Thread: Americans and their guns...the right to kill.

Ahh got you.
You don't want your fun spoiled.
It's a pisser that i can't buy drugs as freely as i want to either.
i'm a responsible user, always have been, have a lot of fun stick my tongue out a lot and the sex well....then some fuking idiots go kill themselves by taking too many and some others get all weird and spoil it for the rest of us.

^^You may be partly correct there,but to those who come from first world places where the gun controll is ten times more harsh than the USA, taking away guns is a bloody good start.

I don't see why my legal rights should be infringed because someone else commits a crime.

If someone commits arson in your village should the government come burn your house down so nobody dies in a future arson?

You never gave me a response as how you solve the other thousands of murders being committed each year using other weapons. How would you solve those if taking away guns automatically eliminates all gun related deaths?

In a society where a lethal weapon is allowed and even considered to be a basic human right, then life is obviously considered to be cheap.
Taking away that right will be the first of many steps towards civilising you lot.

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

^^You may be partly correct there,but to those who come from first world places where the gun controll is ten times more harsh than the USA, taking away guns is a bloody good start.

You are also talking about places where the ethnic groups are largely homogeneous, the income disparity is smaller, and, where murder rates were small to begin with. You also assume that gun death rates are the same everywhere in the United States (here where I live it's a 1.9/100000 rate versus 40/100000 in the nation's capital where gun laws are very strict). you guys are making too many assumptions without looking at how complex the issue is.

Social class, racial group, income level, education, etc. all play major factors in murder. And, do you really suppose that legally owned firearms are used in most murders? Quite the opposite.

Look at South Africa where gun ownership is regulated. Most firearm related deaths occur using black market guns. So, you pass laws outlawing guns. You think the criminals will just hand them in because suddenly the guns are illegal?

We are not talking about other murders...just gun related ones.

You guys a quick to bash the Jews or Christians when they refer to their rights as set out in their religion, yet you are doing the same thing regarding your "rights".

Using South Africa as an example is not a good look.Ask the Jaapies on this board what they think.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

In a society where a lethal weapon is allowed and even considered to be a basic human right, then life is obviously considered to be cheap.
Taking away that right will be the first of many steps towards civilising you lot.

Then what about the other 33% of murders? Ban knives? 1700 people were killed by knives in 2005. 600 were killed when hammers were the primary weapon. 1000 people died by being punched or kicked to death.

Originally Posted by surasak

Like I said, nearly 5,000 murders take place without the use of guns. What then? Ban knives?

That's exactly what's happening in the UK.

Of course people do kill without guns, and a gun ban or restriction(I favor the latter) will not solve any social problems.
But, again, a gun is an offensive weapon, even though it may be used for "sports" - quite acceptable for a small group of people who passed the requirements in European countries.

And it just is so easy to pull that trigger in a variety of circumstances, when the absence of the weapon would make all the difference between life and death.

Then what about the other 33% of murders? Ban knives? 1700 people were killed by knives in 2005. 600 were killed when hammers were the primary weapon. 1000 people died by being punched or kicked to death.

Again your argument mystifies, more so because you are obviously intelligent.
so because 33% of murders happen without guns we should all be allowed to own guns because most of us don't want to kill people with the guns we own.

The logic is irrefutably sound.

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

We are not talking about other murders...just gun related ones.

You guys a quick to bash the Jews or Christians when they refer to their rights as set out in their religion, yet you are doing the same thing regarding your "rights".

Using South Africa as an example is not a good look.Ask the Jaapies on this board what they think.

Gun related murders which represent an almost infinately small risk overall to the threats to one's life from start to finish. Out of 300,000,000 people in this nation about 10,000 get killed by a gun. Big deal. Now if it were impossible to go grab a bottle of milk from the local store because the gunfire was like Sarajevo then maybe you might have cause for alarm. Eliminating the weapon doesn't diminish the desire to kill.

I bring up South Africa because CMN pointed out that South Africa's murder rate via firearms is 4 times higher than the U.S. Yet South Africa has strict guns laws. So, isn't that contradictory? I thought passing gun control solved the problem? So why is the murder rate so high? Because you cannot make illegal guns 'illegal'.

Out of 300,000,000 people in this nation about 10,000 get killed by a gun. Big deal.

An amazing comment.

Yet not really.

life is truly cheap over your way.

...unless it's abortion or pulling the plug on some vegetable on a life-supporting machine.

Then watch the gun-lobby talk!

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Then what about the other 33% of murders? Ban knives? 1700 people were killed by knives in 2005. 600 were killed when hammers were the primary weapon. 1000 people died by being punched or kicked to death.

Again your argument mystifies, more so because you are obviously intelligent.
so because 33% of murders happen without guns we should all be allowed to own guns because most of us don't want to kill people with the guns we own.

The logic is irrefutably sound.

I'm arguing that the overall risk is very low and for me living here in the United States I don't consider it a danger. The state where I live has a very low rate of murder due to firearm, so, why should I be penalized because some gang of blacks in Washington, D.C. uses their illegal obtained guns to kill others?

My point being that the weapons have little to do with the desire to kill, otherwise, if guns are so easy to obtain then why aren't all murders commited with a firearm? Why would the other 5,000 or so assailants choose other weapons if guns are so efficient? We see countries in your lists where murder rates are high despite no gun ownership and we see countries on the lists where murder rates are high despite laws banning private ownership of guns. The desire to kill is universal, it crosses all lines, all ethnic groups, all nationalities. People will kill with whatever is handy: whether it's a gun, knife, machete (the weapon of choice in most of Africa), a bomb, or poison doesn't matter. The fact that we have a death penalty here doesn't matter. The fact that we solve most cases here doesn't matter. If someone wants to kill they will do it.

The fact that some people misuse firearms is no excuse to ban them for everyone. 11,000 incidents out of some 200,000,000 million in ownership. That's not how a proper civilization functions (you are aware, right, of the original reason for starting gun control in the UK? Because of the fears of Communists?)

I have stated before that I don't think everyone should be allowed to own one. I think only people who are licensed, properly trained, and proficient should own them. I think handguns should be outlawed. But I don't think people who are responsible should be prevented from ownership.

Guns just bring another excuse for people to kill each others. Ban the guns and the number of homicide will go down.

Guns are enablers, they make it easy to happen.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

Out of 300,000,000 people in this nation about 10,000 get killed by a gun. Big deal.

An amazing comment.

Yet not really.

life is truly cheap over your way.

And more peolpe are going to die from eating high fat food, smoking, drinking, motor vehicle collisions, falling off ladders, etc (about 2,300,000) of which 11,000 of those will be killed by guns (almost 9,000 of which are handguns which I have said many times in this thread that I oppose ownership of).

You're blowing it out of proportion.

this nonsense is not far removed from fox hunting nonsense.
Silly arguments based on silly evidence to justify individual needs.

I have stated before that I don't think everyone should be allowed to own one. I think only people who are licensed, properly trained, and proficient should own them. I think handguns should be outlawed. But I don't think people who are responsible should be prevented from ownership.

Ah, sorry, then I misunderstood you before. I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Guns just bring another excuse for people to kill each others. Ban the guns and the number of homicide will go down.

Guns are enablers, they make it easy to happen.

South Africa has banned private ownership of guns but has an extremely high murder rate involving firearms. The UK used to have a high rate of ownership of firearms (with a low murder rate involving them). Israel has a very high rate of firearm ownership and lower murder rate involving firearms. How to explain the contradiction?

^And by ownership I mean shotguns and rifles.

The problem is that people see AK-47s and M-16s and they get afraid. In reality it's the gun you don't see that is more dangerous.

Originally Posted by stroller

Ah, sorry, then I misunderstood you before. I agree with this.

Yes, but the theme of this thread has not been about nice people playing with their dangerous toys in a pleasant environment, it has been about everyone should have a gun cos we are going to kill eachother with whatever the fuk we lay our hands on like step ladders and pillow cases and microwave ovens.

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

this nonsense is not far removed from fox hunting nonsense.
Silly arguments based on silly evidence to justify individual needs.

It's not nonsense:

Most murders involving firearms are committed with handguns (only about 900 of all firearm related incidents in 2005 were committed using rifles or shotguns). I oppose handgun ownership.

Fewer people die from murder by shotgun or rifle than by being stabbed, punched, or kicked to death.

In order to justify banning what I own you need to justify banning pointed objects first.

I'm just not sure where you can disagree?

^
3 young girls killed execution style in a school with a gun.

If someone runs over three people with a motorcycle intentionally should we ban motorcycles?

Originally Posted by surasak

Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon

this nonsense is not far removed from fox hunting nonsense.
Silly arguments based on silly evidence to justify individual needs.

I oppose handgun ownership.

You may oppose handguns, but many people that own them in the USA use the same arguments that you have to keep them.

OK, so we're agreed that handguns should be banned, ownership of sporting guns should only be allowed by those who pass strict guidelines and a concerted effort needs to be made to remove as many illegal firearms from society as possible?

I don't know why you Seppos don't just use UK law and be done with it. It would be much better you know.