Jump to content

Gun Control


Cornipsus
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think that the best solution is putting all the violent people on a big island, and letting them hit each other over the head with coconuts. The rest of us could enjoy our intelectual (or physical, whatever floats your boat) persuits without threats from thick-skulled lunatics called violent people. Wouldn't that be nice?

Rainbow%20Space%20Sig.png

The God of Judgement is not pleased...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the best solution is putting all the violent people on a big island, and letting them hit each other over the head with coconuts. The rest of us could enjoy our intelectual (or physical, whatever floats your boat) persuits without threats from thick-skulled lunatics called violent people. Wouldn't that be nice?

They did that... it's called Australia.

Total hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the best solution is putting all the violent people on a big island, and letting them hit each other over the head with coconuts. The rest of us could enjoy our intelectual (or physical, whatever floats your boat) persuits without threats from thick-skulled lunatics called violent people. Wouldn't that be nice?

They did that... it's called Australia.

I am so sending this to my Australian friends!

But I do have to admit, Texas also has some... unique... [violent, unruly, and all-around crazy] people. I like them, it makes for some good entertainment :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sir are flaming me will I am politely arugeing. Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.

Silly Reptile, I'm not flaming you. If I was flaming you, I would be banned already. All I'm doing is maiking you backup your statements with facts. But because you insist, I point to the following study: Link. Between 1987 and 1990 there were 258,460 recorded cases of firearms being *FIRED* defensively. During the same time there were 46,319 Homicides involving guns. Here is the kicker - the study's results are questionable due to the small sample size. A Later study in 1993 puts the number of times a firearm was drawn defensively , but not fired closer to 2.5 million. While the study by Hemenway in the 1990's showed that the use of firearms in Criminal acts was higher than the number of times that they were fired defensively, it doesn't count the number of times that they were used as a deterrent, and not fired. Thus neither thae Hemenway nor the earlier McDowall studies would have even mentioned the fact that the students that subdued Mr. Odighizuwa at the afforementioned Appalachian School of Law shooting used firearms to subdue him, but his attack would have been recorded.

I look forward to your supported response.

TAC_08a.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rid guns, you will, by law of averages, reduce crime.

I'd actually love to see the study backing that up. Studies (Like the one I linked to earlier) show that a reduction of legal firearms could increase not decrease total crime.

TAC_08a.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sir are flaming me will I am politely arugeing. Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.

Silly Reptile... I look forward to your supported response.

While I definitely agree with you, you do seem to be awfully high handed, tone it down a notch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sir are flaming me will I am politely arugeing. Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.

Silly Reptile, I'm not flaming you. If I was flaming you, I would be banned already. All I'm doing is maiking you backup your statements with facts. But because you insist, I point to the following study: Link. Between 1987 and 1990 there were 258,460 recorded cases of firearms being *FIRED* defensively. During the same time there were 46,319 Homicides involving guns. Here is the kicker - the study's results are questionable due to the small sample size. A Later study in 1993 puts the number of times a firearm was drawn defensively , but not fired closer to 2.5 million. While the study by Hemenway in the 1990's showed that the use of firearms in Criminal acts was higher than the number of times that they were fired defensively, it doesn't count the number of times that they were used as a deterrent, and not fired. Thus neither thae Hemenway nor the earlier McDowall studies would have even mentioned the fact that the students that subdued Mr. Odighizuwa at the afforementioned Appalachian School of Law shooting used firearms to subdue him, but his attack would have been recorded.

I look forward to your supported response.

46,319 homicides happen in about three years. 46,319-46319=0. So, there would be less crime. I'll I said is that there would be less crime and I AM RIGHT! You proved me right by posting that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sir are flaming me will I am politely arugeing. Guns=Violence. No guns=Less Violence.

Silly Reptile... I look forward to your supported response.

While I definitely agree with you, you do seem to be awfully high handed, tone it down a notch.

I did tone it down. My offline typed draft would have probably gotten me banned. While I can work on them, I do tend to chafe on "Emily Post" boards. Also - as far as I know, it's polite to break down a quote box when you quote different parts of a person's post; for comprehension purposes.

TAC_08a.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My offline typed draft would have probably gotten me banned. While I can work on them, I do tend to chafe on "Emily Post" boards. Also - as far as I know, it's polite to break down a quote box when you quote different parts of a person's post; for comprehension purposes.

Maybe RB should add a new BBCode tag: May offend. When text is enclosed a warning is displayed and the message can be viewed by clicking "expand".

KaHuc.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. If it can offend, do not post it.

EDIT: On the other side of the coin, though, people shouldn't be so sensitive.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the way I see it:

You should have a special license to have a gun (i.e., if you're a rapist, no gun for you!) and for those who can't have a gun (and those who can), you can get a low-powered taser to protect yourself.

"The greatest thing about the Internet is that you can write anything you want and give it a false source." ~Ezra Pound

twtr | dA | tmblr | yt | fb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point, but at the same time, someone running into a house with a taser isn't exactly as scary as someone with an AK-47.

Can violent criminals be trusted with any kind of weapon at all?

Trusted or not, they'll get one. I once knew someone who could build a gun that would take down an elephant using two two-by-fours, a rubber exercise band, and a framing nail.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point, but at the same time, someone running into a house with a taser isn't exactly as scary as someone with an AK-47.

Can violent criminals be trusted with any kind of weapon at all?

Define weapon. A Bic Biro Pen can be used violently.
Rid guns, you will, by law of averages, reduce crime.

I'd actually love to see the study backing that up. Studies (Like the one I linked to earlier) show that a reduction of legal firearms could increase not decrease total crime.

You're right, I should have backed up my claim.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trusted or not, they'll get one. I once knew someone who could build a gun that would take down an elephant using two two-by-fours, a rubber exercise band, and a framing nail.

Your alter ego, perhaps? ;)

xZYt6wl.png

ambigram signature by Kemaru

[i write plugins and stuff]

If you like a post, upvote it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can violent criminals be trusted with any kind of weapon at all?

Nope. They can make normal objects into weapons. Bats turn into thick swords, watches turned into glass knuckles, and hot water bags to pepper spray (as seen on MacGyver).

"The greatest thing about the Internet is that you can write anything you want and give it a false source." ~Ezra Pound

twtr | dA | tmblr | yt | fb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can violent criminals be trusted with any kind of weapon at all?

Nope. They can make normal objects into weapons. Bats turn into thick swords, watches turned into glass knuckles, and hot water bags to pepper spray (as seen on MacGyver).

But we have to do our best. How much harm can a biro do - and its always ironic given how many campeigns come in the form of biros.

KaHuc.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention the black market. The old cliche is true: when weapons are outlawed, only outlaws have weapons. Certainly they're willing to break one law- why wouldn't they be okay with breaking another.

 

The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.
Amy: But how did it end up in there?
The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.
River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in a response, I had something come up.

Maybe RB should add a new BBCode tag: May offend. When text is enclosed a warning is displayed and the message can be viewed by clicking "expand".

Then honest debate becomes impossible. As far as I know I have said nothing that was factually incorrect, for if I have, then I shall endeavor to correct said error.

No. If it can offend, do not post it.

EDIT: On the other side of the coin, though, people shouldn't be so sensitive.

Then, as I said, honest debate is impossible for the truth isn't a golden mean.

46,319 homicides happen in about three years. 46,319-46319=0. So, there would be less crime. I'll I said is that there would be less crime and I AM RIGHT! You proved me right by posting that.

Again, you missed the point. . I don't think you are going to get it, but here I go again.

There were 46319 Homicides committed with a Firearm in the 1987-1990 period.

There were 258,460 times when a Firearm was Fired by a person to defend themselves,

and

Up to 2.5 million times that a firearm was drawn, but not fired in self defense.

Now, which number is the biggest?

NOTE: This ignores the practical problems of removing over 223 million Firearms (BATF from people in the United States, most of whom will resist, and rightfully so.

[Trusted or not, they'll get one. I once knew someone who could build a gun that would take down an elephant using two two-by-fours, a rubber exercise band, and a framing nail.

That's easy. I prefer a nice bit of Artillery (Home made Trebuchet for the WIN!).

This is the way I see it:

You should have a special license to have a gun (i.e., if you're a rapist, no gun for you!) and for those who can't have a gun (and those who can), you can get a low-powered taser to protect yourself.

I think the closest we can come to agreeing is that everyone should have the right (other than convicted violent offenders, and certain people with certain mental health issues [at one point I would have been in the latter catagory]), while a state issued CC permit would be harder to get, and a National CC permit next to imposible ("Why do you need to have this permit? You can already keep a weapon on your person...").

TAC_08a.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in a response, I had something come up.
Maybe RB should add a new BBCode tag: May offend. When text is enclosed a warning is displayed and the message can be viewed by clicking "expand".

Then honest debate becomes impossible. As far as I know I have said nothing that was factually incorrect, for if I have, then I shall endeavor to correct said error.

No. If it can offend, do not post it.

EDIT: On the other side of the coin, though, people shouldn't be so sensitive.

Then, as I said, honest debate is impossible for the truth isn't a golden mean.

46,319 homicides happen in about three years. 46,319-46319=0. So, there would be less crime. I'll I said is that there would be less crime and I AM RIGHT! You proved me right by posting that.

Again, you missed the point. . I don't think you are going to get it, but here I go again.

There were 46319 Homicides committed with a Firearm in the 1987-1990 period.

There were 258,460 times when a Firearm was Fired by a person to defend themselves,

and

Up to 2.5 million times that a firearm was drawn, but not fired in self defense.

Now, which number is the biggest?

NOTE: This ignores the practical problems of removing over 223 million Firearms (BATF from people in the United States, most of whom will resist, and rightfully so.

[Trusted or not, they'll get one. I once knew someone who could build a gun that would take down an elephant using two two-by-fours, a rubber exercise band, and a framing nail.

That's easy. I prefer a nice bit of Artillery (Home made Trebuchet for the WIN!).

This is the way I see it:

You should have a special license to have a gun (i.e., if you're a rapist, no gun for you!) and for those who can't have a gun (and those who can), you can get a low-powered taser to protect yourself.

I think the closest we can come to agreeing is that everyone should have the right (other than convicted violent offenders, and certain people with certain mental health issues [at one point I would have been in the latter catagory]), while a state issued CC permit would be harder to get, and a National CC permit next to imposible ("Why do you need to have this permit? You can already keep a weapon on your person...").

Less guns would cause a decline in crimes is all that I'm saying. Please understand that, pleaaase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...