Jump to content

Recommended Posts

or it could raise the crime rate because the black market would sell them at higher profits knowing that criminals would have no choice but to buy them anyways because there would be less likelihood of a civilian owning one for self defense :|

Yums2.png

All My Sigs Made Wit Paint.Net {my current sig was made in a rush}

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bossk. How many small-arms are as effective as guns? There still would be crimes (There were crimes before guns) but the nature would change, and it would be harder to pull off. Imagine you were a murderer. Would it easier to commit the crime with a pistol or a baseball bat? A handgun or a knife? A gun or a longbow?

tagflowsig.png

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

I am a disco dancer. +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Bossk... I think what you are failing to understand, or maybe refusing to understand, is that the people you think do not understand what you are saying actually DO understand, and are simply disagreeing with you. All the data that was just presented (twice) was specifically to try and explain that in fact less guns means MORE crimes, or at least that is what the statistics are suggesting.

Total hack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say whatever you like with statistics. The fact is that guns neither increase nor decrease crimes. It's the people that hold them. Take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and you'll just be decreasing the amount of protection people have against the idiots out there. The black market ensures that criminals will always have guns. If they can break the law once and commit the crime, they clearly have no problem breaking the law to get a gun. Or any other type of weapon.

You can talk about banning guns or knives or anything as a feel-good way as if there's any way it'll do anything. But the cold, hard facts are that it won't.

Just think about it, people. Run it through your minds and think about it. A person is smart, but "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." In large numbers, people become stupid. That's why gun control cannot and will not work as expected.

 

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 post
Share on other sites
You can say whatever you like with statistics. The fact is that guns neither increase nor decrease crimes. It's the people that hold them. Take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and you'll just be decreasing the amount of protection people have against the idiots out there. The black market ensures that criminals will always have guns. If they can break the law once and commit the crime, they clearly have no problem breaking the law to get a gun. Or any other type of weapon.

You can talk about banning guns or knives or anything as a feel-good way as if there's any way it'll do anything. But the cold, hard facts are that it won't.

Just think about it, people. Run it through your minds and think about it. A person is smart, but "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." In large numbers, people become stupid. That's why gun control cannot and will not work as expected.

basically just ditto to that

Yums2.png

All My Sigs Made Wit Paint.Net {my current sig was made in a rush}

Link to post
Share on other sites
Less guns would cause a decline in crimes is all that I'm saying. Please understand that, pleaaase.

I understand that, AND I understand that your statement is about as true as "The world is flat". Give me your sources and then I'll listen.

TAC_08a.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Less guns would cause a decline in crimes is all that I'm saying. Please understand that, pleaaase.

actually it would be an increase because people would kill for firearms and steal them also

sig.jpg

~97% of teens won't stand up for Anything. Put this on your sig if you're one of the 3% who've fallen down trying.

Oh, and there's 3 types of people in this world...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Less guns would cause a decline in crimes is all that I'm saying. Please understand that, pleaaase.

I understand that, AND I understand that your statement is about as true as "The world is flat". Give me your sources and then I'll listen.

There actually may be a small decrease in gun related crime, but it would be negligible.

Ufm6Sc.png

 

Placeholder, new signature under construction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You can say whatever you like with statistics. The fact is that guns neither increase nor decrease crimes. It's the people that hold them. Take them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and you'll just be decreasing the amount of protection people have against the idiots out there. The black market ensures that criminals will always have guns. If they can break the law once and commit the crime, they clearly have no problem breaking the law to get a gun. Or any other type of weapon.

You can talk about banning guns or knives or anything as a feel-good way as if there's any way it'll do anything. But the cold, hard facts are that it won't.

Just think about it, people. Run it through your minds and think about it. A person is smart, but "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." In large numbers, people become stupid. That's why gun control cannot and will not work as expected.

This.

Let's recall an earlier time, say 1920 to 1933. This was when the Dry Law, or Alcohol Prohibition, was enacted. All alcohol in the United States was officially illegal. Consumption of alcohol was a crime. Obviously, this wasn't popular among the population. People still got their alcohol. They smuggled it in by the barrels from surrounding countries. It was still widely being distributed throughout the U.S. Breweries in Canada and Mexico flourished from their new foreign customers. Organized crime was started to distribute alcohol. Notorious gangsters such as Al Capone made millions off of illegal alcohol sale. Crime rates skyrocketed. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement. The nation was in shambles.

All of this over alcohol. Imagine what will happen with firearms.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

-- George Santayana

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Bossk... I think what you are failing to understand, or maybe refusing to understand, is that the people you think do not understand what you are saying actually DO understand, and are simply disagreeing with you. All the data that was just presented (twice) was specifically to try and explain that in fact less guns means MORE crimes, or at least that is what the statistics are suggesting.

Why does nobody understand what the h*ll I'm bloody saying?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does nobody understand what the h*ll I'm bloody saying?

We DO understand what you're saying. They're just saying you're wrong. That's what happens in a debate. Move on to your next point or back up your first; otherwise, be left in the dust in the debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does nobody understand what the h*ll I'm bloody saying?

We DO understand what you're saying. They're just saying you're wrong. That's what happens in a debate. Move on to your next point or back up your first; otherwise, be left in the dust in the debate.

Less guns means less crimes!

Why doesn't anybody here understand that?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like talking to a wall.. no disrespect, but it is impossible to get this across.

Your point: Less guns = Less crime.

Our point: Doesn't matter the weapon, crime will exist, possibly even more so.

Now, what is your next point. We both understand each other. Dig up some research or statistics on your side, and we'll do that on our side [though we have already]. When you have a strong argument, state your view and let it be. You know you're right, so what does it matter if we disagree? Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion; you cannot change someone's opinion merely by wishing it. To change our minds you will need hard evidence and a strong argument.

Edit: Are you even reading the other posts? You could learn something about defending your point in a debate by listening to other people's arguments, no matter what side they're on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does nobody understand what the h*ll I'm bloody saying?

We DO understand what you're saying. They're just saying you're wrong. That's what happens in a debate. Move on to your next point or back up your first; otherwise, be left in the dust in the debate.

Less guns means less crimes!

Why doesn't anybody here understand that?!?!

You are saying: Less guns means less crimes. I guess you think everyone else is not smart enough to understand those 5 words.

I assure you, I understand what you are saying. You are saying that if the government enforced a law against people having guns (except for police, military, etc) then the crime rate would drop. Right?

What I am saying (and so are some others) is that I do not agree with that statement. It is, in my opinion, based on an assumption that if guns are illegal, then people will stop having guns, and without guns, there will be less crime. That assumption is simply not based in fact. Did you read the post about prohibition? Everyone that had a similar opinion to yours about alcohol was wrong. Taking away "legal" liquer simply lead to a huge crime explosion related to illegal alcohol trafficing. With guns, it is even worse, because not only will there be an outbreak of illegal gun trafficing, the criminals that actually don't even have guns (and have never had guns) will suddenly have less resistance, and will be emboldened by the fact that there is less chance of the person they are robbing having a gun. The ones that DO have guns (and by the way, the number of criminals with guns will not decline by a significant amount, only the number of non-criminals with guns) will become unstopable and fearless.

I could go on for days, but I fear that my words are falling on deaf ears. That's all I have to say about that (like Forest Gump).

Total hack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^

I completely agree.

You know, John Lennon and The Beatles once wrote a song about this. It was called Happiness is a Warm Gun, and I completely agree with it. A gun provides the beholder a sense of security and safety against the things around them. If we all lose our weapons, then that sense of security is lost, illegal trafficking of guns goes up, and thus crime as well goes up. Heck, we could even begin to see different types of weapons coming from the crime body such as homemades and that would be ten times over worse then having a gun. Sure, we can have a little bit more restriction on the weapon, but not enough to keep half the population away.

signature.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
This.

Let's recall an earlier time, say 1920 to 1933. This was when the Dry Law, or Alcohol Prohibition, was enacted. All alcohol in the United States was officially illegal. Consumption of alcohol was a crime. Obviously, this wasn't popular among the population. People still got their alcohol. They smuggled it in by the barrels from surrounding countries. It was still widely being distributed throughout the U.S. Breweries in Canada and Mexico flourished from their new foreign customers. Organized crime was started to distribute alcohol. Notorious gangsters such as Al Capone made millions off of illegal alcohol sale. Crime rates skyrocketed. Powerful gangs corrupted law enforcement. The nation was in shambles.

All of this over alcohol. Imagine what will happen with firearms.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

-- George Santayana

You are absolutely correct. Good example, too. I'd just add: In the United States, the freedom to drink alcohol is not protected by the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is. Can you imagine the uprising?

Bossk: You can't just keep saying the same thing over and over and expect it to prove your point. We understand what you're saying: Less guns, less crime. I hear you, and I know you believe it. But history does not bear that out. Since guns were invented, crime rates as a percentage of population have gone down.

Present evidence to support your claim, and we'll talk. But the antiquated notion that less guns means less crime is not going to hold up here.

 

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 post
Share on other sites
Less guns means less crimes!

Why doesn't anybody here understand that?!?!

I can Play that game too! AND I'll back it up with these wonderful things called facts

LESS GUNS MEANS MORE CRIME![1][2][3][4]

What part of this don't you get? Read the posts in response to you, and form an logical argument, or concede. Failure to do either will result in me unilaterally declaring victory, and I don't think many here will disagree with me.

TAC_08a.png
Link to post
Share on other sites
Less guns means less crimes!

Why doesn't anybody here understand that?!?!

I can Play that game too! AND I'll back it up with these wonderful things called facts

LESS GUNS MEANS MORE CRIME![1][2][3][4]

What part of this don't you get? Read the posts in response to you, and form an logical argument, or concede. Failure to do either will result in me unilaterally declaring victory, and I don't think many here will disagree with me.

So, your saying that if we took criminal's guns away, there would be more crimes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can figure out how to take guns away from criminals, go ahead. No one has figured out how in the history of firearms, though...

EDIT: Oh, and I still don't see any evidence...only emotional appeals.

 

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 post
Share on other sites
False pirate gun shops to catch criminals buying guns?

Yeah, becaue sting operations have worked so well with drugs, child solicitation...

EDIT: By the way, that's sarcasm. :-)

 

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 post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'll lock it in a little bit unless something scintillating crops up.

 

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 post
Share on other sites

Before that happens, I'd like to reiterate my point.

I think there should be some standardization applied so that the laws pertaining to obtaining a handgun aren't so drastically different from state to state.

I do believe in the Bill of Rights, (2nd amendment in this case). Yes, I am a gun owner. Three in fact, and looking at a fourth. I do believe we have a right to bear arms, unless given cause such as mental illnesses, prior criminal record and so forth.

To take away this right would not be taking the guns out of the criminal's hands, but rather out of the hands of people who are rightly trying to protect their property and their livelihood. Criminals have limitless ways to obtain guns, and they really have no qualms about obtaining one to perform a crime.

But I do want to interject that there does need to be more precautions and background checks involved to obtain one.

I've said what I wanted to say...my 2¢

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...