Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Heroin nods.
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
a band-aid is better than nothing.


Here's another fundamental point on which we disagree. A band-aid over a wound won't make it to heal...any doctor will tell you that it must get air in order for the REAL healing to begin. I beleive the metaphor extends here. If we band-aid the situation with gun laws, you're going to have shitty guns made by shitty "underground" gun manufacturers (think drugs) and eventually a lot MORE deaths from "unsafe" (again...the concept of a safe gun seems quite strange) guns that obviously don't fall under the already present regulations for gun manufacturers.

If you don't think people will make their own guns, take a look at how many people work in metallurgy - AND how many of them are staunch gun advocates. I have friends that have made guns from scratch, they're not accurate, but they'll certainly kill people...probably more at random than the guns YOU want to limit.

And, the bottom line still remains that you want to give control over the guns to the same people you're complaining about when it comes to military spending...you want to take the guns from the people, and allow only an Army under the control of warmongers to have them? That's just insane to me.

Basically - gun control only makes it so that the bad guys end up with the guns...how does THAT help the murder rate?

More kids per year are maimed and/or die in bathtub-related injuries than gun deaths. Do we ban bathtubs?

Peace,
Shane
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 2:40 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

I swear you haven't read a single post...

I said that I'm against completely banning guns...recall?

I'm just for heavily regulating them. Why on earth do you have to take a test to prove you can operate a car, but we trust that people should be authorized to operate a gun safely?


Considering the number of kids who "find" guns in their homes every year, I think its pretty damn stupid that we don't..
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 2:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
sliquid



Joined: 30 Oct 2002
Posts: 173
Location: Kansass City
 Reply with quote  

So what are you going to do about it? Bitching here in this forum won't change anything. Your obviously have a lot of spare time, so why don't you try an experiment. Write to your congress men and women and ask them why there aren't any regulations like the one you stated. Propose the idea to them and see what they think. Getting a licence for a gun is a good idea. Try to get it moving instead of arguing here with people that can't do anything about it. If you want to change things you have to shake them up. Im sure there are plenty of people who support the idea just as you do. Find them and try to make a change.
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 3:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
I swear you haven't read a single post...

I said that I'm against completely banning guns...recall?

I'm just for heavily regulating them. Why on earth do you have to take a test to prove you can operate a car, but we trust that people should be authorized to operate a gun safely?


Considering the number of kids who "find" guns in their homes every year, I think its pretty damn stupid that we don't..


Oh, you mean like regulations that will restrict citizen's access to weapons and therefore defending ourselves against military-style attacks?

There it is.
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 3:31 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

Creative comment.
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 3:33 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
I swear you haven't read a single post...

I said that I'm against completely banning guns...recall?

I'm just for heavily regulating them. Why on earth do you have to take a test to prove you can operate a car, but we trust that people should be authorized to operate a gun safely?


Considering the number of kids who "find" guns in their homes every year, I think its pretty damn stupid that we don't..


Heavily regulating a weapon will convince people the hassle isn't worth it (as it already has in my state) and effectively ban them. This has happened before (hemp - Tax Stamp Act among others).

When I get a chance I'll hunt down numbers and compare Massachusetts (my state, with HEAVY gun regulations) to another state similar in population size with less gun restrictions (a southern state, no doubt). This will be a solid statistic to back up my argument (although still only as reliable as statistics usually are...i.e. not very). If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but before we start doing something as radical as setting up the building blocks of a police state (what heavily regulating guns will do) we should make sure that the objective that we're trying to acheive will be met. Looking at other countries on a national level, I have found that gun control and murder rates are not directly proportional. In Switzerland, for example, I beleive it is a law that you must own a gun (that may have changed) but they have FAR less gun deaths than our country. How does THAT happen? Of course, using my own argument regarding culture and the disparity between the rich and the poor being the fundamental causes of killings in the first place, I know that what happens THERE is no indication of what will happen HERE - so comparing states is probably the most reliable way to get to the bottom of this sort of thing (and even that wouldn't really make me want to pass any more laws regarding it - but it would certainly substantiate your argument better than it stands on it's own ideological grounds of allowing a centralized beaurocracy to control our individual ownership rights ;-)

I'll look into it. If you're really in it for the long haul, do the same. If the numbers prove me wrong, then I'll concede and I promise to you in advance that I'll vote YES to any referendum's regarding gun control on the 2004 ballot.

Peace,
Shane
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 8:22 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

More history on gun control:

In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 gun law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people. The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10, 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

The crime rate in Kennesaw Georgia, near Atlanta, is 89 percent lower than it was 19 years ago according to the Marietta Daily Journal. What's the news in that? Well it seems that 19 years ago the city council passed an ordinance requiring the head of every household to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ACLU challenged the law in court unsuccessfully and there were predictions of shootings in the streets and violence in people's homes. What happened instead was that the crime rate plunged. Said Robert Jones, President of the city historical society, quote: 'It did drop after it was initially passed and it has stayed the same low level for the past 16 years.'
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 8:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

MessiahCarey wrote:


Heavily regulating a weapon will convince people the hassle isn't worth it (as it already has in my state) and effectively ban them. This has happened before (hemp - Tax Stamp Act among others).

When I get a chance I'll hunt down numbers and compare Massachusetts (my state, with HEAVY gun regulations) to another state similar in population size with less gun restrictions (a southern state, no doubt). This will be a solid statistic to back up my argument (although still only as reliable as statistics usually are...i.e. not very). If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but before we start doing something as radical as setting up the building blocks of a police state (what heavily regulating guns will do) we should make sure that the objective that we're trying to acheive will be met. Looking at other countries on a national level, I have found that gun control and murder rates are not directly proportional. In Switzerland, for example, I beleive it is a law that you must own a gun (that may have changed) but they have FAR less gun deaths than our country. How does THAT happen? Of course, using my own argument regarding culture and the disparity between the rich and the poor being the fundamental causes of killings in the first place, I know that what happens THERE is no indication of what will happen HERE - so comparing states is probably the most reliable way to get to the bottom of this sort of thing (and even that wouldn't really make me want to pass any more laws regarding it - but it would certainly substantiate your argument better than it stands on it's own ideological grounds of allowing a centralized beaurocracy to control our individual ownership rights ;-)

I'll look into it. If you're really in it for the long haul, do the same. If the numbers prove me wrong, then I'll concede and I promise to you in advance that I'll vote YES to any referendum's regarding gun control on the 2004 ballot.

Peace,
Shane



I don't know that regulations neccessarily = people not getting guns...hunters will still want them to hunt, and they'll be willing to get them if they want them....
And frankly, if the hassle is increased enough that its keeps guns out of the hands of people who will be irresponsible with them, then I think it is a good idea.


I also encourage you to look up the stats for a couple stats with widely varying gun laws...but.
But.
The fact is that states like Massachusettes and Wyoming are going to have very different "make ups" - crime rates, et. al. - and so the results will not be terrifically scientific. In addition, you ARE talking about very different cultures...in the city, owning a gun is very different from owning one in a small town....culturally, many small towns have local gun clubs...people grow up in a culture where they are taught to respect guns.
In other areas, where there is no "gun culture," people are less likely to be taught how to use a gun respectfully and safely. And as such....Well, you get the idea.

So perhaps local legislation is the answer...and it depends on the state you are in....but cultures can also vary widly in a particular state, which makes this problem all the more complex.

What I'm also saying here is...I know a lot of people who would LEGALLY be able to get guns, but man, if they do, I'm moving. People, in general, are NOT responsible. They DON'T respect guns.

On another note...something you mentioned...about the town which forced everyone to own a gun (which in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous...if you have a right to have a gun, you should certainly have a right NOT to have one...never mind the fact that there are some people I NEVER want to see with guns simply because they are irresponsible idiots).
Anyway, it might work in a small town to reduce crime, where everyone becomes shit-scared to rob anyone else....but in a larger city? That hardly would be the same. Besides, do we really want a culture where to feel safe everyone needs a firearm to protect themselves from the outside world? What on earth are we so afraid of? And although crime may have gone down, as far as I'm concerned, that law is a time bomb waiting to go off...one moron, forced by law to have a gun, leaves it out of the case...little girl gets a hold of it...bam. Depressed guy gets drunk, wouldn't normally have a gun, gets one...anyway, you get the picture.
Think of the Cinncinatti/LA riots if everyone in the city was required to own a handgun...OUCH. That would be fucking civil war...
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:15 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

DAMN...look what I found:

"Just over a year ago, Australia followed in the footsteps of mother country Great Britain and made law a total ban on hand guns. The gun ban and confiscation program cost the Australian government more than $500 million. Sometimes using deadly force, authorities there collected 640,381 personal firearms. And now the results are in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent (in a country that has a low homicide rate). Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent). In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent. Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms - since the gun ban this has changed for the worse."

So yeah...djdee...here is some great numbers to back up a point that we mutually agree on - banning hand guns altogether is a bad idea (the fucking armed robbery rate went up 44 fucking per fucking cent? Holy fucking sh-fucking-it...and a 300 percent infuckingcrease in Victoria's GUN MURDERS?!?!). Obviously that rise can most likely be attributed to a whole bunch of criminals knowing they're the only ones with guns (and, ironically enough, the popularity of heroin addiction).

Peace,
Shane
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:

On another note...something you mentioned...about the town which forced everyone to own a gun (which in my opinion is absolutely ridiculous...if you have a right to have a gun, you should certainly have a right NOT to have one...never mind the fact that there are some people I NEVER want to see with guns simply because they are irresponsible idiots).


Oh, I don't disagree...that was DEFINATELY not my point. Of course I respect the right of someone to NOT own a gun (I no longer have one - because it's illegal and I have a record...it wouldn't be very pretty) The stuff I posted was more anecdotal than anything else. You have to admit the Nazi one is interesting. You'll find that before the police state in Pakistan happened back in the day they did the same thing.

Also, heavily regulating guns WILL cause people to not acquire them. I know people who used to fire and collect until the Mass. legislature went gun control in the Dukakis folly and rendered the whole prospect of getting a gun license in Massachussetts extremely EXPENSIVE (which is what most gun control leglisation seeks to do, make them simply less accessible by charging for the licensing "fees" - ironic, huh? The ones that want to get the guns are being robbed. Heh.) I would be assinine if I didn't say that training was an adequate requirement to owning a weapon, though.

Peace,
Shane
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

See if you can find stats on handgun crime in the state of massachusettes since the Dukakis "folly"....I'd be interested.


I don't like the idea of arming the populice to scare criminals from committing crimes...a lot more accidental shootings, among other things...
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 9:35 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

I'm no member, but this site gives a great rundown of everything that has happened regarding gun laws in my state. www.goal.org

I was mistaken, actually - I thought I had remembered Dukakis as having implemented the majority of gun laws but I was wrong. I called it a "folly" because most Democrats in my state tend to do the same. Heh.

http://www.goal.org/FRAUD.htm tells a great history of how senseless legislation was added to further beef up our gun laws and restrict people from having guns. The law is so ass-backwards that in this state, MORE dangerous guns are allowed where less dangerous ones are not because of a lack of research on the part of those involved (who had no desire to regulate DEATHS, but an extreme desire to land votes with the gun control lobbies and further one particular gentleman's political ambitions)

Peace,
Shane
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:16 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dee



Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7872
 Reply with quote  

Well that site's not biased at all ;)
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:22 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
MessiahCarey



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 10924
 Reply with quote  

djdee2005 wrote:
Well that site's not biased at all ;)


This I know. This I most definately know...haha...but why don't you go find some UNBIASED info on gun control ANYWHERE. Heh. One way or the other - it's most likely biased.

It's like anything else in there. There's shit they back up really well, and you can therefore beleive - then there's also shit that requires you to cast assumptions. I *know* you have the eye for such things, so I'm sure you can figure out which parts are bullshit (as I have).

Peace,
Shane
Post Wed Dec 04, 2002 10:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

This is one of the best threads in the history of this website.
Post Thu Dec 05, 2002 7:33 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:07 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon