Pissing oneself here. Thats very you.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
from my cold dead hand
- Thread starter SuitsBlue
- Start date
- Status
Pissing oneself here. Thats very you.
TX Bill
Player Valuation: £80m
I'm confident that Smith & Wesson and other gun manufacturers have lobbyists hard at work like every other interest in this country and I'm confident that they contribute to the party that wants to uphold the 2nd Amendment.
So with that being said, I'd say that Republicans probably get more donations from the gun lobby than the Democrats.
neonleon
Player Valuation: £35m
it doesn't even need thinking about or research.
of course they do.
It will take alot of white kids being shot before there will ever be a change.
neonleon
Player Valuation: £35m
TX Bill
Player Valuation: £80m
Dang, that's pretty draconian right there.
SuitsBlue
Player Valuation: £50m
how many murderers, paedophiles, and rapists get an easy life under that regime?
cant be worse than here.
Philw
Player Valuation: £50m
NB - Long post ahead -
I hate threads/debates/arguements on this subject. Too many people argue their case who believe too strongly on one side or the other or are too close-minded to listen to the points being made and consider them fairly. Too many people post who don't know what they are talking about, don't think about what they are saying or what the hear, read and see. I am not talking about specific people in this thread or forum, and I don't know any of the statistics - so i can't claim to 'know' any better than anyone else - but i have seen many that people have posted throughout, and i do consider myself to be inteligent, open minded and fair, and biased towards neither side on this issue.
Anyway, I normally avoid such discussions at all costs, but this time i have read through most of this thread, and have decided to post my thoughts. Some of the things i write will be more open-ended questions: things that i wonder myself, that i don't have the answers to, that perhaps some of you do and can supply, or perhaps just things that some people haven't considered.
Ultimately i don't think there is a right or wrong, no winners, no preventing people being people. There are no easy answers, or instant fixes.
In some ways TX is right, if someone wants to kill someone that badly then gun control isn't going to stop that. Nor is baseball-bat control, monkey-wrench control, bowling-ball control, or rolling-pin control. However for the main i believe that these people shouldn't be part of this arguement, and nor should 'the criminal element'.
Our bodies contain all the tools we need to cause fatal harm. Guns (and knives, baseball bats etc etc) do however make this much easier to the untried 'average joe'. Legalized gun ownership makes it that much easier for 'ave joe' to get his hands on those guns. *** I'd have a pretty hard time beating any of you to death with my bare hands, better chance with a bat, but give me a gun and i think i could do a pretty good job. *** How many of these atrocoties(sp) that we hear about are committed by the people who own the guns in question, or should be able to own or carry a gun? Surely removing the number of guns readily and legally available can help prevent these rare situations. These are the types of situation that i believe we should be aiming to and can be largely prevented.
Although in the US it would seem that increased gun controls would have little effect in the short term, due to the culture, the feeling of neccesity, and the number of guns in society, I think that the only way to tackle the problem is to look at the long term overall picture. Yes there are too many guns out there already, and no, you can't prevent there from being illegal guns, but surely over time if you reduce the number of legally owned guns in society, it will become easier to find the illegal ones. The aim should be to prevent those in the grey areas form having acces to guns - the people who aren't going to cause much trouble without one, but if they do get their hands on one can cause a Columbine or Virginia Tech. Even if increased gun controls did prove to have little or no effect, does that mean that it is ok not to try, and surely any effect is worth it?
Regarding the arguements for having a gun i have mixed views. Hunting is another debate entirely, and in the UK is something which comes up in the news on a fairly regular basis. Suffice to say that i am fairly anti-hunting, though not massively so, so my opinion in that arguement should be obvious. I also don't believe that they should be allowed for sporting or recreational use, except perhaps at designated and regulated clubs/societies. The strongest arguement i believe is for self-protection. This is probably the hardest part of the topic to resolve. However i would say that surely widespread gun ownership is the root of this need, and putting guns in the hands of both parties in such cases is only likely to escalate and not placate the incident.
I won't go into any real statistical analysis, like someone previously said stats can be made to tell any story - and someone famous once said "stats lie". Don't ask me who. On top of this one-off stats and stats without analysis are meaningless in terms of debate. I will however just look at one point from an article i think TX linked to:
This would seem to back up their claims at first sight. However what happened in the years before that, and further into the future should also be taken into account . Had violent crime been increasing year-on-year before that? Did it start to decrease 2 or 3 years later? Altho violent crime stayed the same, were there less gun-related incidents, or did fatal incidents decrease?
I'm sure there are plentyt more things i meant to say, one of the other reasons i hate these debates is that there is always so much i want to respond to, that i can never remember it all. I hope i haven't come across as better-than-thou or pompous or anything like that. But please take this thread seriously and post respectfully, and to those who believe in the right to bear arms, put aside for one moment whether or not gun controls affect gun related deaths, or whether or not you do need them for protection. If it came down purely to your right to own a gun, and the possible prevention of innocent deaths, is your right that important in this case.
Appologies for the long post! Peace to all
I hate threads/debates/arguements on this subject. Too many people argue their case who believe too strongly on one side or the other or are too close-minded to listen to the points being made and consider them fairly. Too many people post who don't know what they are talking about, don't think about what they are saying or what the hear, read and see. I am not talking about specific people in this thread or forum, and I don't know any of the statistics - so i can't claim to 'know' any better than anyone else - but i have seen many that people have posted throughout, and i do consider myself to be inteligent, open minded and fair, and biased towards neither side on this issue.
Anyway, I normally avoid such discussions at all costs, but this time i have read through most of this thread, and have decided to post my thoughts. Some of the things i write will be more open-ended questions: things that i wonder myself, that i don't have the answers to, that perhaps some of you do and can supply, or perhaps just things that some people haven't considered.
Ultimately i don't think there is a right or wrong, no winners, no preventing people being people. There are no easy answers, or instant fixes.
In some ways TX is right, if someone wants to kill someone that badly then gun control isn't going to stop that. Nor is baseball-bat control, monkey-wrench control, bowling-ball control, or rolling-pin control. However for the main i believe that these people shouldn't be part of this arguement, and nor should 'the criminal element'.
Our bodies contain all the tools we need to cause fatal harm. Guns (and knives, baseball bats etc etc) do however make this much easier to the untried 'average joe'. Legalized gun ownership makes it that much easier for 'ave joe' to get his hands on those guns. *** I'd have a pretty hard time beating any of you to death with my bare hands, better chance with a bat, but give me a gun and i think i could do a pretty good job. *** How many of these atrocoties(sp) that we hear about are committed by the people who own the guns in question, or should be able to own or carry a gun? Surely removing the number of guns readily and legally available can help prevent these rare situations. These are the types of situation that i believe we should be aiming to and can be largely prevented.
Although in the US it would seem that increased gun controls would have little effect in the short term, due to the culture, the feeling of neccesity, and the number of guns in society, I think that the only way to tackle the problem is to look at the long term overall picture. Yes there are too many guns out there already, and no, you can't prevent there from being illegal guns, but surely over time if you reduce the number of legally owned guns in society, it will become easier to find the illegal ones. The aim should be to prevent those in the grey areas form having acces to guns - the people who aren't going to cause much trouble without one, but if they do get their hands on one can cause a Columbine or Virginia Tech. Even if increased gun controls did prove to have little or no effect, does that mean that it is ok not to try, and surely any effect is worth it?
Regarding the arguements for having a gun i have mixed views. Hunting is another debate entirely, and in the UK is something which comes up in the news on a fairly regular basis. Suffice to say that i am fairly anti-hunting, though not massively so, so my opinion in that arguement should be obvious. I also don't believe that they should be allowed for sporting or recreational use, except perhaps at designated and regulated clubs/societies. The strongest arguement i believe is for self-protection. This is probably the hardest part of the topic to resolve. However i would say that surely widespread gun ownership is the root of this need, and putting guns in the hands of both parties in such cases is only likely to escalate and not placate the incident.
I won't go into any real statistical analysis, like someone previously said stats can be made to tell any story - and someone famous once said "stats lie". Don't ask me who. On top of this one-off stats and stats without analysis are meaningless in terms of debate. I will however just look at one point from an article i think TX linked to:
This would seem to back up their claims at first sight. However what happened in the years before that, and further into the future should also be taken into account . Had violent crime been increasing year-on-year before that? Did it start to decrease 2 or 3 years later? Altho violent crime stayed the same, were there less gun-related incidents, or did fatal incidents decrease?
I'm sure there are plentyt more things i meant to say, one of the other reasons i hate these debates is that there is always so much i want to respond to, that i can never remember it all. I hope i haven't come across as better-than-thou or pompous or anything like that. But please take this thread seriously and post respectfully, and to those who believe in the right to bear arms, put aside for one moment whether or not gun controls affect gun related deaths, or whether or not you do need them for protection. If it came down purely to your right to own a gun, and the possible prevention of innocent deaths, is your right that important in this case.
Appologies for the long post! Peace to all
neonleon
Player Valuation: £35m
well yeah , a pretty easy life if your a rapist. Apparently under some interpretations of sharia law, the rapist has to marry the woman he raped by way of penance. Striker One.
and you can be stoned to death for adultery and apostasy.
that means citizens throwing stones at you until you are dead (therefore, under certain conditions - they have licenced murder). Strike Two!
paedophilia or certainly pederasty with young boys is perfectly acceptable behaviour in some Muslims countries - morocco for example. It continues to be practiced in a more covert fashion in many muslim countries practicing Sharia Law.
Do some research you find the above to be verifiable.
I'm always wary of anyone, who's first reaction to a person causing a problem in society - is kill them, shoot them, hurt them, imprison them.
SuitsBlue
Player Valuation: £50m
do it like the chinese do, take their organs but instead of selling them, provide them to people desperately in need of transplants.
why should hindley, bradey, gadd, whiting, charnock, hamza, the one left from the iranian embassy, get the easy life? all guilty, all kept on joe tax payer.
there are pensioners and children living in poverty in this country, yet the state provides a better standard of living for the prison population.
i cant get in line with that, if the other option is sharia law or some laws based on those beliefs, then that'll have to do.
why should hindley, bradey, gadd, whiting, charnock, hamza, the one left from the iranian embassy, get the easy life? all guilty, all kept on joe tax payer.
there are pensioners and children living in poverty in this country, yet the state provides a better standard of living for the prison population.
i cant get in line with that, if the other option is sharia law or some laws based on those beliefs, then that'll have to do.
SuitsBlue
Player Valuation: £50m
"Distrust everyone in whom the impulse to punish is powerful" - fredrich nietzsche
- Status