I really hate people

This article just really ........ed me off

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152772,00.html

just the very idea that anybody would be opposed to investigating a kid that writes about violence in journals like that irks me. I would absolutely love one of them to go to one of the family members of somebody that died at the columbine shooting, and tell them that even if they had picked up on the journals/websites that the shooters created before they went on a murder spree, that they would not have done anything.


And honestly, the people that decided to lock him up aren't dumb. If they really thought he was just writing some harmless stories about zombies, they would not have cared.

arg I am really ........ed off right now i need hormone therapy or beer or something

This guy sounds like he's actually dangerous, but I'd be worried about pushing this too far. Writing about whatever you want should not be illegal.

Should people who write horror films be locked up? What if I have a bad day and write something down like "I wish my co-workers would just f---ing die!!!!"? Also, who decides what is okay to say and what isn't?

Well, according to the First Amendment, the answer to that question is not the government. Free speech is protected, and writing a story about zombies in a journal is free speech. I'm not denying that this boy is troubled, and I hope he receives any help he needs, but I fail to see in that article that he committed any crimes. If he was building bombs in his garage or stockpiling weapons or writing about plans to commit a crime, this would be a different matter.

Free speech means free speech for everyone, even the idiots, even if we don't like it.

Investigating and locking the kid up are two entirely different things. I doubt few people would be opposed to following up on the kid, getting him counseling, etc if a journal is found like that. Its treating it as though he committed a crime that people are objecting to considering he is given the right to free speach allotted from the first ammendment.

Not saying I'm necessarily taking either side at the moment, I just don't think people who oppose this action are acting unjustly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

This guy sounds like he's actually dangerous, but I'd be worried about pushing this too far. Writing about whatever you want should not be illegal.

---

Yeah, I agree. I guess I am just upset because, well, this guy really does seem dangerous but yet they're still taking the 'oh you've violated his freedom of speech omg!' route. I say, he would've violated your right to notbeshotintheface. I mean, the cops don't just walk around and are like 'oh wow this guy has some creative expression lets arrest him!'

I'm really in a whiny/..........y mood today.

If all you do is write in your private journal then I would say they (the authorities) are over stepping their bounds. However once you start communicating it to others it no longer is private and thus is not protected.

> However once you start communicating it to others it no longer is private and thus is not protected

Are you sure about that? How does that work?

I meant IMO :)

But lets takes a real example.
You in your notebook that you keep private write down "On Thursday March 28th, 2006 I'm gonna go kill the President and heres how I'm gonna do it" its protected.
If you then go tell Joe Smoe that you wrote down a detailed plan on how you are gonna kill the President there is no assumption of privicy and thus if Mr Cop over hears you your busted and they can use your notebook against you.

No, Thantos, that is not protected. Plans to commit crimes are not protected as free speech; neither are threats nor incitations to violence.

I say he needs to be locked up indefinitely. When people are allowed to shoot up their school, it affects more than just the victims. The media will often wrongly identify the shooter's weapon, or put great emphasis on it, prompting liberals to propose more "assault weapon" bans, which in turn prevent law-abiding citizens like me from owning them for sporting purposes.

If I designed the legal system, we would have heard the last of this kid ;)

So you're saying a kid who writes stories about zombies should be locked up but you shouldn't? At least we weren't sure whether the other kid was a gun-toting imbecile, but with you there's not question.

Now where did I put that flamesuit of mine? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshdick

No, Thantos, that is not protected. Plans to commit crimes are not protected as free speech; neither are threats nor incitations to violence.

---

Well, if someone keeps something private, how can you be sure it is a plan to commit a crime, and not just something random written down while in a bad mood (for example)?

Also, I see no problem with private incitations to violence. ;)

Private written works kept out of the public are protected. Because to get them you would have to violate your other rights (ie search and seizure). They'd never get a warrent because they wouldn't know it existed. Now as soon as you start making public threats and what not you have moved from the private into the public.

They were private, until his grandma took the journal.

You know what irks me? It's that he's locked up. What did he do? That's scary. To know I could go to prison without ever commiting a crime.

Using the information in the journal to prevent it from happening is one thing, but if the only way to prevent it is taking this guy's freedom - and freedom of speech - and locking him up, then we might as well lock everyone up.

you have the freedom to speak until it becomes a threatening gesture


now if you want to go writin threatning gestures, go ahead be my guest. but dont expext me to just watch you and not do anything

Just another sign of the post S11 madness/paranoia/fear that has gripped the US (whipped up by irresponsible media like FOX).
Parents now suspect even their own children are turning into random killers (with only a shred of evidence).

Before you put the kid in goal (jail)...........

Did the kid have a gun/bomb ect?
Did the kid actually recruit/mention the plan to any others?
Is there ANY indication that this was more than a story (he was writting)?

>> prompting liberals to propose more "assault weapon" bans, which in turn prevent law-abiding citizens like me from owning them for sporting purposes.

Like shooting other hunters..........

You don't need an auto to go hunting.
You don't need a gun period.
You are not a member of a milita (so you do not have the right to bear arms)

Quote:

---

I say he needs to be locked up indefinitely. When people are allowed to shoot up their school, it affects more than just the victims. The media will often wrongly identify the shooter's weapon, or put great emphasis on it, prompting liberals to propose more "assault weapon" bans, which in turn prevent law-abiding citizens like me from owning them for sporting purposes.

---

Yeah. It's not guns that kill people, it's killer kids playing video games that are the real threat. :rolleyes: Wake up. No one needs an assault weapon for any other purpose than killing. And the times where you had to hunt yourself a mammoth for breakfast to survive are long gone.

From the article, all he ever did was write down his fantasies. He did not possess weapons or harmful materials. He did not have any training with weapons or explosives. All there is, is a written down fantasy he never showed anyone and never acted upon.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but really, without a weapon, what threat is he ? Coming into school one day, clad in black, hyped up on killer video games, listening to Ramstein, choking every single student to death in a 3 day marathon ? I'd say that's unlikely even for a frustrated teen.

Busting a teen for his private fantasies he never made public on his own while allowing normal people to legally own tools for mass murder is the most hypocritical thing I ever heard. But I'm just from "old" europe anyway, enjoy your freedom of speech and your right to shoot someone if you please and don't listen to me.


BTW: If I move to the US, can I own a tank for sporting purposes ?

Oh geez, I'll leave this thread alone after this post.

>No one needs an assault weapon for any other purpose than killing.

You're right about one thing, I don't NEED an assault rifle. And you don't need most of the things you own. Owning, studying, and shooting firearms is my hobby. It is great fun, and owning guns doesn't make me a killer.

I knew hitting that "sumit reply" in this forum was going to be a mistake. :rolleyes:

Oh, if you move to the US, you could own a tank, but probably not with an active cannon on it. Even if there was a way you could, you'd have a hell of a time finding ammunition.

> You are not a member of a milita (so you do not have the right to bear arms)

Last I checked, I still had that right as a U.S. citizen.

> So you're saying a kid who writes stories about zombies should be locked up but you shouldn't?

By this logic, millions of people are going to jail with me.

bye bye.

Quote:

---

Owning, studying, and shooting firearms is my hobby. It is great fun, and owning guns doesn't make me a killer.

---

Owning, studying, and detonating nuclear warheads is my hobby. It is great fun, and owning warheads doesn't make me a killer :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Oh, if you move to the US, you could own a tank, but probably not with an active cannon on it.

---

Why no active cannon ? For sporting purposes, come on. I won't hurt anyone.
If I can't get an active cannon, why can you get an active assault weapon ?


In my opinion there is a line between tools which have a purpose other than killing and tools who were built for killing. A Knife for example is a useful tool. An M16 is a weapon. Both can kill people. However, the knife has a purpose that is helpful while the focus of the M16 is harmful. And it's the governments job to protect their people from harm.

If a story in your journal can get you arrested...

When will they start raiding the D&D conventions?

Its about time those evil little nerds pretending to be wizzards/elves/warriors got what they deserved (a real encounter with a 'troll' named Bubba in a very dank cell).

> Owning, studying, and detonating nuclear warheads is my hobby. It is great fun, and owning warheads doesn't make me a killer

Oh come on, that's a horrible analogy. I'm as left as they come, and even I think that the AWB is a stupid idea. I don't think people should own guns, but it's a constitutional right and the way the AWB determines what an "assualt weapon" is beyond retarded.

nvoigt, quit being so close-minded. You're dismissing the fact that Sturmwaffle never doubted the mental stability of others yet at the same time in the right hands, such as his, assult rifles can be fun.

Look at pyrotechnics and sirens. Both great hobbies with serious crime potential...but they're both very fascinating for some to study.

Shadow, you're dismissing the fact that I never doubted the mental stability of others yet at the same time in the right hands, such as mine, nuclear warheads can be fun.


I don't know how the US laws define assault weapons. For me, an assault weapon is any weapon that can automatically fire more than one bullet when you pull the trigger. I can see single shot shooting as sports, but I don't see a valid reason to spray a target with bullets for fun. Applying the same logic to my example, why can't I have a fully functional tank in the US ? Why is there a line between a tank and an assault rifle that I'm not allowed to cross ? What defines that line ?

Remember, if you outlaw tanks, only outlaws will have tanks :rolleyes:


Don't get me wrong, Europeans have their own problems and school shootings. But here, if a guy had a gun, he had either a non-automatic weapon going through a lot of screenings to get it, or he stole it in some way. If people want to kill, you cannot stop them properly. Anyone can kill you at any time with any tool available. But I don't think we should give people the tools to do this easily without any additional benefit. If you like shooting, you don't need an automatic 7.62 or 5.56 for it. A normal low caliber rifle with high reload times is enough fun for a low risk in my opinion.

In the end, it's your ( the US American's ) choice how you want to live. But especially in this thread, I think that you value the laws you already have which are constructive ( free speech and thoughts ) not enough and put too much trust into laws that seem destructive ( right to arm bears... err... whatever ).

I'm more afraid of someone armed than someone fantasizing in his own home.

> I don't know how the US laws define assault weapons.

The weapons banned in the AWB are banned by very arbitrary things, like the ability to attach a bayonet or having a ported barrel (not sure on the last one, but I seem to remember it). It's got nothing to do with whether or not the guns are automatic - those have been banned for a long time already.

> Remember, if you outlaw tanks, only outlaws will have tanks

Tanks are prohibitively expensive. If there were a bunch of people actually buying them and using them, there would be laws in place (there are probably already laws about this, but I have never heard of a private citizen owning a tank).

> A normal low caliber rifle with high reload times is enough fun for a low risk in my opinion.

Your opinion of what's fun doesn't shape American firearms laws.

Quote:

---

there are probably already laws about this, but I have never heard of a private citizen owning a tank

---

I'm sure that there are laws about it. I'm just curious where the majority of the US citizens draws the line between (little risk and much gain ) and ( too much risk for little gain ). I personally think that any tool that's primary purpose is killing other humans should be outlawed. For me, thats Tanks as well as shotguns, mps, mgs, flamethrowers, semi-auto rifles etc. Obviously Americans think differently. I'm interested where US citizens draw that line. A semi-automatic rifle seems fine. A Tank does not. What about a Humvee with a rocket launcher ? Humvee with MG ? MG without Humvee ? M without G :rolleyes: :D ? Where is the line and why do you draw it where you do.

According to laws in place now, the line is drawn basically where you said it should be. Automatic weapons are illegal, semiautomatics are not (unless they fall under some of the AWB's dumber bans). All the other stuff you mentioned is already illegal.

I might be wrong here, but you sound like you think Americans can and do own everything under the sun that fires a projectile. That's simply untrue.

Govtcheez, I think what nvoigt was trying to point out is that the current state of control in the U.S. is logically inconsistent.

How so?

Why allow people to own some instruments of death and not others?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshdick

Why allow people to own some instruments of death and not others?

---

Define what "instruments of death" are and are not.

I can kill a person / animal with my car. Snail bait kills snails. A hotdog can be fatal. Tasars have killed a few people.

Our rules are no more logically inconsistent than anyone elses in that regard. Everyone allows things that could kill people; it's impossible not to.

But hot dogs and automobiles have other uses. Guns do not. Guns kill things. That's all they do. They don't sometimes tell the time; they don't keep your clothes smelling summer fresh with an extra attachment; and they don't double as a melon baller on the weekends. They just plain kill things, all the time, everyday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshdick

But hot dogs and automobiles have other uses. Guns do not. Guns kill things. That's all they do. They don't sometimes tell the time; they don't keep your clothes smelling summer fresh with an extra attachment; and they don't double as a melon baller on the weekends. They just plain kill things, all the time, everyday.

---

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

And guns make it a hell of a lot easier.

Not easier, effiecent :)

Funny how people kill people with guns a whole lot more often in countries with more guns, isn't it?

Why is it that the rest of the industrialized world (which has tough gun control) only has around one or two hundred gun deaths a year while the U.S. has tens of thousands?

>Where is the line and why do you draw it where you do.

the line is gone right after i get my new rocket launcher attached to my car.

>not enough and put too much trust into laws that seem destructive ( right to arm bears... err... whatever )

haha, this is because politicians cannot be trusted.... but bears however dont understand deception and can.


edit: and armed bears are why we need automatic weapons and tanks... Defend the home front!!

I think we should be attacked by aliens.

I mean, we always end up fighting each other because of relatively minor differences (religion and ways of life, crap like that). But, if we were invaded by aliens, we'd just stop midwar be like 'wtf' and start shooting the aliens.

Seeing as how we don't have aliens, we should declare war on china because chinese people look funny. And they're short. If we dumped several megatons of green paint on china, they'd be indistinguishable from funny looking little short green aliens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshdick

But hot dogs and automobiles have other uses. Guns do not. Guns kill things. That's all they do. They don't sometimes tell the time; they don't keep your clothes smelling summer fresh with an extra attachment; and they don't double as a melon baller on the weekends. They just plain kill things, all the time, everyday.

---

How about target shooting? Nothing dies there, and it's a legitimate sport. Hell, it's even in the Olympics.

So you're saying it's okay for tens of thousands of Americans to die every year for a sport?

Gee, and I thought steroids were a problem ...

> So you're saying it's okay for hundreds of thousands of Americans to die every year for a sport

OK, I let the "tens of thousands" comment go, but if you're going to say hundreds of thousands of Americans are killed every year by guns, you're going to have to back that up. That's a ridiculous claim.

Hey, is it ok for thousands of people to die every year for easier transportation? I mean, sure, cars have other uses, but people die in those all the time! Hell, probably more than guns! Plus, buying gasoline and oil for them props up horrible dictators like Saddam Hussein! DOWN WITH CARS!

No, down with America's reliance on foreign oil ;)

>>Hey, is it ok for thousands of people to die every year for easier transportation? I mean, sure, cars have other uses, but people die in those all the time!

but automobile deaths are common in all countries that have them. The number of gun related deaths in the US is an order of magnitude larger than any other country. Surely there's a problem there.

*disclaimer, i havn't read this entire thread. Im just commenting on the gun related deaths part above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshdick

So you're saying it's okay for tens of thousands of Americans to die every year for a sport?

Gee, and I thought steroids were a problem ...

---

Geez.. you keep up this kind of logic and I'll have to ban you from ES.

You take away our guns, and you're going to be overrun with animals. You take away our guns and you're going to take away a hobby from a lot of people. You take away our guns, you remove our right to protect ourselves from the government. You take away our guns, and you're going to take away food from millions every year.

Get your head out of your ass. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If they didn't have guns, they'd find other ways to kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perspective

but automobile deaths are common in all countries that have them. The number of gun related deaths in the US is an order of magnitude larger than any other country. Surely there's a problem there.

---

Wrong. You take away our guns and we'll find other, more inventive ways to kill each other.

Maybe we have better reasons to kill someone over here? Ever think of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ober

You take away our guns and we'll find other, more inventive ways to kill each other.

---

And yet, the rest of the civilized world seems content to just ease up on murdering people when their guns are restricted.

Quote:

---

Maybe we have better reasons to kill someone over here? Ever think of that?

---

I know what you mean, but I think you could've picked much better words. You're suggesting there are good reasons for people to go around killing each other.

What I think is the case is that the U.S. has less of a sense of community than most of the world. Furthermore, our status as a "melting pot" makes social cohesion oftentimes difficult.

Also, I don't think our drug laws are really helping to curb violence. Instead, they create an enormous illegal market that creates more violence.

But few people want to tackle those issues ...

>>Wrong. You take away our guns and we'll find other, more inventive ways to kill each other.<<

So you are saying that all of the gun related deaths that have happened would have happened anyways just through some other means? Don't buy that for a second. If someone is REALLY determined, yes they can find others ways to kill, but guns make it so easy that anyone can simply kill anyone at any time without a thought. Hell, a five year old can kill a full grown man with a gun. Take away guns and no way do you have incidents like Columbine or the recent school shootings in Minnesota. Guns make it way too easy to kill way too many people with way too little thought or brains.

Yeah, I could have worded that better, but you get my point.

And the rest of the world is having lawsuits brought against homeowners by burglars... and the burglars are winning. Your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJYelton

So you are saying that all of the gun related deaths that have happened would have happened anyways just through some other means? Don't buy that for a second. If someone is REALLY determined, yes they can find others ways to kill, but guns make it so easy that anyone can simply kill anyone at any time without a thought. Hell, a five year old can kill a full grown man with a gun. Take away guns and no way do you have incidents like Columbine or the recent school shootings in Minnesota. Guns make it way too easy to kill way too many people with way too little thought or brains.

---

See, now you're reading things into what I'm saying. Let me read some into yours:

You're saying that people kill people just because it's easy? Like they would want to kill in other circumstances, but they just wouldn't because they're lazy?

And don't pull that columbine crap on me. You and I both know that determined people will find guns and use them if they really want to. Columbine would have happened at one point or another because those kids would have found the guns one way or another.

Sure, accidents happen because of stupid people. All I'm saying is that people that are truly ........ed off enough to kill another human, will find ways to do it.

>>You're saying that people kill people just because it's easy? Like they would want to kill in other circumstances, but they just wouldn't because they're lazy?<<

Not lazy per se, but simply not capable either due to intelligence, ability, or strength. Someone without a gun would really have to work to find a way to kill a certain someone. Not everyone is capable of doing this. Give them a gun and its like giving somone a cheat sheet to a test. Not to mention guns allow someone to kill in a moments rage, while having to plan will often discourage the person and allow them to cool down thus having them back out.

>>And don't pull that columbine crap on me. You and I both know that determined people will find guns and use them if they really want to. Columbine would have happened at one point or another because those kids would have found the guns one way or another.
<<

You're right, sorry to use such a cliched notion. The point wasn't necessarily that these kids wouldn't have found guns anyways, but that guns make it easier for such mass killings to occur. And you say determined people will find a way, I agree. What I'm arguing is that guns make it so that the NON-determined people can easily kill.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the notion that people kill people and that American culture is far more to blame than simply the fact that we have guns. BUT I just don't think its possible to cure what ails our society until we lose guns from our national identity.

Quote:

---

but automobile deaths are common in all countries that have them.

---

So? Because everyone else is doing it makes it ok? If every other country in the world was allowed unrestricted access to guns would you think we should be allowed to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joshdick

stuff

---

Hey, how're you coming with those numbers to back up those stupid claims you made earlier?

Also, for PJ and josh and you guys, none of you have addressed what I'm really arguing against - what makes a gun with a bayonet lug an assault weapon?

> Not to mention guns allow someone to kill in a moments rage, while having to plan will often discourage the person and allow them to cool down thus having them back out.

OK, how about we ban knives? And again, it would be super easy to kill someone with my car. It weighs a ton (lol pun) more than a person and it can go way faster. Just because they're not used as often to purposely kill doesn't make them less dangerous.

Because, like said before, knives have an enormous range of uses that benefit our lives. Guns do not except as a hobby or for those very few people anymore who actually hunt for their food. And for the record I'm not for banning hunting rifles.

And if you can find a way for our economy and society to live without cars, I'm all for it ;)

> Guns do not except as a hobby

God forbid someone have something that has isn't used for something practical. Guess I'll have to throw away my XBox and dartboard and movies and pretty much 3/4 of what I own. Saying "there's no use for them except for hobbyists or hunters" is not a good argument for banning them. Besides, plenty of people hunt for their food - that doesn't mean it's their only supply.

> And if you can find away for our economy and society to live without cars, I'm all for it

Well hell, society worked fine without cars. Just because they're ingrained in many facets of our society and culture (like guns) doesn't mean you can't get rid of them.

>>God forbid someone have something that has isn't used for something practical. Guess I'll have to throw away my XBox and dartboard and movies and pretty much 3/4 of what I own. <<

If XBox's and dartboards were killing as many people as guns were, hell yeah I would be for banning them! I have nothing against hobbies or items that aren't practical, never said I did.

>>Saying "there's no use for them except for hobbyists or hunters" is not a good argument for banning them. <<

No, I'm not saying ban them because they are no use except as hobby or hunting, I'm saying that being useful as a hobby isn't good enough to excuse the number of people they kill.

>>Well hell, society worked fine without cars. Just because they're ingrained in many facets of our society and culture (like guns) doesn't mean you can't get rid of them.<<

I agree society used to work fine, but we aren't living in that society anymore. Like I said, propose you're idea to gradually phase out cars without ruining our economy, I'm behind you 100% :D

Quote:

---

I think we should be attacked by aliens.

I mean, we always end up fighting each other because of relatively minor differences (religion and ways of life, crap like that). But, if we were invaded by aliens, we'd just stop midwar be like 'wtf' and start shooting the aliens.

---

I believe it was Reagan who used this concept quite often. It's a nice thought at first, but think about this on a smaller, more historically proveable scale. On December 7th 1941, America was attacked. Clearly there were people who wanted to do harm to America, and had the power to do so, but there were still rascists. There were still left-winger's and right winger's. There were still dishonest journalists, people who thought we should give negotiations with warring countries more time, people that felt we should go about the war different ways. Aliens wouldn't change things much. Sure we'd all be under a common threat, but people would start all sorts of "told you so" arguments, and people who refuse to fight because if it's God's will that we survive, we'll survive, and we shouldn't have to kill to do so. Then people who believe we should really do something to blow the aliens out of the universe would start wars to stop anti-war demonstrators.

Maybe it would improve our outlook on eachother a little more (definitely in the short term), but it's not going to get us to world peace.

Quote:

---

I believe it was Reagan who used this concept quite often. It's a nice thought at first, but think about this on a smaller, more historically proveable scale. On December 7th 1941, America was attacked. Clearly there were people who wanted to do harm to America, and had the power to do so, but there were still rascists. There were still left-winger's and right winger's. There were still dishonest journalists, people who thought we should give negotiations with warring countries more time, people that felt we should go about the war different ways. Aliens wouldn't change things much. Sure we'd all be under a common threat, but people would start all sorts of "told you so" arguments, and people who refuse to fight because if it's God's will that we survive, we'll survive, and we shouldn't have to kill to do so. Then people who believe we should really do something to blow the aliens out of the universe would start wars to stop anti-war demonstrators.

Maybe it would improve our outlook on eachother a little more (definitely in the short term), but it's not going to get us to world peace.

---

Obviously you've never seen "Independance Day" then. Why would Hollywood lie about something like that?

His grandmother XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJYelton

>>God forbid someone have something that has isn't used for something practical. Guess I'll have to throw away my XBox and dartboard and movies and pretty much 3/4 of what I own. <<

If XBox's and dartboards were killing as many people as guns were, hell yeah I would be for banning them! I have nothing against hobbies or items that aren't practical, never said I did.

---

first of all, violent crimes such as murder are actually several orders of magnitude higher in Britain, a country in which almost all guns are illegal, than in the US. Just because a country has 10s of thousands of gun deaths does not mean that those deaths would not of occured in equal numbers elswhere. You also have to look at the fact that guns are used in defensive purposes anywhere from 800,000 - 2,500,000 times a year to prevent crimes such as rape and murder.

EDIT: also, you are forgetting that murder is a per capita thing. You forgot to mention that the US has a population of 5 times that of Britain IIRC(Britain does have 60 mil?) and that we have alot more poorer people that there are in Europe.
Guns are not the problem, the heterogeniety of the US in respects to Race/Religion/Ethnicity is. Look at Switzerland and Finland, over there they are REQUIRED to own a weapon(in both countries, fully automatic weapons are legal), and they have some of the lowest crime rates of any industrialized nation. Is this because they have guns, no. This is because the ethnic mixture in most European countries is almost 100% of one ethnicity.

Quote:

---

>>Saying "there's no use for them except for hobbyists or hunters" is not a good argument for banning them. <<

No, I'm not saying ban them because they are no use except as hobby or hunting, I'm saying that being useful as a hobby isn't good enough to excuse the number of people they kill.

---

Knives kill far more people in Britain that guns, so should they be required to ban knives, since criminals moved to them when they banned firearms?

Quote:

---

>>Well hell, society worked fine without cars. Just because they're ingrained in many facets of our society and culture (like guns) doesn't mean you can't get rid of them.<<

I agree society used to work fine, but we aren't living in that society anymore. Like I said, propose you're idea to gradually phase out cars without ruining our economy, I'm behind you 100% :D

---

hmm.. propose me a way to phase out guns that does not lead to more crime(happened in every country that has banned them), including more murder and rapes, and I will be behind you 100%

Quote:

---

first of all, violent crimes such as murder are actually several orders of magnitude higher in Britain, a country in which almost all guns are illegal, than in the US

---

Bull, any website will show you exactly the opposite, Britain has FAR lower murder rate than the US per capita.

Quote:

---

You also have to look at the fact that guns are used in defensive purposes anywhere from 800,000 - 2,500,000 times a year to prevent crimes such as rape and murder.

---

Again, bull. Show me where you found those numbers.

Quote:

---

EDIT: also, you are forgetting that murder is a per capita thing. You forgot to mention that the US has a population of 5 times that of Britain IIRC(Britain does have 60 mil?) and that we have alot more poorer people that there are in Europe.
Guns are not the problem, the heterogeniety of the US in respects to Race/Religion/Ethnicity is. Look at Switzerland and Finland, over there they are REQUIRED to own a weapon(in both countries, fully automatic weapons are legal), and they have some of the lowest crime rates of any industrialized nation. Is this because they have guns, no. This is because the ethnic mixture in most European countries is almost 100% of one ethnicity.

---

I've already stated that american culture is the true blame, but what I also said was that we can't cure our violent nature as long as guns remain apart of our identity.

Quote:

---

Knives kill far more people in Britain that guns, so should they be required to ban knives, since criminals moved to them when they banned firearms?

---

Already been argued a few times above your post.

Quote:

---

hmm.. propose me a way to phase out guns that does not lead to more crime(happened in every country that has banned them), including more murder and rapes, and I will be behind you 100%

---

Again, show me the studies that says murder rates have increased. And I'm sorry, but I'll take higher crime rates for a bit to drop the gun murder rate.

Quote:

---

Obviously you've never seen "Independance Day" then. Why would Hollywood lie about something like that?

---

I know you're being sarcastic - but think about who gets fired when the president enters Area 51.

> Bull, any website will show you exactly the opposite, Britain has FAR lower murder rate than the US per capita.

What's cool about this is none of you guys arguing about numbers is posting a source.

LOL, yeah, I kind of avoided that because 99% of the sites out there that compare US to Britains murder rate are very pro or anti gun control and I didn't want to post something so biased either way :D

But for the record, here are two:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/grap...mur_cap&int=-1

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJYelton

And I'm sorry, but I'll take higher crime rates for a bit to drop the gun murder rate.

---

Seriously? That's brilliant. :rolleyes:

I honestly don't see the problem with that. Obviously its best to have both lowered, but if I had to choose I would MUCH rather have a slightly higher crime rate and lower murder rate without guns than vice-versa.

>>propose me a way to phase out guns that does not lead to more crime(happened in every country that has banned them), including more murder and rapes, and I will be behind you 100%

I think you should look at Australia (not through the NRA dis-information though).

We banned most guns and placed restrictions on ownership. These include not being able to take your gun home from the shooting range and requiring all gun to be kept in a safe.

We had a drop in crime involving guns. Australia did have a rise in atempted murder (probably as without the high powered guns more victims were surviving).

"On a per capita basis this gives an annual firearm robbery rate in NSW of 10.1 incidents per 100,000 population and a handgun robbery rate of 6.8 incidents per 100,000 population.
....
For comparison, the rate of firearm robbery in the United States is 58.7 crimes per 100,000 population (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2000) ..."

http://www.ntu.edu.au/faculties/lba/...berties/12.htm



Do you realy think your right to a 'sporting activity' is worth the cost?

Quote:

---

How about target shooting? Nothing dies there, and it's a legitimate sport. Hell, it's even in the Olympics.

---

How about allowing only the guns for olympic target shooting ? As far as I remember they were impractical for the normal guy and had to be reloaded for every shot. Just because the olympic teams can make it look like a walk in the park does not mean Joe J. Neighbour can kill his wife using one. Maybe pummeling her to death with it, but surely not by shooting her.

Quote:

---

You take away our guns, you remove our right to protect ourselves from the government.

---

This is one of the inconsistent points. Back when this law was made, the government had guns. So the militia was allowed guns, too, as a means of control. Nowadays, the government has tanks and nuclear weapons. Either you allow tanks ( see my 1 bazillion posts above about that ) or you give up on your chance to topple your president should he ever do something really stupid ( I guess you already did that. Oops, nevermind, didn't say anything :D :D :D )

Quote:

---

You take away our guns, and you're going to take away food from millions every year.

---

This is the only valid reason I have read up to now.

Quote:

---

And the rest of the world is having lawsuits brought against homeowners by burglars... and the burglars are winning. Your point?

---

Point is, you have to be alive to bring up a civil lawsuit. And if lawsuits were won by burglars that often, don't you think that burglar/lawyer teams would be far more popular ?

Quote:

---

God forbid someone have something that has isn't used for something practical. Guess I'll have to throw away my XBox and dartboard and movies and pretty much 3/4 of what I own.

---

If 3/4 of what you own could kill people with a single click, I would argue against you owning it, no matter how much fun it is.

Fun by the way is very subjective. Some perverts define rape as "fun". If it's "fun" for some, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a benefit to the public. I don't doubt that shooting a gun is fun for some. I think driving a tank would be fun for some. But weighting the fun of people versus the public interest of not getting killed, fun doesn't really matter.


I'm asking again because I didn't really get an answer: where and why do Americans draw the line between risky but allowed weapons ( semi-auto ) and weapons that are forbidden ( tanks ) ? Can anyone define that line and list some reasons ?

> Some perverts define rape as "fun". If it's "fun" for some, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a benefit to the public.

A person owning a gun that he only target shoots with isn't hurting anyone; this is a dishonest analogy.

I'd be interested to see a comparison of crimes per gun between the US and the UK or Europe. Obviously our gun crime rates are higher, but, as repeatedly pointed out, we have far more guns. I doubt it'd be possible to find reliable numbers on this, but I'll check tonight if I have time.

Quote:

---

I'm asking again because I didn't really get an answer: where and why do Americans draw the line between risky but allowed weapons ( semi-auto ) and weapons that are forbidden ( tanks ) ? Can anyone define that line and list some reasons ?

---

I don't know of the reasons for sure (you'd have to ask a congressman), but like I said, the line is drawn where you said it is. Some semi-automatic weapons are allowed, and nothing over that is.

I think I agree with govtcheez, we have more guns hence the higher gun related crime rate. Why do we have more guns? We have more money.

> Why do we have more guns? We have more money

I just picture you sitting on a bridge with a fishing line, waiting for someone to jump up and grab the bait.

Also, we have more money because God loves us more than the dirty foreign devils.

We are the united states...we are awesome. Almost as awesome as awesometown (which has more money and a higher crime rate than the USA).

So you see, crime rate is directly proportional to awesomeness. Can't believe you guys are so stoopid.

In case you were waiting for me to respond to something, the first post I saw this morning had

Quote:

---

Some perverts define rape as "fun".

---

in it, so I'm going to sit the rest of this thread out, I think. This thing's probably going to go Godwin any moment ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkness

We are the united states...we are awesome. Almost as awesome as awesometown (which has more money and a higher crime rate than the USA).

So you see, crime rate is directly proportional to awesomeness. Can't believe you guys are so stoopid.

---

There is no crime in Awesometown. As the mayor and only resident, who would I commit crimes against?

edit: Thank you for replying to tell us you're not going to reply.

I do think I am right about the money comment though.

EDIT:
me

Statistics show that roughly 50% percent of the population of awesometown is under persecution.

All in favor of ending this say aye...

Aye!

The ayes have it