By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - the 9-12 project

jv103 on 30 March 2009

Honestly, I don't think putting more restrictions on Guns would prevent gun crime. There's tons of guns in the country. There may be a general reduction in gun homicides if guns are all out banned and confiscated because they would be much harder to steal and buy illegally from legal dealers. Of course this would apparently cause a constitutional uproar and would be bad for the U.S. as the gun industry is flourishing right now (especially on border states for some reason).

Anyway back on topic:

Does Glenn Beck really cry, or is he faking it?



Around the Network
theprof00 on 30 March 2009

look, all you guys do is use that excuse that criminals will get the guns no matter what. It's not true. Most dealers have served jail time already. Someone without a record would charge premiums for a heater that itself would lessen gun prevalence.

Secondly, you guys are still going to have guns no matter what because you will wait the week or so and then get it.

Lastly, it's really time to wake up people. When someone breaks into your house, they expect you to have a gun. They know the risks, because there are a lot of other ways to make money. Either they wait for you to leave or they do it when they think you've left. In any case, those robbers will most likely have guns as well, and will shoot anything that pops out at them. People need to wake up in this country, the arguments are tired.

PS: I forget this other study I read in one of my classes where people with defensive weapons usually end up getting shot more than shooting or injuring the criminal.



halogamer1989 on 30 March 2009
jv103 said:
Honestly, I don't think putting more restrictions on Guns would prevent gun crime. There's tons of guns in the country. There may be a general reduction in gun homicides if guns are all out banned and confiscated because they would be much harder to steal and buy illegally from legal dealers. Of course this would apparently cause a constitutional uproar and would be bad for the U.S. as the gun industry is flourishing right now (especially on border states for some reason).

Anyway back on topic:

Does Glenn Beck really cry, or is he faking it?

He really does as he has such hopes for this country, is bipolar I believe (nothing wrong w. that), and is a "recovering" alcoholic.

 



hsrob on 30 March 2009
Broncos724 said:
theprof00 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:
haha, that was a nice one mafoo. But it wasn't me making this comparison, it was your side. Are there some states that are like muldova and lithuania? Its your argument to make.

My argument is guns are a means to an end. No one sees a gun and say’s “cool, I can now kill someone”. It’s a tool. There are aspects of this country that increase the murder rate (poverty, poor education, drug trade, etc…). If you removed guns and do not fix these issues, people would murder just as much, they would just find a different tool to accomplish it with.

 

To illustrate my point, people who live in the country, almost to a man, own guns. I would say the percentage of gun owners in rural areas is over 90%. The murder rate in these areas is almost zero.

I live in a small town of 10,000. I would guess 90% of them own a gun (hunting is extremely popular in this area). The last murder here was over 4 years ago.

In the inner city areas, the percentage of people who have guns is far less, yet in this country that’s where almost all murders happen.

With those kinds of statistics, it’s imposable to say guns are the reason people kill. If so, more people per capita in rural areas would die, not less. The reasons for murder would have to be a product of other factors.

I'm going to write this in bold to make sure you read it.

NOBODY IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS, JUST YOUR EASE OF PROCURING THEM!!!!!!
Guns make it easy to kill other people. That is a simple fact, and it's provable. That's what I work with, facts. And the facts show that countries with less access to guns have less murders. Now, in the countryside, sure, you don't have the kinds of stresses and poverty that we have in the city. But that doesn't prevent those guns from going into the city.

The same way that people drive to New Hampshire before 4th of July to buy fireworks and bring them to Boston, people drive to gun shows, buy them without any background check and then sell them to gangs in the city. Just because life is good for you doesn't mean it's our fault. Guns do in fact increase crime. I don't have the statistics  though they are available, but the mere presence of a gun increases chances of deadly incidentsthat would otherwise not be.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=presence+of+a+gun+increases+death&btnG=Search

NObody is saying you can't protect yourselves, but are you really so scared that you need to be able to get a gun within an hour's notice, putting thousands upon thousands of other people at risk by people who order guns off the internet?

 

 

Do you think that if there are more restrictions put on gun ownership, that's going to keep guns out of criminals' hands?  Sort of by definition, criminals aren't going to bother following the rules to get guns, they are going to own them illegally.  So with too many gun laws you're only hurting the vast majority, the law-abiding citizens who want nothing but to protect themselves in case of a robbery or something similar.  And imagine if EVERY household in a country contained a gun - do you really think that would be a detriment, when robbers are more reluctant to rob/mug/etc?

PS I'm not advocating that every household have a gun, clearly that's not prudent or feasible, it's just meant to be a thought experiment.

 

I'm not jumping on you or anything but i find that last statement really interesting, and maybe i have misunderstood the point.  To paraphrase the argument that many people are putting forward, criminals will get guns anyway so ordinary citizens should have the right to gun ownership to protect themselves.  Yet then you say that it's not prudent that all households have a gun.  So how do we determine who should and who shouldn't have a gun in their home?

 



theRepublic on 30 March 2009
Broncos724 said:
Onyxmeth said:
Onyxmeth said:

I don't get it. What is this website? All I gather is a motto that the site has intentions to gather people as Americans the same way they were on 9/12/01. If I recall that was utterly horrified, scared, and united in the fear of a still unknown cause to a series of plane crashes the day before. So we're trying to go back to that again? What's funny is that I believe the terrorists have the same dream for Americans, get them back to 9/12/01.

Can anyone address this at all? I know it's far too on-topic to catch much notice, but still, I'd like to know why it's a good idea to promote the togetherness wrapped around our commons fears like we were on 9/12/01. I just don't get why that is a day we'd like to recapture and bottle.

 

 

The idea is that we don't get complacent and lax in national security to the point where we let it happen again.

That, and what others have mentioned earlier, that during that sad time at least the 2 major parties were united and working together for a brief period.

Then why don't the Republicans start working together with the Democrats.  They lost on election night after all.  Why does this conservative group think that it is Democrats who should make concessions?



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Around the Network
Broncos724 on 30 March 2009
hsrob said:
Broncos724 said:
theprof00 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
TheRealMafoo said:
theprof00 said:
haha, that was a nice one mafoo. But it wasn't me making this comparison, it was your side. Are there some states that are like muldova and lithuania? Its your argument to make.

My argument is guns are a means to an end. No one sees a gun and say’s “cool, I can now kill someone”. It’s a tool. There are aspects of this country that increase the murder rate (poverty, poor education, drug trade, etc…). If you removed guns and do not fix these issues, people would murder just as much, they would just find a different tool to accomplish it with.

 

To illustrate my point, people who live in the country, almost to a man, own guns. I would say the percentage of gun owners in rural areas is over 90%. The murder rate in these areas is almost zero.

I live in a small town of 10,000. I would guess 90% of them own a gun (hunting is extremely popular in this area). The last murder here was over 4 years ago.

In the inner city areas, the percentage of people who have guns is far less, yet in this country that’s where almost all murders happen.

With those kinds of statistics, it’s imposable to say guns are the reason people kill. If so, more people per capita in rural areas would die, not less. The reasons for murder would have to be a product of other factors.

I'm going to write this in bold to make sure you read it.

NOBODY IS TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS, JUST YOUR EASE OF PROCURING THEM!!!!!!
Guns make it easy to kill other people. That is a simple fact, and it's provable. That's what I work with, facts. And the facts show that countries with less access to guns have less murders. Now, in the countryside, sure, you don't have the kinds of stresses and poverty that we have in the city. But that doesn't prevent those guns from going into the city.

The same way that people drive to New Hampshire before 4th of July to buy fireworks and bring them to Boston, people drive to gun shows, buy them without any background check and then sell them to gangs in the city. Just because life is good for you doesn't mean it's our fault. Guns do in fact increase crime. I don't have the statistics  though they are available, but the mere presence of a gun increases chances of deadly incidentsthat would otherwise not be.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=presence+of+a+gun+increases+death&btnG=Search

NObody is saying you can't protect yourselves, but are you really so scared that you need to be able to get a gun within an hour's notice, putting thousands upon thousands of other people at risk by people who order guns off the internet?

 

 

Do you think that if there are more restrictions put on gun ownership, that's going to keep guns out of criminals' hands?  Sort of by definition, criminals aren't going to bother following the rules to get guns, they are going to own them illegally.  So with too many gun laws you're only hurting the vast majority, the law-abiding citizens who want nothing but to protect themselves in case of a robbery or something similar.  And imagine if EVERY household in a country contained a gun - do you really think that would be a detriment, when robbers are more reluctant to rob/mug/etc?

PS I'm not advocating that every household have a gun, clearly that's not prudent or feasible, it's just meant to be a thought experiment.

 

I'm not jumping on you or anything but i find that last statement really interesting, and maybe i have misunderstood the point.  To paraphrase the argument that many people are putting forward, criminals will get guns anyway so ordinary citizens should have the right to gun ownership to protect themselves.  Yet then you say that it's not prudent that all households have a gun.  So how do we determine who should and who shouldn't have a gun in their home?

 

Whoever is willing and responsible enough to own a gun.  What I mean by prudent is that it wouldn't be good at all to force people to own guns, that'd in some ways be just as bad as telling people they can't own them.

 



theprof00 on 30 March 2009

^because conservatives have a mandate from heaven dumbass

EDIT: @therepublic



Broncos724 on 30 March 2009
theprof00 said:
look, all you guys do is use that excuse that criminals will get the guns no matter what. It's not true. Most dealers have served jail time already. Someone without a record would charge premiums for a heater that itself would lessen gun prevalence.

Secondly, you guys are still going to have guns no matter what because you will wait the week or so and then get it.

Lastly, it's really time to wake up people. When someone breaks into your house, they expect you to have a gun. They know the risks, because there are a lot of other ways to make money. Either they wait for you to leave or they do it when they think you've left. In any case, those robbers will most likely have guns as well, and will shoot anything that pops out at them. People need to wake up in this country, the arguments are tired.

PS: I forget this other study I read in one of my classes where people with defensive weapons usually end up getting shot more than shooting or injuring the criminal.

 

Um, criminals WILL get guns regardless lol.  Ever wonder how illegal drugs make it into the US?  Besides you can get guns through other means than just dealers.

I'm not really talking about the background checks and stuff that can slightly delay the time it takes to acquire a gun, those rules are actually good because you do want to be doing background checks. I'm referring to laws of what kind of gun you can own, concealed carry, etc.

The whole point of a robbery is to get in, steal whatever, then get out without being detected or causing any kind of disturbance whatsoever.  The last thing a robber wants is a confrontation, if they see you have a gun, odds are pretty damn good they are just gonna turn tail and run.

I don't doubt the existence of this study, but different published studies have found the exact opposite things, like how one study about masturbation showed that it lead to prostate cancer, while another study showed that it helped reduce prostate cancer.  Studies are certainly not conclusive.



Broncos724 on 30 March 2009
theRepublic said:
Broncos724 said:
Onyxmeth said:
Onyxmeth said:

I don't get it. What is this website? All I gather is a motto that the site has intentions to gather people as Americans the same way they were on 9/12/01. If I recall that was utterly horrified, scared, and united in the fear of a still unknown cause to a series of plane crashes the day before. So we're trying to go back to that again? What's funny is that I believe the terrorists have the same dream for Americans, get them back to 9/12/01.

Can anyone address this at all? I know it's far too on-topic to catch much notice, but still, I'd like to know why it's a good idea to promote the togetherness wrapped around our commons fears like we were on 9/12/01. I just don't get why that is a day we'd like to recapture and bottle.

 

 

The idea is that we don't get complacent and lax in national security to the point where we let it happen again.

That, and what others have mentioned earlier, that during that sad time at least the 2 major parties were united and working together for a brief period.

Then why don't the Republicans start working together with the Democrats.  They lost on election night after all.  Why does this conservative group think that it is Democrats who should make concessions?

I honestly don't remember but I don't think the website called out Dems for not working together with Republicans.  Of course each party will think that the other needs to start working with them to get things done.

I do agree with most of you though about Glenn Beck, sometimes he becomes too much and it seems like he's faking it, probably with the crying too lol.  Forgetting about politics though, if you listen to his radio show he can be pretty funny at times.

 



hsrob on 30 March 2009

@Broncos724 (quoting that whole post is getting ugly)

I agree that forcing everybody into gun ownership is also a bad idea, and while the concept of who is responsible enough to own a gun is a fairly nebulous idea i agree with it in principle. I wouldn't necessarily advocate preventing people from owning guns but i don't have a problem with making it much harder.

BTW for those who know, what exactly are the regulations in the USA at the moment when it comes to buying a gun or does it vary too much from state to state?