Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12

 

2006-05-30 12:12:14
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7000|PNW

Vilham wrote:

no one needs a gun as a civilian.
Because the local bobbies are going to break through your door and pounce upon the bad man levelling a side-by-side at your forehead, saving the day in the nick of time...right? Right? Maybe it'll even make the news.

Vilham wrote:

lol yeah if you cant think for yourself, and you just supported my view that owning guns is stupid, the number of stories you hear about young americans who kill people because of violent games. If anyone who play's Bf2 is affected by it they should realy stop playing and get a grip of their life.
I'm glad to see you take that political pop-psychology hodge-podge seriously. I don't view dropping a bomb on a poor player as any different than bumping an opponent's rook off the chessboard with a rampaging queen. When I walk up and stab people with a virtual knife, it doesn't make me fantasize about doing it for real. People who are so malleable by mass media as to claim it as the sole reason for violent outbursts are screwed up to begin with. I would view an intolerably abrasive social life as more of a Columbine-style impellent power than Doom, Quake, Unreal or Battlefield.

Vilham wrote:

Im not saying that we are morally superior but neither do we have huge problems of gun or knife violence. Thats all i was saying, that in my position carrying a weapon is not nessecary because the police is very good in my area and that this knife amnesty is a good thing as it aims to protect.
Great. Good for your police. But I'd rather put my trust in someone who is not a block or more away from my position; notably, myself.

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Vilham wrote:

you mean {defend against} people who have no morals?
things that are beyond my control
So really, this whole thing is about poor widdle GunSlinger being afraid of the unknown?
Disambiguation.

Out of context, and out of order, Bubbalo. Evidence clearly indicates that violent criminals exist on this planet. Some people prefer to enjoy the right to deterrence.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-05-30 12:31:26)

2006-05-30 13:02:18
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6995|UK

Burning_Monkey wrote:

Well, if there isn't a huge problem with knife violence then why is the British government calling for a ban of all sharp pointed kitchen knives?

Because once long pointed kitchen knives are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to make stuffed porkchops.
tbh its only because there have been 3 knifings in the last 2 weeks 2 of which were children at school and the other was a part time police woman. the police have to be seen to be doing something.
2006-05-30 13:05:49
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6995|UK

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

no one needs a gun as a civilian.
Because the local bobbies are going to break through your door and pounce upon the bad man levelling a side-by-side at your forehead, saving the day in the nick of time...right? Right? Maybe it'll even make the news.

Vilham wrote:

lol yeah if you cant think for yourself, and you just supported my view that owning guns is stupid, the number of stories you hear about young americans who kill people because of violent games. If anyone who play's Bf2 is affected by it they should realy stop playing and get a grip of their life.
I'm glad to see you take that political pop-psychology hodge-podge seriously. I don't view dropping a bomb on a poor player as any different than bumping an opponent's rook off the chessboard with a rampaging queen. When I walk up and stab people with a virtual knife, it doesn't make me fantasize about doing it for real. People who are so malleable by mass media as to claim it as the sole reason for violent outbursts are screwed up to begin with. I would view an intolerably abrasive social life as more of a Columbine-style impellent power than Doom, Quake, Unreal or Battlefield.

Vilham wrote:

Im not saying that we are morally superior but neither do we have huge problems of gun or knife violence. Thats all i was saying, that in my position carrying a weapon is not nessecary because the police is very good in my area and that this knife amnesty is a good thing as it aims to protect.
Great. Good for your police. But I'd rather put my trust in someone who is not a block or more away from my position; notably, myself.

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


things that are beyond my control
So really, this whole thing is about poor widdle GunSlinger being afraid of the unknown?
Disambiguation.

Out of context, and out of order, Bubbalo. Evidence clearly indicates that violent criminals exist on this planet. Some people prefer to enjoy the right to deterrence.
yeah and my point about the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself is just fueled by the fact that they are legal in your country. The fact that people in England are more secure in their homes and happy with their police force compared with you lot who wont trust anyone else to protect you shows how messed up things must be where you live.
2006-05-30 14:44:49
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6873

Vilham wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

no one needs a gun as a civilian.
Because the local bobbies are going to break through your door and pounce upon the bad man levelling a side-by-side at your forehead, saving the day in the nick of time...right? Right? Maybe it'll even make the news.

Vilham wrote:

lol yeah if you cant think for yourself, and you just supported my view that owning guns is stupid, the number of stories you hear about young americans who kill people because of violent games. If anyone who play's Bf2 is affected by it they should realy stop playing and get a grip of their life.
I'm glad to see you take that political pop-psychology hodge-podge seriously. I don't view dropping a bomb on a poor player as any different than bumping an opponent's rook off the chessboard with a rampaging queen. When I walk up and stab people with a virtual knife, it doesn't make me fantasize about doing it for real. People who are so malleable by mass media as to claim it as the sole reason for violent outbursts are screwed up to begin with. I would view an intolerably abrasive social life as more of a Columbine-style impellent power than Doom, Quake, Unreal or Battlefield.

Vilham wrote:

Im not saying that we are morally superior but neither do we have huge problems of gun or knife violence. Thats all i was saying, that in my position carrying a weapon is not nessecary because the police is very good in my area and that this knife amnesty is a good thing as it aims to protect.
Great. Good for your police. But I'd rather put my trust in someone who is not a block or more away from my position; notably, myself.

Bubbalo wrote:


So really, this whole thing is about poor widdle GunSlinger being afraid of the unknown?
Disambiguation.

Out of context, and out of order, Bubbalo. Evidence clearly indicates that violent criminals exist on this planet. Some people prefer to enjoy the right to deterrence.
yeah and my point about the fact that you need a gun to protect yourself is just fueled by the fact that they are legal in your country. The fact that people in England are more secure in their homes and happy with their police force compared with you lot who wont trust anyone else to protect you shows how messed up things must be where you live.
we also have a much larger land area and population.  cant compare apples and oranges
2006-05-30 14:58:59
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6995|UK

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

we also have a much larger land area and population.  cant compare apples and oranges
yeah size doesnt apply to percentages does it... its always out of 100.
2006-05-30 15:46:45
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6911|Canada
I'd like to add that I think allowing guns is allowing people to take the law into their own hands.  I agree that having defence for your home is acceptable, I've been robbed before, and having something is good (crowbar will do) to wave at them and scare em off.  But, the reason people seem to have for carrying is that they want to be prepared for an inevitable attack, or they have no confidence in the police to do their jobs, or they have no faith in their govt. to watch out for their behalf.  What that means is gun owners that carry don't believe in the system, and are only carrying to protect themselves.  That means the system needs to change, so nobody needs to carry a gun except police, that or the gun owners need to change.  At that point, once most people have turned guns in sensibly understanding the benefits of compliance, there are the leftovers who just want guns plainly because it is their right, there is no other reason than that they are nice shiny bits of engineering to look at.  Then ask those people why they still want them, they say because they can, and because they always have been able to.   
I'd have to say that people who trust noone can't be trusted, and owning guns, if all americans were so anxious you'd have by far the most fucked up society on earth, imagine a simple misunderstanding..  boom you're dead, too late.  Shoot first ask later.

The number of deaths prevented by guns owned by civilians are so few and far between compared to the number of murders caused by civilian owned guns.  PLUS if you kill someone in defence, you saved a life, but you offset it with a death it's hardly productive.  Find me a statistic about how many people were saved by guns last year, and compare it to the number of murders.

It's a classic case of everyone saying well if he has one I have to as well, or well what's one less gun going to do, it's hardly a patriotic stand to own a gun since you are seperating yourself in trust of your nation, you're saying it's the opposite, like each house is it's own rebellious state and you'll be shot in pre-emptive defence on tresspass (loose term)

a state of vigilantes, clse to anarchy, no policing unless by yourselves

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-05-30 15:51:52)

2006-05-30 15:52:07
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6873

Spumantiii wrote:

I'd like to add that I think allowing guns is allowing people to take the law into their own hands.  I agree that having defence for your home is acceptable, I've been robbed before, and having something is good (crowbar will do) to wave at them and scare em off.  But, the reason people seem to have for carrying is that they want to be prepared for an inevitable attack, or they have no confidence in the police to do their jobs, or they have no faith in their govt. to watch out for their behalf.  What that means is gun owners that carry don't believe in the system, and are only carrying to protect themselves.  That means the system needs to change, so nobody needs to carry a gun except police, that or the gun owners need to change.  At that point, once most people have turned guns in sensibly understanding the benefits of compliance, there are the leftovers who just want guns plainly because it is their right, there is no other reason than that they are nice shiny bits of engineering to look at.  Then ask those people why they still want them, they say because they can, and because they always have been able to.   
I'd have to say that people who trust noone can't be trusted, and owning guns, if all americans were so anxious you'd have by far the most fucked up society on earth, imagine a simple misunderstanding..  boom you're dead, too late.  Shoot first ask later.

The number of deaths prevented by guns owned by civilians are so few and far between compared to the number of murders caused by civilian owned guns.  PLUS if you kill someone in defence, you saved a life, but you offset it with a death it's hardly productive.  Find me a statistic about how many people were saved by guns last year, and compare it to the number of murders.

It's a classic case of everyone saying well if he has one I have to as well, or well what's one less gun going to do, it's hardly a patriotic stand to own a gun since you are seperating yourself in trust of your nation, you're saying it's the opposite, like each house is it's own rebellious state and you'll be shot in pre-emptive defence on tresspass (loose term)
Spumantiii, I have no confidance in my police.
2006-05-30 17:38:13
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6911|Canada
Need better police.  It's expensive, but maybe it would keep more people out of overfull jails, if they think twice first.  Also, just as food for thought, a criminal might not care about murdering because he'll face the death penalty in places.  A full life in jail is far more intimidating.

elaborating:  not just more/better cops, but more local precincts that take an active constructive role in the community, getting to know people etc., establishing good rapport.  At first it would mean more serious sentences for serious crimes, so more in jails, but eventually it would correct itself to a good level.  Just a thought
2006-05-30 18:11:10
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6790

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I dont carry my firearms, that would be against the law.  I keep them secured in my home.
So, then, how do they protect you?
2006-05-30 22:08:08
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6873

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I dont carry my firearms, that would be against the law.  I keep them secured in my home.
So, then, how do they protect you?
Whats the point of wearing a seatbelt if you dont expect to get into a car crash?  Whats the point of having a standing army if your country is not at war?
2006-05-30 22:27:11
mikkel
Member
+383|6830

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

I dont carry my firearms, that would be against the law.  I keep them secured in my home.
So, then, how do they protect you?
Whats the point of wearing a seatbelt if you dont expect to get into a car crash?  Whats the point of having a standing army if your country is not at war?
I think for what he was asking, you should be asking yourself "What good does a seatbelt do if it's in your living room and not your car?" and "What's the point of having a standing army if it isn't ready to fight?"
2006-05-30 22:29:04
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6873

mikkel wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

So, then, how do they protect you?
Whats the point of wearing a seatbelt if you dont expect to get into a car crash?  Whats the point of having a standing army if your country is not at war?
I think for what he was asking, you should be asking yourself "What good does a seatbelt do if it's in your living room and not your car?" and "What's the point of having a standing army if it isn't ready to fight?"
because I spend the most amount of hours a day in my home including sleep.  Man, I live in a shitty neighborhood.  is it that hard for some of you to understand that the world is not a sheltered, protected place where there is always someone there to help you up if you trip and fall


I can tell, not a lot of you have been victims of violent crimes before, which is great.  But, reality is reality. 

I like my standing army analogy, i dont see how you could twist that one around.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-05-30 22:32:15)

2006-05-30 22:39:07
mikkel
Member
+383|6830

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:


Whats the point of wearing a seatbelt if you dont expect to get into a car crash?  Whats the point of having a standing army if your country is not at war?
I think for what he was asking, you should be asking yourself "What good does a seatbelt do if it's in your living room and not your car?" and "What's the point of having a standing army if it isn't ready to fight?"
because I spend the most amount of hours a day in my home including sleep.  Man, I live in a shitty neighborhood.  is it that hard for some of you to understand that the world is not a sheltered, protected place where there is always someone there to help you up if you trip and fall


I can tell, not a lot of you have been victims of violent crimes before, which is great.  But, reality is reality. 

I like my standing army analogy, i dont see how you could twist that one around.
I'm fairly sure that logic dictates that he was talking about situations where you aren't in your home. I don't blame you for having guns in a shitty neighbourhood. I probably would, too. I'm just trying to disambiguate things.
2006-05-30 22:44:14
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6873
well im not a kid anymore so I dont go chill with anybody like i used to.  I go from point A (home) to point B (school) straight line distance.  I dont worry about running into madness on the street because ill handle as best as i can with my fists, but luckily i havent seen any incidents since i been out yet (knock on wood).  But I dont carry again because it is illegal to carry one unless you have a permit.  Since i dont have any kind career or lifestyle that will deem me worthy for a permit, my firearm stays at home.  9 times outta 10 they get you while your at home anyways
2006-05-30 22:52:31
[CF]Snowytheman
Member
+2|6871|California
I realize this is an old article, but statistics are statistics...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm


Will knife crime follow the same trend?

Remember: "When (insert weapon name here) are outlawed, only outlaws will have (insert weapon name here)."

From the US:

"As firearm sales continue to rise, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) says the nations crime rate in 2004 remained at the lowest level in more than 30 years, reports the Associated Press. Since 1993, violent crime has fallen by 57 percent and property crime by 50 percent. Included is a 9 percent drop in violent crime between 2001-02 and 2003-04. The DOJs report also revealed that in 2004 less than 25 percent of all violent crimes were committed with a gun, knife or other instrument.--Courtesy NSSF"
2006-05-31 01:01:27
mikkel
Member
+383|6830

[CF]Snowytheman wrote:

I realize this is an old article, but statistics are statistics...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm


Will knife crime follow the same trend?

Remember: "When (insert weapon name here) are outlawed, only outlaws will have (insert weapon name here)."

From the US:

"As firearm sales continue to rise, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) says the nations crime rate in 2004 remained at the lowest level in more than 30 years, reports the Associated Press. Since 1993, violent crime has fallen by 57 percent and property crime by 50 percent. Included is a 9 percent drop in violent crime between 2001-02 and 2003-04. The DOJs report also revealed that in 2004 less than 25 percent of all violent crimes were committed with a gun, knife or other instrument.--Courtesy NSSF"
The problem with that study is that it was commissioned by a pro-firearms organisation. These figures that they're giving of crimes with handguns include the crime of possession, which is completely stupid to count for very obvious reasons. Neither does it factor in that gun crime was on the rise as it was, and they generally use every bit of unethical interpretation they possibly can in those figures. Rising tendency not factored in, crime of possession not factored in, and simply reading the article will make the bias obvious.

It claims that of the 20 police districts with the highest amounts of lawfully owned firearms, only two had above average use of guns in crimes. This is obvious. Areas with high amounts of legally owned firearms tend to have lower amounts of illegally owned firearms, and authorities there are generally more willing to give permits for firearms in more quiet areas. Since these numbers are some of the few where ethical interpretation actually benefits their case on the surface, they've factored in population ratio aswell, which leaves smaller country-side districts with many farms and small villages where owning a gun is more common at the top of the list. These areas are historically not very high on crime in the first place.


It also claims that of the 20 police districts with the lowest amount of lawfully owned firearms, half of them had above average use of guns in crimes. Again, this is obvious, as major cities in Europe tend to have a low people:firearm ratio, and as these cities also see the highest concentration of violent crime.


Never trust a pro-firearms organisation to carry out unbiased studies.
2006-05-31 07:04:23
Burning_Monkey
Moving Target
+108|7066

mikkel wrote:

<edited>Never trust a pro-firearms organization to carry out unbiased studies.
Never trust anyone with any kind of agenda to carry out unbiased studies.  All studies can be screwed with.
2006-05-31 07:23:56
whilsky
FUBAR
+129|6796|Bristol UK
I just thought i would add this, the knife amnesty is just a show from the government to show they are trying to do something about the problem, unfortunatly those that intend to a knife for the purpose of committing crime arnt very likly to hand them in, its usualy billy no mates who thought having a 14inch bowie was great mounted on his wall- but his mum said otherwise. There not banning the sale of knives, there talking about uping the restriction of the age in which to buy.
Its all a show for the voters and besides we have a knife amnesty every couple of years. Knife crime hasnt gone up or down by much over the last few years but the age of those involved has decreased to minors, and the media has gone nuts over it.
Something does need to be done but an amnesty wont help much.
2006-05-31 07:26:46
Smaug
This space for rent
+117|6806|Arlen, Texas
What about working knives, such as the carpet installers knife (hook blade at that), or linoleum floor knife?

I carry a knife cuz you never can tell if youre gonna find a chunk of wood that needs whittlin'. Or get a good game of Mumbly peg going.
2006-05-31 08:19:01
atlvolunteer
PKMMMMMMMMMM
+27|7000|Atlanta, GA USA

Spumantiii wrote:

I'd like to add that I think allowing guns is allowing people to take the law into their own hands.  I agree that having defence for your home is acceptable, I've been robbed before, and having something is good (crowbar will do) to wave at them and scare em off.  But, the reason people seem to have for carrying is that they want to be prepared for an inevitable attack, or they have no confidence in the police to do their jobs, or they have no faith in their govt. to watch out for their behalf.  What that means is gun owners that carry don't believe in the system, and are only carrying to protect themselves.  That means the system needs to change, so nobody needs to carry a gun except police, that or the gun owners need to change.  At that point, once most people have turned guns in sensibly understanding the benefits of compliance, there are the leftovers who just want guns plainly because it is their right, there is no other reason than that they are nice shiny bits of engineering to look at.  Then ask those people why they still want them, they say because they can, and because they always have been able to.   
I'd have to say that people who trust noone can't be trusted, and owning guns, if all americans were so anxious you'd have by far the most fucked up society on earth, imagine a simple misunderstanding..  boom you're dead, too late.  Shoot first ask later.

The number of deaths prevented by guns owned by civilians are so few and far between compared to the number of murders caused by civilian owned guns.  PLUS if you kill someone in defence, you saved a life, but you offset it with a death it's hardly productive.  Find me a statistic about how many people were saved by guns last year, and compare it to the number of murders.

It's a classic case of everyone saying well if he has one I have to as well, or well what's one less gun going to do, it's hardly a patriotic stand to own a gun since you are seperating yourself in trust of your nation, you're saying it's the opposite, like each house is it's own rebellious state and you'll be shot in pre-emptive defence on tresspass (loose term)

a state of vigilantes, clse to anarchy, no policing unless by yourselves
Spumantiii, read this:
http://www.gunfacts.info/
2006-05-31 09:59:23
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7066
We presented all the Real facts and Real stats from people who have already lived through it.

Our side of this argument has never stooped to insults

We live in different places with different people and the USA has a very diverse collection of cultures.

We carefully and thoroughly refuted the "More likely to hurt your self with a gun " line you insist on clinging to with the information provided by the Scholar who penned that False Statistic.

You live on an Island the size of our State of New Jersey, the USA is larger and we have long boarders with our neighbors.

We have good people and bad people just like you do.

Every where we have tried the "lets ban this " tactic it has failed utterly.

The fact is that good people outnumber bad people.

The only thing you can do for bad people is stack the deck in their favor.

In the days before mass production the Local blacksmith manufactured and repaired weapons.
A weapon is not hard to manufacture particularly a crude automatic weapon

Sten MkIII or Mac10 comes to mind. ( A knife ? )

A Pennsylvania Rifle is much harder to reproduce than a Mac10. Believe me.
Guess which one goes for 300 bucks and which one sells at $8000.

On that note a few years back a NYC landlord sent people to clean up a recently vacated loft space.
The found the machines needed to Mass produce Mac10 9mm Full autos and hundreds in various states of partial assembly. They have no Idea how many were produced at the location. But they had rented it for over 5 years and left a lot of valuable equipment behind. Money is no object to the average drug lord.

Even if a magic magnet sucked up every single weapon on Earth this would not prevent the oldest form of criminal ploy "The Gang".
The simple facts are ,  in the "Total ban on weapons " places, crime is rampant to the point of anarchy.
The places they eased up on private ownership restictions crime has abbated instantly.
We were just trying to give you a heads up, ignore us if you want to.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-31 10:14:09)

2006-05-31 10:04:08
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6995|UK
Lol what insults have been exchanged? none as far as ive read.

Edit i would like to note this was about UK knife amnesty so get back to the topic and lets stop talking about americans killing each other and being happy about it.

Last edited by Vilham (2006-05-31 10:05:00)

2006-05-31 10:05:08
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|6873

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

things that are beyond my control
So really, this whole thing is about poor widdle GunSlinger being afraid of the unknown?
2006-05-31 10:09:12
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6995|UK

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

things that are beyond my control
So really, this whole thing is about poor widdle GunSlinger being afraid of the unknown?
lol you think thats an insult? hes just pissing about, seriouosly take things less seriously.
2006-05-31 10:10:22
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|6995|UK
Btw another person died yesterday by the knife walking home from the football.

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard