This remind you of anybody?

Adam Adamant · Post by **Adam Adamant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:42 pm

And know doubt you can as long as it is a manually operated weapon.

No, though I am not too hot on the laws, I know it is very hard to get any kind of gun. Some members of gun clubs are allowed very small calibre handguns but I'm not sure if that is even still the case.

During a car jacking in Miami...

Well, you must admit that is a pretty rare circumstance. He could have equally accidentally shot the innocent person who opened the trunk, if the criminal had left him there.

why is it that you call the police? You call the police because they have guns. That's why... They enforce the law using guns.

I would call them because if I called Domino's they wouldn't be able to send ten men with handcuffs and body armour, who were trained to deal with crime. And in the UK, most police officers don't carry guns. They have non-lethal defenseive things like pepper spray and battons.

...*snort*

Well I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I was trying to point out the difference in rates of gun crime between countries with different laws.

Even if there were some way to make all guns in existence disintegrate and that no more guns were ever made again, we'd still have crime.

Yes. But perhaps it would be less lethal crime. Also we might have less children getting hold of parents guns and accidentally shooting people. Less people shooting each other in the 'heat of the moment'. Yes, people should be responsible, even in the 'heat of the moment', but they're not, this is the point, if everyone used guns responsibly there would be no problem.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:45 pm

Then by your own admission the problem is people not guns. My philosophy is not to alleviate the symptoms of a problem but to cure it at it's root. Taking away guns won't do that.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:48 pm

I know it's a stupid argument. I'm just participating in it for the hell of it.

Is that a fact? What new crime was invented when guns first came around? Because stealing, rape and murder can all be accomplished without guns. In fact, they are accomplished today. Without guns.

Well, yes. But keep in mind the time-frame. Let's say that tomorrow all the guns in the world magically vanish, and everyone on earth is subconciously prevented from ever making a new one, EVER.

Well, swords and knives and crossbows may have been effective before the gun was invented. But they wouldn't be able to pull off that many crimes in this modern world.

Yeah, let me give you some examples:

Bank Robbery
Now how would this be accomplished without guns? People would obviously notice you walking in with a sword . . . perhaps a very large group could accomplish it, but that would be just as consipicuous.

Well, with knives perhaps. But since there's that counter and glass in the way of the robber and his target - what's he going to do? He'd need to threaten to throw the knife at the teller to accomplish the threat. And even if did try that avenue, he'd need a lot of fucking knives just in case he missed or there turned out to be more people when he thought. And even if he somehow manages to sneak in 20 throwing knives, it takes more time to reach for one, carefully handle it, and accurately fling it than it would for someone to just squeeze the trigger repeatedly.

Even with a bow of some kind, there's that long time when he's reloading the bow that will make him completely vulnerable - allowing anyone near him to take him down. Not to mention that you can't shoot through doors and desks with a crossbow.

So yes, robbing a bank would be incredibly difficult without guns in today's world.

And also, hijacking a car. As long as the motorist has both doors locked and windows rolled him - it'd be a very difficult task to accomplish with a knife, bow, or sword.

While primitive weapons may have once been effective, we are now capable of taking enough safety measures to make most large-scale crimes impossible using them. It would still be able to mug and rape and commit crimes on people in dark alleys and such - but otherwise, it would cut down on large-scale robbieries and such.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:49 pm

So you're saying that because people might irresponsibly abuse the use of guns in a fit of irrationality, we should ban all guns period? Why not apply that to everything else that can be misused: Any blunt object lying around the place, the car that you chase people down with, the fists attached to your arms or even the tongue in your mouth that shouts enraged obscenities?

You got the half of the point: Irresponsibility is what causes accidents and crimes. Quit trying to outlaw the tool, and start trying to fix the real problem.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:49 pm

There is always the hostage route. "Give me all the money or I kill this person."

And we have repeating crossbows.

Adam Adamant · Post by **Adam Adamant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:50 pm

An irresponsible person can kill you much more easily with a gun. He wouldn't bloody get a sword or a crossbow, because they are illegal/ should be illegal in my opinion, to carry in public. And because most people would be much put off by the thought slicing through someone right in front of them. Chris keeps on about the difficulty of using guns at range, but how difficult do you think it is to aim a crossbow, and reload it, and carry the ammo.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:51 pm

chriscaffee wrote:Then by your own admission the problem is people not guns. My philosophy is not to alleviate the symptoms of a problem but to cure it at it's root. Taking away guns won't do that.

Segaholic2 wrote:You got the half of the point: Irresponsibility is what causes accidents and crimes. Quit trying to outlaw the tool, and start trying to fix the real problem.

There we go.

Zeta wrote:But since there's that counter and glass in the way of the robber and his target

That depends on where you go. At my bank, there's not much stopping your from grabbing the teller, putting a knife to his/her neck, and telling him/her to give you the money or you'll slice his/her throat. You can see the safe deposit boxes from the line to the next available teller. In the bigger cities with bigger banks and better security it would likely be hard to rob a bank without a gun, but all you have to do is go to Small Town, USA and you don't need more than a ski-mask and a knife.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:53 pm

Also, for those of you complaining about "high gun-related crime rates in the US", suck on this:

<A HREF="http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/gvc.htm#gu ... tm#guns</A>

And for some reason whenever I try to look up stuff about the UK's crime rates, all I get is stuff about how it's going up.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 4:58 pm

Adam. Killing people is illegal. Do you honestly think that a criminal cares about carrying laws? And would an enraged person be thinking clearly enough to worry about carrying laws either?

And as I said, repeating crossbows exist.

And the issue isn't making it difficult for people to kill people. The issue is STOPPING people from killing people. And gun control doesn't do that.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:00 pm

The truth is, I'm not anti-gun as you might think. It's just that people who won't admit that a gun is - you know - a weapon primarily designed to kills stuff - they piss me off. You want to keep a killing machine in your house, fine. But at least admit what it is.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:00 pm

Search the BBC and almost all of their reports say that UK gun crimes are on the rise. The only article I found that said gun crime was on the decline was an article about Scotland specifically, where there are about six people and ten million sheep.

If you really want to reduce gun crime, you have to raise the severity of the sentence and properly enforce it, not take the guns away. Taking candy from a toddler doesn't stop the kid from wanting his damn candy.

Adam Adamant · Post by **Adam Adamant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:01 pm

Guns are uniquely easy and effective in the range of ways to kill someone. Also there is little other use than to kill people. If we were to put the focus on dealing with the irresponsibility of the person then perhaps we should legalise all drugs, any content in games, films and music and all weapons, that is up to and including nuclear and chemical for all you potential terrorists, any content in games, films and music. Perhaps we could remove the laws requiring seat belts, speed limits, car insurance, health insurance, the list goes on.

You need to be either in favour of anarchy with no kind of parental state, or you can accept laws that restrict you and take care of the least responsible.

chriscaffee · Post by **chriscaffee** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:02 pm

A gun is a weapon. I don't think anyone denies that fact. Just because it is a weapon, however does not mean it has to be or is used as one. It just means it is capable of being a weapon, hell designed for it, but that doesn't make it inherently evil.

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:03 pm

Adam's got a point. If it's all about responsibility, let's just have everyone allowed to buy their own tanks or nuclear missles. I'm sure they'd use them responsibly. And illegalizing their use isn't going to stop criminals from getting them . . .

A gun is a weapon. I don't think anyone denies that fact. Just because it is a weapon, however does not mean it has to be or is used as one. It just means it is capable of being a weapon, hell designed for it, but that doesn't make it inherently evil.

Inherently evil? Not necessarily. But it does make them a little more dangerous than most other comodities. And it does seem superfluous in a truly civilized society. God knows we're not at that point, but still . . .
Sometimes preparing for violence is self-protection. Other times it's itching for a fight.

Adam Adamant · Post by **Adam Adamant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:05 pm

A criminal might not care about carrying laws, but the police officer who spots the sword in his belt will.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:05 pm

Zeta wrote:Adam's got a point. If it's all about responsibility, let's just have everyone allowed to buy their own tanks or nuclear missles. I'm sure they'd use them responsibly. And illegalizing their use isn't going to stop criminals from getting them . . .

So you see no difference between a handgun and a nuclear missile?

Zeta · Post by **Zeta** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:07 pm

So you see no difference between a handgun and a nuclear missile?

Not in the basic description. They're both weapons that can be used for protection . . .

Adam Adamant · Post by **Adam Adamant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:08 pm

Well clearly the responsible individual can choose for himself whether or not to own a missile.

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:09 pm

Why do I feel like I'm one of the only intelligent people here at the moment?
Sorry, this whole thing is just pathetic.

Post by **Segaholic2** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:09 pm

Zeta wrote:Not in the basic description. They're both weapons that can be used for protection . . .

Which is obviously why our country and other countries have and are developing nuclear weapons: For protection, because other countries have them. Think about scale, buddy.

Post by **Delphine** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:11 pm

Adam Adamant wrote:Guns are uniquely easy and effective in the range of ways to kill someone. Also there is little other use than to kill people. If we were to put the focus on dealing with the irresponsibility of the person then perhaps we should legalise all drugs, any content in games, films and music and all weapons, that is up to and including nuclear and chemical for all you potential terrorists, any content in games, films and music. Perhaps we could remove the laws requiring seat belts, speed limits, car insurance, health insurance, the list goes on.

Drugs: the simple act of consuming them does not hurt other people. It hurts yourself, yes, but that's your fault, not the fault of my tax dollars.
Videogames/films/music: any and all content should be allowed in these. If people don't like what's in them, they won't buy them. Just rate 'em and slap 'em on the shelves.
Guns vs WMD: Again, do you see no difference between a handgun and a nuclear missile? Because if you don't, you've got problems.
Seat belts: again, who do you hurt if you don't wear a seatbelt, besides yourself?
Speed limits: Going too fast has the potential to hurt other people. It's rather easy to lose control of your vehicle when you're driving in excess of 60mph, or when you're on a curved road, driving in the rain, etc.
insurance: Again, who does it hurt if you don't have it, besides yourself?

Jesus, do you people really want the government to take care of each and every aspect of your life? Goddamnit. There's nowhere to run to, the socialists are fucking taking over everything. I need to get rich and buy an island big enough to be its own goddamn country. I will name it My Fucking Island Go Away.

Spazz wrote:Why do I feel like I'm one of the only intelligent people here at the moment?

Yeah, yeah, shaddup. I usually stay out of these arguments, but I seem to have taken a leave of my sanity. I think I'll bow out now, I hate arguing with socialists even more than I hate arguing with conservatives.

The Doc · Post by **The Doc** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:16 pm

OK, I think we've all learned a valuable lesson here, folks:

Popcorn's mom is a bit of a whore.

Oh, and something about guns...

Spazz · Post by **Spazz** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:18 pm

Heh, that's pretty much how I've looked at this thread. Although I'm sure most of us already knew about Popcorn's mom.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:19 pm

The important lesson here is that the intended topic of a thread is worthless.

Adam Adamant · Post by **Adam Adamant** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 5:20 pm

The main reason drugs are illegal is beacause of the abuse they suffer. People taking advantage of others through drugs.

If I don't have car insurance and am not sticking to the speed limit, whilst under the influence of drugs, there are no parental laws after all, then I crash into you. You could die, which I'm sure you wouldn't like. If you survive, then who pays to fix your broken leg, your broken car. Well your own insurance, but what if you don't have any? What if you don't want to face an upped insurance rate next year, pay an insurance excess(often you will have to pay for the first Ã‚Â£500 or so especially with cheaper insurance)? You shouldn't have to do any of this because I should have insurance and not have crashed into you because I was on drugs in the first place.