said before those are only dribs and drabs.
Look, I'm talking about the kind of low scum criminals who commit crimes of convenience, not organised criminals, bikies, serial killers, or anything else. That is a different class of criminal and generally NOT a big danger to ordinary people.
I don't give a fuck about international arms dealers. They do a valuable service to our governments and no one is ever going to get rid of them. The black marketeers you need to go after are the little guys.

$4000 or even $2500 is a huge price for a weapon! DO you know how much it costs to make them? I repeat: $300 US for an AK-47 is the common asking price. Only your SERIOUS crims want to bother with those prices, and we’re generally safe from serious crims.

Guns ARE a necessary evil because they are HERE and they are COMMON and all we can do is make the power balance between the criminals and the honest people as even as we can.
Complete shit. The Texas example is a joke. Look at Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa for examples of what happens when everyone's armed: LOTS more violent deaths from being shot. Give more arms to legal owners and you not only provide an easy source for the criminals to steal them from, you provide a reason to kill, as per the following example:

If I'm a criminal and I think you've got a gun I'm going to shoot you in the head before I rob you. Why would I bother threatening you if I think you could shoot me first?
That's why guns don't protect you.

The difference between the law abiding moron carting a gun for protection is that he can only shoot after he’s been attacked, if he survives. And the main reason someone would walk up and shoot him is because they suspect he might be carrying a gun in the first place. As soon as that happens, it becomes the done thing, people will no longer be threatened, they will just be shot as a matter of course.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ftsjee at 11:05PM, April 10, 2006
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 4-4-2006
ozoneocean
I don't give a fuck about international arms dealers. They do a valuable service to our governments and no one is ever going to get rid of them. The black marketeers you need to go after are the little guys.

When did I mention the international arms dealers? I was talking about the ILLEGAL INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRADE which is pretty damn big in its own right. Read my post again if you don't believe me.


ozoneocean
$4000 or even $2500 is a huge price for a weapon! DO you know how much it costs to make them? I repeat: $300 US for an AK-47 is the common asking price. Only your SERIOUS crims want to bother with those prices, and we’re generally safe from serious crims.

Ahahaha, well if you're cheap you can go to the bargain bin. Is $500 out of your budget too? Hell did you know that criminals cost the Australian Economy AROUND $18 BILLION per annum? Now the criminals are the minority in this country (God I hope so), and most of this would be petty stealing, car jacking, vandalism and arson … but still, thats a hell of a lot. Criminals are NOT poor, don't fool yourself into thinking they are. People TURN to crime because they want more money, not because they enjoy the thrill. A gun is a good investment for their career.

Honestly, $2500 - $4000 is about what a good legal firearm costs a registered shooter. And criminals can make that kind of money in one hit.

ozoneocean
The Texas example is a joke. Look at Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa for examples of what happens when everyone's armed: LOTS more violent deaths from being shot.

Read my post and you'll see I said that overarming is inciting anarchy. And honestly, these aren't good examples. Africa is a country torn apart by civil war and stupid politicians who don't take care of the people “below” them. They import high-power firearms to PROTECT themselves against the people they're supposed to lead, while the common man/woman/child starves to death or dies of AIDS. I dunno about you, but if I was starving to death I'd rather get shot in the head while showing my hatred and anger at the people in charge than slowly withering away. Brazil and Mexico … don't get me started.

ozoneocean
If I'm a criminal and I think you've got a gun I'm going to shoot you in the head before I rob you. Why would I bother threatening you if I think you could shoot me first?

This man is evil, he saved a 16 year old girl from an attacker by shooting the man in the head. And he did it anonymously, which almost makes him a superhero. Kinda like the Punisher, come to think of it … Besides, the situation you gave works both ways. Doesn't even have to be a killing shot.

ozoneocean
… law abiding moron…

So you're saying that I am a moron because I don't murder, rape, kidnap, torure, hijack, terrorise and steal? Are you saying that CRIMINALS are the smart guys? Are you admitting that you are either stupid or a criminal?

ozoneocean
…law abiding moron carting a gun for protection…

Or are you saying that if it was within my rights to carry a firearm on myself for self defense, and I chose to do so, THAT would make me a moron? I don't get it …. were you just upset when you wrote this?
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
Anonymous at 4:09AM, April 11, 2006
(offline)
posts: 678
joined: 4-22-2006
i thought you might like an update. the police have 4 men in custody and two are due to be arested with no chance of bail this afternoon
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:53AM
ftsjee at 12:54AM, April 12, 2006
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 4-4-2006
Thats great to hear Lilika :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
Ronson at 5:13AM, April 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
THE PROBLEM WITH LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP:

Legal gun ownership will lead to illegal gun ownership. Even legal gun ownership will lead to crime and violence.

THE PROBLEM WITH BANNING LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP:

The government would control all arms ownership, and unless they somehow increased their forces to an unrealistic number there would be a lot of citizens unable to defend themselves.

Plus, you need a something when the revolution comes. :wink:

_____

THE SOLUTION:

There is no solution. It's an arbitrary argument. How much armed robbery and fatal shootings are acceptable? I bet the number is different from person to person. You can't say “none” because that is unrealistic and completely impossible.

I would recommend that there be less R&D in making nastier guns. It seems to me that things are already bad enough and that we don't need bullets that can shred people into a bajillion pieces or have rifles that can take down helicopters. Unfortunately, we have these things now. Do we really need to make things even worse?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Coydog at 2:52PM, April 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-6-2006
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002925149_greenleaf12.html

An editorial on the recent mass shooting in Seattle. It elaborates on some of the points that I've already made.

If they can't keep weapons and drugs out of prisons, how can they keep them out of society?
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:47AM
ozoneocean at 3:57PM, April 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
ftsjee
When did I mention the international arms dealers? I was talking about the ILLEGAL INTERNATIONAL ARMS TRADE
I sigh… I don’t make a distinction, don’t your realise that? Governments use the totality of the arms trade. There is no real illegal international arms trade because laws between countries are so dodgy, varied and fluid. It’s all based on expediency. Basically as soon as weapons are second or third hand they go into a massive grey area that isn’t one thing or the other. Making a distinction shows your naivety here.

ftsjee
Hell did you know that criminals cost the Australian Economy AROUND $18 BILLION per annum.
Christ that is so irrelevant! Besides which, learn something about statistics before you reference them: they are always designed to support a particular agenda or position and can be calculated in too many ways to be reliable without consulting a whole range of studies on the same subject over time by unrelated institutions, and then comparing them with similar ranges of studies done in countries with similar variables…

ftsjee
Honestly, $2500 - $4000 is about what a good legal firearm costs a registered shooter. And criminals can make that kind of money in one hit.
I yawn now. So WHAT? We don’t have to WORRY about those criminals! They’re not out to kill you, they’re out to make money, we have security and police to deal with that! That’s what they’re for! They don’t even NEED guns to do those sorts of robberies, they can use cars, knives, baseball bats, bombs, nudity, basically anything you can possibly imagine.

ftsjee
And honestly, these aren't good examples
They are what they are: Societies with LOTS of guns of all types that people need for “protection”, that innocents are routinely killed with.
The “Texas example” was puerile because they only want to carry concealed weapons because they have an inbred machismo-centred cultural attachment to them. They DON’T do it for protection, because they never had that sort of violence in those towns to START WITH.
-Interestingly though, in that kind of situation you have the perfect beginigs of a new Brazil or South Africa…

ftsjee
This man is evil, he saved a 16 year old girl from an attacker by shooting the man in the head
I won’t even bother reading links about vigilante “heroics”. *Like I said before: You have a culture where people have guns, it encourages your minor scum DANGEROUS criminals to go around killing people. And again, THOSE crims are the kind of people whose guns originate on the black market where they’ve been stolen and sold on from the “heroic” idiots that bought them legally. That means: people like your “hero” are the only reason for those guys to exist in the first place. They have a symbiotic relationship of dumbness and violence.


ftsjee
So you're saying that I am a moron because I don't murder, rape, kidnap, torure, hijack, terrorise and steal? Are you saying that CRIMINALS are the smart guys?
Yeah, yeah, I’m saying all of that! :roll:
Perhaps you can try the concept of “context” within sentences, paragraphs and whole posts basically: It helps you to understand them better. ;)
The passage just above with the “*” in front of it addresses the idea a little better. To reiterate and expand: Minor violent crims are easily able to acquire cheap or free firearms simply because of the massive surplus caused by easy and almost universal access to legal firearms. Their very ubiquity means that this class of criminals are required not only to possess a firearm but to shoot first and ask questions later, this leads to a culture of shooting first weather they think they have to or not… Human life is further devalued.
Ergo: “Law abiding gun owner” carrying a concealed weapon for protection is a fucking imbecile troglodyte because he has facilitated this situation to exist (made his fears became reality), by first providing himself and his friends as an easy source for the weapons, his proclivity also forces his government to make them easily available, and secondly the prevalence and increased likelihood of concealed weapons makes shooting and the requirement that minor criminals are armed imperative. And as a “law abiding” individual he is forbidden from shooting first, (or he wouldn’t be law abiding), which means he can only “protect” himself if he survives, or he murders to “protect” someone else, meaning he’s actually pretty much the same kind of person as the crim anyway.

He is a moron because he and those like him have dug their world into that shithole and everything they do ensures they stay down there.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
ozoneocean at 5:24PM, April 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
In reply to Coy:
That article has a pro gun ownership agenda, it’s not just about information. What it fails to make clear is that the guy is a madman and no one can protect you from them, his crime really has nothing to do with guns. The article only seems to deal with the availability of guns and firearms laws in that specific area, not the fact that those are functionally irrelevant because of the almost ubiquitous gun culture and massive gun production industry that pervades the entire country. And lastly, the restriction of firearms will not stop you from being killed by madmen, but it will help to wipe out the threat of casual and random street gun crime that is preventable.

The take on England’s “gun crime rate” is laughable… Are they rating the Gun crime stats of the entire country of Britain (or county of England) to a single piffling US city and fudging that to sound like they’re relating it to the “gun crime” rates in all of the US? And what stats are they using… the age old problem. In fact it could be very easily argued that America’s gun culture is primarily responsible for the rising gun crime rate in Britain: They popularise it and romanticise gun culture; and they devise, design, produce and export a massive percentage of them.

I’m sorry, but articles by ideologues like that are just so obvious.

The writer of the piece is using the example of a crazy guy for a reason why gun laws are stupid and that people who believe in them are naïve fools. It leave me thinking that the writer is the naïve fool because he can’t see outside the horrible little box in which he exists.
And there are so many parts of the world where there isn’t really a problem with gun crime or random violence, including the US. But the very existence of this gun crime and the multiple factors and cultures that facilitate it in other areas are a constant threat to these havens.

I know what your position is and I agree that it’s rational, but only given that the environment in which you abide is functionally lawless: without any strong local authority, you are required to fend for yourself… But fortunately most of us (including you, hopefully), live in nations with robust, practical and perfectly functional systems of government and law, which means that a “Wild West” or clan type system like they have in Somalia or Afghanistan is just not required.
Still, an effort to comprehensively cease the production of handguns and other dangerous firearms, remove them from society, and clamp down on the romanticism of the gun culture is a task that has to be undertaken unilaterally and can only be accomplished by a strong high level government, not at some pissy local, city by city, state by state exercise in faffing around.

This isn't like drugs… No one is addicted to guns. Guns are much, much more complicated and expensive to produce and the return is so very much lower. There isn't a huge ever growing demand for them since they aren't a consumable (once you have one you don't really need another :) ).
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Inkmonkey at 7:09PM, April 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
Now, correct me if I“m mistaken, but aren't there millions of ways to kill someone? According to George Carlin, you could beat a guy to death with a Sunday New York times.

The point I'm getting across is; taking away one weapon isn't going to stop people from killing eachother.

A lot of people idealize the Native American culture, since it was so ”in touch with nature“; there was no industry, no steel weaponry, no guns, etc. We barely bothered with that ”wheel" thing the Europeans were so proud of.

So, we didn't have swords, guns, suits of armor, lances, etc., since we didn't work with metal. Instead we just made different weapons out of rocks and wood. Why bother melting iron to make a ball at the end of a chain when whacking a guy in the back of the head with a length of wood rendered him just as dead.

Anyway, if you get rid of the gun trade, then yeah, gun crimes would drop. But on the other hand, knife/baseball bat/farm tool/Tuba (those things are heavy) crime would fucking skyrocket.

And, to get back to my Native American analogy, it also increases the chance of the unarmed culture being severely boned by better armed invaders popping in to stir up trouble. Of course, with the massive weaponry the military would keep handy, I doubt we'll be conquered any time soon, but the threat is there, if minimal.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
mykill at 9:36PM, April 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
Guns are a litmus test for civilization.

If everyone who wants a gun for any reason, has one - and no people are being shot. You have civilization.

Canada is civilized.

America is not.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
isukun at 11:22PM, April 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Anyway, if you get rid of the gun trade, then yeah, gun crimes would drop. But on the other hand, knife/baseball bat/farm tool/Tuba (those things are heavy) crime would fucking skyrocket.

This is a common misconception you see often with pro-gun advocates. Domestic violence and crimes of passion would likely not stop with a ban on guns, no, but when it comes to other crimes, guns are far more effective and far more intimidating than more primitive weapons. Something as simple as robbing a convinience store becomes a major risk and hassle without a firearm. Robbing a bank is almost impossible. Guns offer a certain level of “safety” for the common criminal that other weapons don't. What's more, shooting someone is far less hands on than stabbing or clubbing them. Someone has to be truly determined to kill another person to do so with a melee weapon. With a gun, all you have to do is squeeze the trigger.

As for the Native American example, it isn't really relevant. At every stage in history, mankind has had some method for killing other men. Different cultures and societies have handled this differently. The fact that weapons existed doesn't prove that Native Americans were as likely to commit acts of violence as your average modern American. Basically, you would have to argue that Native Americans were just as likely to kill fellow tribe members as modern Americans are to kill each other and I highly doubt that is true.

And, to get back to my Native American analogy, it also increases the chance of the unarmed culture being severely boned by better armed invaders popping in to stir up trouble. Of course, with the massive weaponry the military would keep handy, I doubt we'll be conquered any time soon, but the threat is there, if minimal.

Not really. Because of our military, most outside threats won't be of the type we can fight with firearms. No amount of civilians with firearms could stop 9/11. A gun won't stop Anthrax or nerve gas. Those high powered assault rifles aren't going to stop that dirty bomb from irradiating hundreds of homes. So how far do we want to take this? Should every home come with a nuclear missile silo? A biological weapons lab? If you can't fight the threat with guns, then obviously we need something stronger.

.: isukun :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
mykill at 12:01PM, April 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
I vote for responsibility.

Every man woman and child shall be REQUIRED to posess a firearm at all times when in public. The firearm as national I.D.

I'm honestly in favor of this. Many people will die - at first. But then I predict, hardly anyone will be shot - ever again. Guns will become banal and taboo at the same time.

Guns are dangerous because they represent power. That can be taken away from guns. And if everyone was required to own a registered firearm - there's never be a mystery relating to who shot who, and most criminals would get killed attempting their crime.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
ozoneocean at 3:07PM, April 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
mykill
most criminals would get killed attempting their crime.
No they wouldn't. Your idea is stupid.
All these ideas about people needing guns or guns making people safer or resisting outside forces are insane. Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid… :smt011
If that idea were put into practise, any ordinary violence would escalate uncontrollably.
The ONLY way a stupid idea like that would work is if everyone was really sane and intelligent, but then they wouldn't need the guns in the FIRST place.

Inkmonkey:
You see the thing with GUNS Ink, is like Iskun says: so very much easier to kill people with them, while not putting your self at any personal risk. Possibly the best thing in the world for doing that. And you simply can NOT resist any organised force using an armed population, unless that population actually consists of a trained and organised army. History proves this time and again. Afghanistan is a good recent example.

Handguns, self loading rifles, pump action shotguns/rifles, lever action rifles, magazine fed shotguns, assault rifles, sub-machineguns, grenade launchers, light machineguns, rocket powered grenades, heavy machineguns, automatic cannons… None of these tools are needed at all by your ordinary dickhead on the street for any reason at all.
Some people do need rifles and shotguns for hunting, protection from wild animals or whatever, and that’s fine. Any damage do with those can be done in about a million other ways, so they’re no more dangerous than most things can be. But as for the rest, if you desire them you’ve probably got some serious psych issues to deal with.

I like this little story that I’m probably remembering all wrong, but it’s STILL funny: “My neighbour didn’t feel safe, so he bought himself a gun. I didn’t feel safe so I moved away from my neighbour.”
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
Inkmonkey at 8:04PM, April 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
I like how people think that there's some sort of “Magical Stupid Switch”, and somehow eliminating guns will just turn it off. I'm afraid the world's just not that simple.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:59PM
mykill at 9:07PM, April 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 194
joined: 1-11-2006
People in Canada are just as stupid as Americans. They don't shoot each other. They have no gun control to speak of.

If you give everyone a gun, violence will escalate. In the short term. Then we'll grow up, because we have to.

It's gun control that makes the gun represent power, that makes it sexy and cool.

Guns are dangerous tools, used by cowards, hunters and the police. That's the natural context for a gun. gun control fucks that up.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
isukun at 10:22PM, April 14, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
People in Canada are just as stupid as Americans. They don't shoot each other. They have no gun control to speak of.

You may want to read up on that some more, mykill. Canada's gun control is stricter than our own with mandatory gun registration and pretty hefty restrictions on anything that isn't used for hunting. It is much easier to purchase a rifle than a handgun and unless you're in with a gun club or need a gun for your line of work (i.e. police officers and security guards) the government isn't likely ot approve of your license for a handgun. Personal protection is not a valid reason for owning a gun in much of Canada, at least not according to their gun laws.

.: isukun :.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
ozoneocean at 4:26PM, April 16, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,789
joined: 1-2-2006
Inkmonkey
I like how people think that there's some sort of “Magical Stupid Switch”, and somehow eliminating guns will just turn it off. I'm afraid the world's just not that simple.
What the fu..? Stupid switch? Well of course not! But I'm all for helping to keep the stupid people's hands off of handguns.
(stupid people defines pretty much everyone btw).

Heh, Iskun, that sounds like Canada already has exactly like the position I advocate ^_^
I don't even know what the gun laws are like in Australia these days specifically… I think all semi-auto & fully auto weapons are banned apart from pistols. Which is a bad thing because practically in an urban civilian environment they're more dangerous. Still, pistols are not very common here, so there must be some restrictions…

In Japan there's a huge fascination with handguns of all sorts, but they appear to be completely prohibited. SO people just collect replicas and seem to be perfectly happy with that. I'm sure the determined crazies still get their hands on the real thing, but that's ok because they'd be crazy with something else anyway… It's the ‘sane’ ones you have to worry about. When they think it's ok to shoot people, then you and your society are fucked,

This might go some way to solving the gun problem: here.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:23PM
dapperdan at 7:13PM, April 16, 2006
(offline)
posts: 12
joined: 3-12-2006
IM CANADIEN
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:05PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved