Americans and Guns (post pics of your armory !)

[Turp]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Second Amendment was devised when "arms" meant fucking muskets. You couldn't take a musket and blow someone's head off from half a mile away. You couldn't spray bullets into a room full of people with a musket. Why aren't you fucking gun nuts complaining that the government won't let you carry around sticks of dynamite? I deserve the right to detonate myself and turn everybody within 50 feet into a fine red mist, the Constitution says so. How else am I supposed to defend myself?=

GTFO of the country than, they have the laws you want in North Korea, i believe that will suit you well.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Alawen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My point was extremely straightforward. All evidence suggests that the presence of more guns results in more gun violence.

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

[Harmonium]

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.


Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

-----------------

Relationship between type of gun owned and
percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.
Illegal gun:
Street crimes = 74%
Drug use = 41%
Gun crimes = 21%

No gun:
Street crimes = 24%
Drug use = 15%
Gun crimes = 1%

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

-----------------

Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents.
The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.


Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

---------------

Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes the person seeking death to use another means.
While gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's gun control legislation of 1978, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges.
"The authors describe suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and methods used for suicide in Toronto for 5 years before and after enactment of Canadian gun control legislation in 1978. They also present data from San Diego, Calif., where state laws attempt to limit access to guns by certain psychiatric patients. Both sets of data indicate that gun control legislation may have led to decreased use of guns by suicidal men, but the difference was apparently offset by an increase in suicide by leaping. In the case of men using guns for suicide, these data support a hypothesis of substitution of suicide method."


Source: "Guns and suicide: possible effects of some specific legislation," Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990

[runlvlzero]

Originally Posted by Turp [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok i am getting out of this thread but wtf are you talking about ? Less guns sure as hell dont make it safer !! the number one cause of death the past 100 years is democide not homicide or suicide you dumb shit! Governments routinely murder millions

So Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout the past 100 or so years, almost ALWAYS immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
See more at:
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
Death by government:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

A “monopoly of force” in government is FAR more dangerous than a crazed lone shooter
So yes, James Holmes The batman killer and other crazed shooters kill a number of people each year in random acts of violence. It’s horrifying and wrong, but it’s nothing compared to the millions of lives that governments tend to destroy when they gain total power over the populace.
The most dangerous thing in the world, it turns out, is not a crazy person with a rifle; it’s a government with a “monopoly of force” over the entire population. And that’s exactly what the UN spells out as its goal for the world: Stripping all power from individual citizens and handing “monopolies of force” to the governments of the world, faking their positions as the only “legitimate” power on the planet.
BAN CARS BAN GUNS HURRR HURRR, fucking sheep

/agreed but its a simple fact that most people don't bother to educate themselves and rely on MSNBC to do it for them and some ditzy blonde with no clue.

[Ephirith]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well? I suppose they all also wore shoes. That makes about as much sense as your shitty analogy, and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

[Harmonium]

Are you surprised by these facts?

Maybe it's because the TV networks are deliberately not telling you about them.

According to a January 5, 2000 special report by Geoffrey Dickens, Senior Media Analyst of the Media Research Center, "In 1997, criminologist Gary Kleck estimated that over 2.5 million people a year defend themselves from an assailant or burglar by exercising their constitutional right to bear arms.

Yet how many times did television networks report such acts?

In the past two years(2000-2002), out of 653 gun policy stories, exactly 12 times.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

Please refer to my previous post for some statistics behind gun violence.

[Harmonium]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well?

Yes those were men. That's not my point however. It's the ideology those men shared with gun control nuts. That is the correlating point. Nice straw man though!

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Harmonium [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stalin
Hitler
Pol Pot
Mao Tse Tung
Mussolini
Castro
All of these people required that their citizens relinquish their fire arms for the safety of all.(these are just the ones that come off the top my head for the 20th century.)

These men all salute you sir.

What in the blue hell are you talking about? Hitler did not require citizens to relinquish firearms. Prior to Hitler's reign, Germany had already enacted gun registration laws -- and those already exist in the US. The only gun-restrictive measure that took effect while Hitler was in power dealt with Jews and non-citizens. Plenty of citizens owned legally-registered guns under Hitler.

I don't know specifics about the other names on your list, but if you're going to botch the most infamous, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt on the rest. Equally importantly, by your apparent definition of 'requiring citizens to relinquish their fire arms', every politician in recent world history that has passed any form of gun-restrictive measure (anything from registration to limitations on weaponry) would qualify for the list. The fact that you selectively choose the worst doesn't prove any actual point for people that realize what you're doing. Here's a list of people with brown hair:

Hitler
Stalin
Mussolini
Mao Zedong
Pol Pot
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Ephirith [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of those people were men, I suppose everything about men is wrong as well? I suppose they all also wore shoes. That makes about as much sense as your shitty analogy, and it does nothing to speak of the facts and statistics behind gun violence.

I would call you out for straw manning it, but you even failed at that. You just sound like an idiot. Refute his point head on (Despots demanding relinquish guns prior to atrocities committed) not make a stupid analogy about wearing shoes.