There clearly must be a difference since about twice as many murders are committed with a gun than with every other method of murder put together.

More murders are committed with a knife than with a spoon. Clearly there must be a difference.

Or let's just say people are fucked and we are doomed as a species.

/thread

^
^ Clearly. I don't recall anyone saying otherwise.

Sure you can use anything for evil. Nobody's debating that.

What I'm saying is that killing someone with a baseball bat, and killing someone with a gun are two entirely different types of events. Police distinguish a crime using a baseball bat, or a knife as being a crime of passion. It's something intimate. It's something that requires some emotional fuel. You don't just go up to anyone and bludgeon them with a baseball bat.

You don't pull up next to the dude that just cut you off on the freeway, and bludgeon him with a baseball bat or knife. No, you smoke him with your Glock. Why? Because it's quick & easy and you probably won't get caught. You can do it without ever being seen getting out of your car.

Walking down the street, you could have any number of high-powered rifles pointed right at you... and you'd never know it. Anyone could kill you at any moment, and you would never see it coming. You think you're going to "defend" yourself from that by firing back? Who are you firing back at, exactly... if you just took a high-velocity round to the chest or skull? Would you even be able to identify the shooter?

Even standing in your own home, within sight of a window... anyone on the roof top of another building within view could snipe you. I don't think there's going to be anyone defending themselves from that.

If someone's coming for you with a baseball bat, you'll most likely see it coming. You can run like a motherfucker in the other direction and probably get away.

The reason why military weapons are illegal for civilian use is real simple; It's because it makes killing people too easy. Along the lines of what I've described. But why are we drawing the line at semi-automatics and small capacity clips? Why is there any distinction at all? A little killing is A-OK, but a little more is wrong? Anything more and we might hurt ourselves?

Fuck, put me on the list of people wanting to own an ICBM... I want to be really prepared.

http://www.acus.org/files/images/nuclear-ICBM.jpg

:thumbsup

In Israel, lots of people have guns but hardly any gun-related violence compared to the US.

Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution?s Second Amendment, Israel?s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.

Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol.

In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense.

Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012...-violence-down

The Indians who posed the real danger only had bows and arrow. Often the Army was called in to save citizens.

You're assuming that 100% of the people will support the anti Government movement. Plus what they have stored will take a long time to run out.

And you as an American are brought up the be a conspiracy theorist. So tell us all what it would take for 100% of the citizens to turn against the Government. Yet keep the police and Military loyal?

Wow, the level of understanding as it concerns basic morals and ethics is extremely low here.

(1) Do you own your body? Most would answer yes.. (Self ownership, the most basic form of property rights)

(2) Do you have the right to defend yourself if another individual initiates violence upon you? Most would answer yes.

(3) What is the most effective and efficient manner by which you can defend yourself, assuming the attacker is pointing a gun at you? Most would answer: a gun.

Then logically, yes, it is within the best interest of everyone to carry a gun for self defense.

Fucking shit is not rocket science.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Oh man, stop it.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I can't believe there are still dumbfuck gunloons who come out with totally subnormal semantic points about "subjects" and "citizens". Especially when they don't even have a single clue what the words actually mean. 'British subject' essentially meant someone who was born or lived in a territory under the rule of Britain. That's it. And that was a long time ago, when British territory covered quite an extensive area of the planet. British people are (fucking obviously) British citizens, and I have no idea where you'd get such a stupid idea that that they're not. Even a half-second Google on the term "British citizen" would put you right.

England is known as the 'Mother of Parliaments', due to its 800 year history of Parliament. Whereas a mere 150 years ago the USA was still flat out enslaving its own 'citizens', the Brits had a modern parliamentary democracy before any other existing country on the planet, and before the USA was even conceived. Carry on pretending that was a 'tyranny' the Revolutionaries fought against though. The English had a Bill of Rights, with a 'right to bear arms', over a century before the US Bill of Rights was ratified. Where do you think the idea came from?

Americans use the English the language, based laws on English law, were infused with the concept of democracy from Britain, even took the flag and national anthem from Britain. So much for 'independence' from the 'tyranny'. The only thing that changed in the Revolution was the 'tyrant' moved a few thousand miles to the west.

Most who? I would put money on most people answering 'bullet proof vest', 'running away' or 'comply with the attacker's demands and let the police catch him later'. If you can explain how a gun can stop a speeding bullet though, be my guest.

In 1776 only about 30% of the population supported "the anti Government movement".

Do you know what year it is? What century? Millennium? In 1949 millions of Americans couldn't even sit on a fucking bus where they wanted. So much for the benefits of American 'citizenship'.

I swear, if any other country had a bunch of people continually fixated about life as it was decades or centuries ago they'd be locked up for their own safety. Yet in the US, clowns like you do it all the time and somehow expect to be taken seriously.

It's already been explained to you that Britain has had a parliament for 800 years, and been a modern parliamentary democracy since before the USA was a glint in anyone's eye. 'The Crown' is simply a symbolic title for the (democratic, parliamentary) British state, since the Monarch has been little more than a figurehead since the 'Glorious Revolution', almost a century before the American Revolution, that resulted in the English Bill of Rights.

Feel free to post again if you need any more lessons on history or reality.

Well said :thumbsup If anything it would of been more of a blood bath in a dark theater full of smoke. Also the nutjob was wearing tactical armor.

And you wonder why America has to go across the world and assist in other Country's wars & political agendas? You can call us cowboys, you can call us rednecks. When push comes to shove, all American's will fight for what they believe in -- as a group. It doesn't take 100% attendance or agreement with the politics parts. It takes a few intelligent people that are armed and willing to protect the weak.

You, not being in the USA, have no clue or understanding what it is to be an American. Brits have always hated on USA with our "hamburgers" and USA has always made fun of the toothless tea drinkers. It is what it is. If you are not an American -- you have absolutely no right to even think about our policies or discussions, specially when it comes to our rights.

We understand, the last thing the world wants is a group of people who can & will defend themselves. Most of this drama directed towards the USA is mainly fed by jealousy. If it wasn't, the rest of the world wouldn't care what the USA does.

---------

In regards to comparing other countries, such as Israel, to the USA... come on now. Are you all that ignorant? Have you ever been to Israel? Do you not understand that the other parts of the world -- "Police" are in fact Military, or Military trained. They will shoot to kill. Hell, sorry but stealing a candy bar and getting your hand chopped off if you get caught -- doesn't sound like a good pay off to me.

Fear of death is a stronger motivation than fear of jail time. We, USA, are more civilized-- and possibly more nieve to think the best of people. Do I think some crimes should have an "eye for an eye" mentality... sure. Will it happen in the USA? Probably not... because even criminals have rights. That is the difference between countries. So please, stop comparing countries and their citizens.

So a minority can take over the US with the guns they bought from stores.

Does it get more far fetched?

First paragraph = true I was over doing it a bit with that statement.

Cannons etc were stolen from military bases which help level the playing field. Lots of arms were taken etc. Which is all (sounds easy enough) you would have to do again if your government tried to imprison your citizens.

Second paragraph = true to some extent, the civillians have access to the parts, where would their loyalties lie in the time of a new civil war (the makers of weapons)? I don't know. Maybe they will back the government, I'm sure they line the pockets of arms dealers more than the general public. But you can use your guns to take over those places right? So that's all good, hoorah! 2nd ammendment! Woo!

Third paragraph? :1orglaugh Ok then! Why has nobody who opposes the patriot act taken that up with Mr Obama, or Mr Bush when he was in charge? Why are you not out there demanding the bankers who caused financial collapse be held accountable?
I'm a British and European citizen, in the UK the Royal family has no power, not anymore, they are merely there as a symbol.

You do know the original settlers in North America were only there because they wished to seperate from the Church not the Crown right? They were still English "subjects" at the time.

:1orglaugh

The irony of all your ramblings are hilarious.

By your logic, If it wasn't for the British army, you would all be speaking French or Spanish way before WW2.

Note, If you hadn't joined in at all, Hitler or Stalin would have eventually taken over your beloved country aswell.

When did I say I'm not an American? And please spare me the generalized cliched banalities about what it is to be 300 million different people.

I think you'll find there are lots of hamburger joints in Britain. Which you'd know if you weren't so scared to set foot into the big wide world out outside.

Who the fuck are you to tell anyone else what they're allowed to talk about?

Ah. People in countries that have double digit gun deaths are jealous of the fact that tens of thousands of Americans are killed with guns every year. Of course.

I don't remember making any point about Israel, other than laugh may ass off at the idea that extremist illegal settlers have guns, as well IDF protection, for self-defense.

And now for something completely different: some facts.

Unlike the US which, even after Hitler's ally attacked Pearl Harbor, did not declare war on Germany, Britain declared war on Germany in defense of an entirely different country. Despite the fact that Hitler admired Britain and its Empire and saw Britain as a natural ally. It was in the interests of Britain to stay out of the war, but they stood up and did the right thing.

If the US so altruistically helped Britain then why was the country "totally broke" after the war? If the US was so charitable, why was Britain still paying off the last of the post WWII loan to the US a mere five years ago?

American companies were doing business with Nazi Germany even during the war. I'm sure that was very helpful to Britain, other victims of the Nazis and to the USA when it finally did the right thing. Companies like IBM, Ford, Standard Oil making vast profits from the most diabolical regime in history.

The USA definitely won the war. While Britain sustained bombing for six years, being in the war longer than any other country, from beginning to the bitter end, and other countries were devastated with millions dead, the US mainland remained totally untouched by WWII, and for the price of a few hundred thousand dead, emerged as the world's richest and most powerful superpower, from being an isolated backwater nobody gave a shit about before the war.

What do you imagine we're speaking now? American? Stop being such a complete fucking embarrassment for five minutes. Fuck man, it's idiots like you, spouting clueless and inane shit like that, who make life impossible for sane, normal Americans.

Carry on projecting.

:1orglaugh the crap you come up with is hilarious. I thought you was a pretty clever guy but you act like America is some brilliant nation that doesn't need anyone's help and it is totally ridiculous.

It wasn't as simple as, "oh where would you be if we didn't help?" The real question is where would you be if you didn't help?

Yes.

Knives are legal, as are baseball bats, clubs, and hammers. However, when was the last time a man with a baseball bat killed a dozen people and injured twenty more? When was the last time someone with a knife did it?

I'm not saying make guns illegal. But at some point in time you need to question why a former US Marine needs or wants an assault rifle, no less more than one.

I grew up around firearms in rural NJ; We used to hunt every winter. We used to bring back the deer and skin them in our back yard. If you want to go hunting go hunting; You can own a rifle with a scope on it. No fucking need for a AR15 to shoot at deer that aren't shooting back at you. Want to go shooting, great, go shooting. We used to shoot clays with a shotgun. That's shooting. Not shooting beer cans with an AR15. (Although that is always fun.)

We need to question why people need this. The old programmer at Lightspeed Cash carried a fucking Uzi and Mac10 in the trunk of his car. Why? Setting aside that fact that he was a scrawny little fuck who could get knocked over by a breeze, he didn't need a dozen fucking firearms in his car.

I have a friend of mine who is partially retarded. He's had a dozen operations on his brain (He has water on the brain). Mentally he is sixteen, cannot pay his bills, and collects swords and he hands up on his wall. He also has an AR15 and a handgun. Perfectly legal, but at some point in time why isn't someone saying "He's not all mentally there, he hasn't been laid in twenty years since his divorce, and one day he might just snap - and he has an AR15 with thousands of rounds". Yet no one fucking questions this.

We have the right to bare arms. This does not mean we have the right to own assault rifles, and it doesn't mean we cannot start restricting them. We need tougher controls on this. That's just common sense.

This fucker was dying his hair red and orange. Yet no one questioned his sanity.

Can knives or baseball bats kill 15 people like sitting ducks???

I think there is a staggering difference between what the government military had in the 1700s compared to now. They might have had cannons then, but they were easy to get at and over run. Now our military has APCs which nothing the civilian population has or can beat, and the military has machine guns that can kill hundreds in seconds. Don't get me started on planes and tanks.

The US has vast stockpiles of equipment that would last years. I've seen military bunkers that store tens of thousands of machine guns and billions of rounds. I remember one bunker in the Marines that was full of LAWS rockets. On top of this, we have huge stockpiles across the world. And if that fails, the US military can just buy whatever it needs from other countries.

Care to explain? If someone is shooting at me not much I can do. If someone has a knife or bat I can run. How are you going to kill 15 people in seconds with a bat?

we'll be called, wild wild earth.

And why did they need help? Because they had the balls to stand up to the most powerful military on earth at the time. They could have taken the cowardly route that many Americans shamefully advocated and stayed out of the war. Had they done so they'd have kept their Empire intact and remained the world's superpower, while the USA would be the irrelevance it was before the war. And without the war as an incentive, who knows who'd have developed the Bomb first.

Just to be clear, which side in the civil war do you believe are comparable to the Nazis?

Who I make friends with, and where and how I do it, is not your concern, so try not to worry so much about it. And try not to worry so much about Brits either. It's been several years since they last burned the Whitehouse. I bet you walk around with one eye over your shoulder though, in case Queen Betty is coming to take your guns. :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

But that's the main reason people buy guns in the first place, isn't it: fear.

no .

Some of you guys just dont get the point.

Like others have said, a can of gasoline could have killed for more people than an assault rifle in a theater. Murdering people was the crime, not having a gun.

I'm out of this thread, got better shit to do.

I fully understand your point. But that's not my point.

People do real stupid shit with guns, because we've got such a large population of real stupid people in this country. And every gun lover thinks everyone should be armed. I think if we thought about it real rationally, without getting all emotional about it... we'd realize that putting a gun in the hands of every irresponsible piece of shit in America that thinks they need "protection" is a very, very bad idea. 99.9% of the population should NOT be allowed to own a gun.

Here's an example:

"Daniel Collins Jr. is accused of pointing a silver revolver at his 47-year-old neighbor in the vestibule of their Cedar Lane apartment building and saying, ?I?m going to put a hole in your head.? The confrontation occurred after Collins said his neighbour farted as he walked in front of Collins? apartment, said Detective Lt. Andrew McGurr."

http://www.northjersey.com/news/Police_Teaneck_man_72_accused_of_threatening_neigh bor_with_gun.html

This guy probably doesn't want his 2nd Amendment rights taken away either. I bet he's JUST as passionate about it as you are. And he legitimately thought he was protecting himself, exactly what every asshole thinks when they pull out a gun to senselessly smoke someone.

The problem is that "defending yourself" is quite subjective. I could say "get the fuck off my lawn" to some deranged person taking a piss on it, and they could say "I feel threatened, so I'm going to defend myself"... pull out a gun and shoot me.

This kind of bullshit happens all the time.

You think that if the guy didn't have a gun, he'd pull out a knife and stab him? That's doubtful. Or go grab his car, and run him over? Again, doubtful. Pull out a spoon and gouge his eyes out? Maybe...

That's the fundamental problem here.

All I know is when the zombie apocalypse hits the world we'll see how far your anti-gun stance gets you.


Some of you are going to be shit out of luck.

some concepts i'm working on:

people should become more responsible for their existence, stop waiting for "a president" or fairy tales from the bible to change their lives.

a responsible gun owner that does positive things in his/her community is worth about 2000-3000 iphone users.

wackos that buy guns to kill people probably represent 0.000001% of all gun owners. when obama said ban AK-47's from the criminals he was talking about you

i wouldn't trust 99% of the population with a weapon becuase they have shit inside their heads

nutella is tastier in the summer time

Here's a responsible gun owner...

Woman known as ?Sea Hag? accused of fatally shooting man who refused to give her a beer

guns should be forbidden! every lunatic can have a gun now and can kill innocent people!
I hate guns and drugs!

One fitty gun fights at the GFY Corall:ak47::BangBang:

So for those that think that the presense of guns causes crime, why aren't there massacures all the time in Switzerland? There are assault rifles in pretty much every home....




.

In a country like the US.. NO ONE except army or police should be able to buy semi automatic, automatic and assault rifle.

Handgun, Hunting rifle should be enough to protect your home If you need it.

Actually Switzerland's gun ownership percentage is comparable to Canada's. No massacres but deaths by firearm rate is high in Switzerland. Specially considering what a low crime wealthy society it is otherwise.

Where are you getting your information from? Are they talking about the guns that are issued to every household by the military or just privately owned? Because there is a battle rifle in every house, issued by the Swiss government. They have the highest rate of militia issued weapons in the world. There are about 420,000 assault rifles stored at private homes, mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million. Up until 2007 the government gave everyone 50 rounds of 5.56 mm ammo to keep at home also....



.:2 cents:




.

And it adds up to...

27% of Swiss households having a gun, in Canada the estimate is 26%.

Incidentally Finland and Switzerland the two European countries with the highest number of guns per household have the highest rate of deaths by firearms.

In Switzerland they don't allow morons to carry guns on them or in their car.

Are you comparing households to total population? (figuring average of 3 people per household)

Also, this percentage does NOT reflect the percentage of actual assault rifles in Canada, vrs Switzerland. Perhaps we can look at it by type, since assault rifles seem to be the "big evil" that the media is hyping right now.


(even though 98% of gun-related crimes are commited with handguns)




.

:1orglaugh

As far is I know, the people in Switzerland serve the military and they are given the weapons to serve as a stand-by army. Kind of like the TA in the UK (except they don't get to take an M-16 home with them). Or, perhaps even The National Guard in the US.

The Swiss follow a strict set of rules. to come back to your original point..

The highest number of guns per resident in Europe: Switzerland, Finland, Norway, France and Austria.

The highest rate of firearm related deaths....the exact same five.

Accessibility and ease of use is everything there is no denying it, having said that being coddled by a nanny society that tries to eliminate all danger bores me to death, I'd rather keep the guns.

Homicides per 100,000 for them same five. Around 1/5th of the US number.

Everyone in the US should own a gun or 5.

Which is the point I am making.

Whatever the personal stance on gun ownership there is no denying the direct correlation between guns in circulation and the likelihood someone will turn it against a neighbor or himself.

Yeah it is a strange thing. So many factors. But some more regulation probably wouldn't do the US any harm but might curb some of the problem. I don't know.

I think regulations and a better society overall could help the US. But I don't know, I don't live there :upsidedow all I can do is compare figures and news stories and that leads me nowhere to knowing where the problem comes from.

Because Americans are fucking crazy??? I'd love to know why your country is plagued by violence. I was reading an article and it was talking about gun murders, Tijuana, Mexico gets a bad rap. However, For every 100,000 people there are 4 murdered in Tijuana and 2 per 100,000 in Toronto. Places like Memphis , Tampa, Detroit and Chicago etc the numbers are up to about 36 per 100,000. Why is that?