Firearms/Second Amendment
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-12-2010, 02:55 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
God is all powerful, but he needs lots of help. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2010, 08:59 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
FBI: Violent Crime Continues to Decline

Reports of violent and property crimes continued to decline in the first half of 2010, according to preliminary crime report released by the FBI Monday.

The FBI's semiannual uniform crime report shows that reports of violent crime dropped 6.2 percent from January to June and property crime reports were down 2.8 percent.

The dip in reported crimes follows a three-year trend of decreasing crime rates despite a sagging economy.

According to the FBI, murders dropped 7.1 percent in the first six months of 2010 while robberies decreased by 10.7 percent. Reports of vehicle thefts also dropped by 9.7 percent.

FBI crime reports have shown a steady decrease in crimes rates since 2008. (Since Obama came to office, and Americans started buying guns like crazy!) In the annual report for 2009, released in September, reports of violent crimes dropped 5.3 percent and reported property crimes fell 4.6 percent.

Experts have been hard-pressed to explain the decreasing crime when a weak economy has put a continuing strain on local police budgets. Typically, crime rates increase as the economy falters.

More Guns, Less Crime!

Officer.com
Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2010, 11:56 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Here in Canada, the gun restrictions are ridiculous. My dad runs gun licencing courses, and my boyfriend has gun experience being in the military. Yet both of them have to go through a ridiculous process just to own a pistol. I can see why there are restrictions on automated weapons, etc, but restricting a pistol is just a waste of time. If somebody is going to use a pistol to kill people, they are not going to go through the registration process. They are going to go to the US, buy a gun, and smuggle it back (or buy it from someone who smuggled it). But rifles, which can kill somebody just as easily as a pistol, aren't restricted. It doesn't make any sense, and the registry is a waste of time and money ($66 million per year!) that could be better spent trying to stop illegal weapons from being smuggled into Canada. Licencing is just fine; it makes sure that anybody buying a weapon (or ammo) is actually qualified to use it, but the registry is just an unnecessary (and costly) addition.

"Remember, my friend, that knowledge is stronger than memory, and we should not trust the weaker." - Dr. Van Helsing, Dracula
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2011, 01:40 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
I'm Anti-Gun as the guns only purpose is to destroy that is it. I don't see the need for one in an educated society. I never owned one, I have fired several, for the purpose of destroying objects on a range. I did at one point almost buy one, but the price drove me away, at the time. Now as I have read up and see things.. I don't feel I will ever own one.

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument on why they should not be banned in America.
Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2011, 01:55 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Quote:I have yet to hear a reasonable argument on why they should not be banned in America.
Because criminals would still have illigal guns. Criminal organizations would take over.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2011, 02:24 PM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(20-01-2011 01:55 PM)Kikko Wrote:  
Quote:I have yet to hear a reasonable argument on why they should not be banned in America.
Because criminals would still have illigal guns. Criminal organizations would take over.

That doesn't make sense, because criminals break laws.. Lets not have laws that benefit society. Its like stating we should not make rape illegal, since people rape. Confused

Your line of thinking is IMO, typical believer "logic".
Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2011, 04:17 PM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(20-01-2011 01:40 PM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  I'm Anti-Gun as the guns only purpose is to destroy that is it. I don't see the need for one in an educated society. I never owned one, I have fired several, for the purpose of destroying objects on a range. I did at one point almost buy one, but the price drove me away, at the time. Now as I have read up and see things.. I don't feel I will ever own one.

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument on why they should not be banned in America.


Correct. And as soon as we reach "educated" status, I'll be happy to consider changing the laws.

Relinquishing gun control to strictly police and military effectively makes us a police-state. You see no reason for guns because you are blessed in your upbringing and the current status of society. You haven't had to fight for anything. Tell a black family in the deep south that it's illegal for them to keep a gun in the house. Or tell a muslim family anywhere in America that they aren't allowed to protect themselves... because the police force, made up of christians will protect them.

Say we get rid of guns today. What's to stop the police from abusing their power or the government from doing whatever they please. They know for a fact that there can never be an organized revolution since we no longer have the means to do so. And before you say 'oh that would never happen,' the police and the government are made up of the same flawed, corruptible human beings that inhabit this world. The same ones that show up on the news for scandals and fraud.

Human beings are stupid, selfish, inherently violent beings. To ban guns based on a tentative "trust" that no one will abuse their power is a silly thing.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 04:42 AM
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(20-01-2011 02:24 PM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  
(20-01-2011 01:55 PM)Kikko Wrote:  
Quote:I have yet to hear a reasonable argument on why they should not be banned in America.
Because criminals would still have illigal guns. Criminal organizations would take over.

That doesn't make sense, because criminals break laws.. Lets not have laws that benefit society. Its like stating we should not make rape illegal, since people rape. Confused

Doesn't make sense beacuse criminals break laws? Actually it makes sense because criminals break law. Everyone who would obey the law wouldn't have guns, but those who wouldn't obey the law would have illigal guns. Unarmed (or armed with swords and knifesTongue) polices wouldn't have a chanche against armed criminals, so at least the police should have guns. But having just one facet to legally have guns has its problems.
Quote: Its like stating we should not make rape illegal, since people rape. Confused
Rape is an action. Having a gun is not an action, but shooting people with a gun is an action. Replace the ''rape'' words with ''shooting people''* and it doesn't make sense.

*We should not make shooting people illegal, since people shoot people.
Quote:Your line of thinking is IMO, typical believer "logic".
What's wrong with the logic?

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 10:25 AM
 
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
(21-01-2011 04:42 AM)Kikko Wrote:  
(20-01-2011 02:24 PM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  
(20-01-2011 01:55 PM)Kikko Wrote:  
Quote:I have yet to hear a reasonable argument on why they should not be banned in America.
Because criminals would still have illigal guns. Criminal organizations would take over.

That doesn't make sense, because criminals break laws.. Lets not have laws that benefit society. Its like stating we should not make rape illegal, since people rape. Confused

Quote:Doesn't make sense beacuse criminals break laws? Actually it makes sense because criminals break law. Everyone who would obey the law wouldn't have guns, but those who wouldn't obey the law would have illigal guns. Unarmed (or armed with swords and knifesTongue) polices wouldn't have a chanche against armed criminals, so at least the police should have guns. But having just one facet to legally have guns has its problems.

I never said Cops should not have Guns, just avg citizens don't need them. Which would mean only criminals and those apprehending criminals have them,(during their shifts) if they become illegal, and we arrest people for carrying one, less would be on the streets.

Quote: Its like stating we should not make rape illegal, since people rape. Confused
Quote:Rape is an action. Having a gun is not an action, but shooting people with a gun is an action. Replace the ''rape'' words with ''shooting people''* and it doesn't make sense.*We should not make shooting people illegal, since people shoot people.

nice try, doesn't work that way sorry. Your argument is we should not ban guns, because criminals have them, in a sense stating because criminals commit crimes we should not make them illegal because they commit crimes. Unless I am missing something in your argument.


Quote:Your line of thinking is IMO, typical believer "logic".
What's wrong with the logic?

Its the same as Christian tell me about being an Atheist, If you don't believe in this, something MIGHT happen.

If we ban guns, criminals MIGHT be the only ones with them. Your argument is built on a might happen statement which to me doesn't hold much ground, showcase me some evidence that our society would turn that way, then you have a case.

For instance, Poland had a gun ban, during the communist years, murder rate was fairly low. ( I am not naive to think once we ban them, people will not still get murdered, for the record.) And Murder Rates with Guns was almost none. Once the ban was lifted the murder rate went up significantly. But, their laws now are still fairly strict compared to the US.

And I can't figure out how to separate your points one by one.. so sorry and good luck.. Big Grin
(20-01-2011 04:17 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(20-01-2011 01:40 PM)AnthraxFan93 Wrote:  I'm Anti-Gun as the guns only purpose is to destroy that is it. I don't see the need for one in an educated society. I never owned one, I have fired several, for the purpose of destroying objects on a range. I did at one point almost buy one, but the price drove me away, at the time. Now as I have read up and see things.. I don't feel I will ever own one.

I have yet to hear a reasonable argument on why they should not be banned in America.


Correct. And as soon as we reach "educated" status, I'll be happy to consider changing the laws.

Relinquishing gun control to strictly police and military effectively makes us a police-state. You see no reason for guns because you are blessed in your upbringing and the current status of society. You haven't had to fight for anything. Tell a black family in the deep south that it's illegal for them to keep a gun in the house. Or tell a muslim family anywhere in America that they aren't allowed to protect themselves... because the police force, made up of christians will protect them.

Say we get rid of guns today. What's to stop the police from abusing their power or the government from doing whatever they please. They know for a fact that there can never be an organized revolution since we no longer have the means to do so. And before you say 'oh that would never happen,' the police and the government are made up of the same flawed, corruptible human beings that inhabit this world. The same ones that show up on the news for scandals and fraud.

Human beings are stupid, selfish, inherently violent beings. To ban guns based on a tentative "trust" that no one will abuse their power is a silly thing.

I understand your point, but its a doomsday point.. The very worst of what MIGHT happen. You have no proof that it will or will not. I look at societies as Denmark, or Sweden, who overall are pretty well set up. I don't think we can do it this year or decade.. Not by a long shot.. It will take time to get to that way of education, if at all in America. As IMO, the leaders love the stupid drones they have created. Recall it is easier to control a stupid society than one that asks too many questions.

I know I am in the minority on this topic.. I always am, but then I was in the minority 20 years ago being an Atheist, or at least I thought I was.

Change is a good thing IMO, if moved in the right direction.
Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2011, 12:52 PM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2011 12:58 PM by Kikko.)
RE: Firearms/Second Amendment
Quote:Its the same as Christian tell me about being an Atheist, If you don't believe in this, something MIGHT happen.

If we ban guns, criminals MIGHT be the only ones with them. Your argument is built on a might happen statement which to me doesn't hold much ground, showcase me some evidence that our society would turn that way, then you have a case.
If guns would be banned, then only criminals and those, who wouldn't care about the ban and still own an illigal gun(s), would have guns, because others (excluding those who wouldn't have a gun in the first place) would have handed over their guns. That is what I ifered, please show what in my logic* is wrong, or explain what you think would happen if a guns would be banned in the US.
Quote:For instance, Poland had a gun ban, during the communist years, murder rate was fairly low. ( I am not naive to think once we ban them, people will not still get murdered, for the record.) And Murder Rates with Guns was almost none. Once the ban was lifted the murder rate went up significantly. But, their laws now are still fairly strict compared to the US.
Do deaths caused by Soviet terror count as murders? Guns were banned from civilians, not from everyone: The occupiers had guns.
And of course they banned guns from civilians. What kind of a dictatorship based on terror would allow its citizen to have weapons?
Quote:And I can't figure out how to separate your points one by one.. so sorry and good luck.. Big Grin
Copy-Paste the whole message and then dismantle it by typing [ quote ] and [ /quote ] (minus the spaces) to the beginning of the wanted text and to the end of the wanted text.
_______________________
Quote:I look at societies as Denmark, or Sweden, who overall are pretty well set up.
Maybe it's because the peasantry there hasn't had the rights/wealth to get guns. The history and ways of the US are different than the ones in the Nordic Countries.

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: