Out of control gun control

You guys are unlawfully searched every time you go out on the street with all those cameras...
And, 1st amendment... you guys don't allow hate speech, that is therefore not free speech, sorry.

Uh...the majority of cameras are operated by private corporations, so I'll assume you're not capitalist.
Also, "unlawful search", hahha, hyperbole much?

You're the guys with a patently mental TSA.

We allow all speech that does not directly incite violence...which I believe you also have...death threats against the POTUS are illegal, so you better get out of the US and go to Cuba, friend.


As I said above, I'm done with the gun control argument, especially with the rabidly anti-gun who would restrict my freedom to protect myself and my loved ones. I don't infringe on your rights, don't infringe upon mine. Thank you very much.

Hahaha, really?

If you'd read anything, or asked anyone, you'd know I'm actually one of the most pro-firearms Brits around, and I actually have quite a close relationship with them.

Though I can see why you'd want to skip out on this abortion of a thread you've created.
 
And, 1st amendment... you guys don't allow hate speech, that is therefore not free speech, sorry.
Are you off the opinion that when any sort of speech isn't allowed in a country it means that country does not have "free speech"?

Because, if so, I have some upsetting news for you.
 
He didn't. I emailed Stephen Fry a while ago and he assured me he did no such thing. He also has no problem with homosexuality, but that's for another thread.

I would hope he doesn't!! :lol: Oh Stephen :D

Keep this up, I'm amused by this thread and the struggling. ;)
 
Silliness abounds:

1. There is no God-given right to bear arms. Who would we blame for thousands of years prior to the invention of something resembling firearms? If you mean a right to self-protection, then you really have gained no argumentative ground. Surely you wouldn't agree that we all have a right to nuclear arms and M4 tanks.

2. Important point here. Guns do not statistically help you protect anyone. Quite the opposite. There is a pretty much standard accidental death by firearm rate across the western world regardless of access, expertise or education. As relative ownership of firearms increases, the absolute number of people killed accidentally by otherwise completely competent and responsible people increases.

2b) Guns make non-violent confrontations more violent. When a person who intends to rob you finds out you are armed, he will do everything in his power to disable you. If you are unarmed he is already in the position of authority and has no rational reason to disable you (not all criminals are rational of course, but most behave in a semi-rational way). Possessing a firearm makes it rational for an assailant to physically harm you when it otherwise wouldn't be.

2c) Guns make people feel less safe. I don't feel safe walking down the street when I know people on that street are armed. This makes me completely dependent on trusting those people who are armed to be safe, responsible and non-criminal. It literally ensures that my safety is less and less in my own control and in the hands of others.

2d) Guns make acts of violence easier. A firearm is easier to operate in an efficiently violent manner than most other accessible weapons. This makes the user feel less vulnerable. It is easier to murder or rob someone with a gun than a knife. Assuming that the desire to commit a crime is x and whenever x is higher than aggregate deterrence/negative consequences of committing the act y, then gun ownership lowers y making the act more likely. This is true for suicide as well.

3. Criminals won't be able to access legal weapons, so they will acquire illegal weapons. This makes it easier for law enforcement to catch them(at traffic stops and the like), convict them if more difficult charges prove fruitless, and find evidence for them because warrants and the like will be easier to achieve if they have been found to be in possession of illegal firearms.


I have restricted and unrestricted firearms licenses (which is somewhat difficult to acquire in Canada), but I don't own a firearm. I think handguns should be banned
 
You are way too quick to judge people. I love guns. My laptop wallpaper features a SOPMOD M4 and my cell-phone wallpaper features an M16. My Facebook picture features me with a C7 rifle (Canadian equivalent of the M16). I also plan on joining the reserves in about two years (here's hoping my knee injury heals goddammit).

I simply believe that allowing guns to be readily available to the general populace will cause more problems than it's worth (i.e. cause more deaths than it would prevent). This belief is magnified by the various studies and statistics out there that I've read.

Is that so hard to comprehend?
 
How often does this happen in Norway?

Pretty much never, until now.

Usually when there is a situation involving gun violence, it's either a personal (or business) deal where someone shoots a particular person or two for specific reasons, or else it's someone losing his marbles and barricading himself in a house and threatening to shoot himself or a hostage or the cops or whatever. In the former type of situation all the shooting is generally over long before any cops get there, in the second type things rarely happen quickly. Exceptions to this are pretty rare, and this particular type of shooting rampage has to my knowledge not happened before.
 
Well... while that's quite debateable... I hate to admit, I've had enough of debating guns now for a good two to three months.
In the USA, it's the law of the land, it isn't changing any time soon, moot point really.
You are right about that. The Supreme Court struck down the worst of the worst of gun regulation, but signalled the rest was ok. Gun rights groups are losing case after case with the language of Heller and McDonald actually working against them rather than for them.
Murder is also illegal in America, no matter what the weapon.
Murder is arguably legal in Oklahoma now. Oklahoma courts cannot recognize Sharia law and murder is a violation of Sharia Law, so an Oklahoma court recognizing a murder statute would be violating the Oklahoma Constitution.
 
Murder is arguably legal in Oklahoma now. Oklahoma courts cannot recognize Sharia law and murder is a violation of Sharia Law, so an Oklahoma court recognizing a murder statute would be violating the Oklahoma Constitution.
The only post worth responding to, as the left are all from a very specific point of view regarding gun control...

Come on Jolly, that's silly. You know that they were not the first to come up with that law (besides, murder is very legal in the Koran/Sharia law, if for example, you've ****olded your husband, etc, etc, etc), therefore they don't hold the patent on that.
Using that logic (that anything legal in Sharia law is now legal based on prohibiting Sharia Law to be used in US courts), just about everything would be legal, as Sharia law is very restrictive.
 
as the left are all from a very specific point of view regarding gun control...

Now you understand how we feel.

Observe how we yet still afford you enough respect not to dismiss you and your arguments out of hand immediately. Perhaps you should attempt likewise.
 
The only post worth responding to, as the left are all from a very specific point of view regarding gun control...
Do you consider me left? Do you consider my stance on gun control leftist? Because I am sure you are a bigger gun grabber than I am.

Come on Jolly, that's silly. You know that they were not the first to come up with that law (besides, murder is very legal in the Koran/Sharia law, if for example, you've ****olded your husband, etc, etc, etc), therefore they don't hold the patent on that.
Using that logic (that anything legal in Sharia law is now legal based on prohibiting Sharia Law to be used in US courts), just about everything would be legal, as Sharia law is very restrictive.
Perhaps the yokels in Oklahoma should have thought it through instead of knee-jerking off an Amendment to their Constitution.
 
The only post worth responding to, as the left are all from a very specific point of view regarding gun control...

I typed up a thoughtful and concise series of arguments for why gun control is needed and good. You won't respond to them because they are contrary to your views. The following is now a perfectly legitimate label: you are a small-minded anti-intellectual who can't justify your own moral and political positions and thus, like a child, are subject to the manipulative effects of those who have told you what is worth believing. :)

Moderator Action: You are correct that he has not responded to your post and should if he wants to engage in a real discussion of the issue, but please don't get personal with your posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
Now you understand how we feel.

Observe how we yet still afford you enough respect not to dismiss you and your arguments out of hand immediately. Perhaps you should attempt likewise.
I said several posts ago that I was done talking about it... just because you want to beat a dead horse doesn't mean I have to join you.

Do you consider me left? Do you consider my stance on gun control leftist? Because I am sure you are a bigger gun grabber than I am.


Perhaps the yokels in Oklahoma should have thought it through instead of knee-jerking off an Amendment to their Constitution.
Hahaha, I doubt I am a bigger gun grabber, when I wrote "left", I meant to write "rest"...

I typed up a thoughtful and concise series of arguments for why gun control is needed and good. You won't respond to them because they are contrary to your views. The following is now a perfectly legitimate label: you are a small-minded anti-intellectual who can't justify your own moral and political positions and thus, like a child, are subject to the manipulative effects of those who have told you what is worth believing. :)

Moderator Action: You are correct that he has not responded to your post and should if he wants to engage in a real discussion of the issue, but please don't get personal with your posts.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Sorry if you felt snubbed, really didn't appreciate the insult, but I really got tired of the 8 against 1 action that was ongoing. I didn't insult your point of view.

My point to this thread was never really refuted, though it was admittedly hard to see.
If you would like to address that, that is fine... but gun control in general is not the point of this thread.
Anyone who would like to continue to talk about this specific type of gun control, please answer the following question...

If you don't think that the Norwegian law is out of control, regarding police and their access to guns, which situation would you rather be in when a gunman starts shooting...
1) Having to go back to your car and get permission to use your gun?
2) Having the gun already on your side?
 
If you don't think that the Norwegian law is out of control, regarding police and their access to guns, which situation would you rather be in when a gunman starts shooting...
1) Having to go back to your car and get permission to use your gun?
2) Having the gun already on your side?

I would rather be in number 1.

This is because it means that the country I live in is so safe, that I don't need to carry a gun on me at all times. If the neighborhoods were dangerous and gunman shootings were frequent, then all police would be carrying guns by their side. But the sheer fact that they're not means that these shootings are infrequent.

Maybe in the heat of the moment I might not like it, but overall I would be happy that my country is in a better crime-levels situation than if I were to have a gun on my side. Less people dying overall led to this situation.

If I may throw a question back at you, which would you rather live in:

A) A society where it is necessary and useful to have an automatic carbine on you at all times, to protect against gangs with Uzis.
B) A society that is so peaceful, that there are no needs for firearms, and their introduction would cause more deaths overall.
 
Hahaha, I doubt I am a bigger gun grabber
Do you think released felons should have the right to possess?

Do you think that criminals should be able to retain their weapons while incarcerated, merely checked into to the incarceration facility for storage and safekeeping?

Do you believe that crimes should not carry an enhanced penalty because a gun was used?

Do you believe that those on a terrorist watch list should be allowed to possess?

Do you believe that those who can not afford a gun be provided one by the government for self-defense purposes?

Do you believe the government should be able to keep a gun that is suspected to have been used in a crime or should it be returned to its owner?

Do you believe a small businessman should be prevented using a gun to enhance his profits?

Do you believe an employee should be forbidden from carrying a gun to an annual evaluation conducted by his boss?

Do yu belive there should be a minimum age limit to purchase or possess a gun?
 
Sorry if you felt snubbed, really didn't appreciate the insult, but I really got tired of the 8 against 1 action that was ongoing. I didn't insult your point of view.

My point to this thread was never really refuted, though it was admittedly hard to see.
If you would like to address that, that is fine... but gun control in general is not the point of this thread.
Anyone who would like to continue to talk about this specific type of gun control, please answer the following question...

If you don't think that the Norwegian law is out of control, regarding police and their access to guns, which situation would you rather be in when a gunman starts shooting...
1) Having to go back to your car and get permission to use your gun?
2) Having the gun already on your side?

When a once in a century or less event happens, I would prefer the cops have tanks and m16s. For the rest of the time, I'd rather they do their jobs without constantly possessing the ability to kill people on the spot. In other words, I think Norwegian police are fine as they are when it comes to firearms possession.
 
Back
Top Bottom