Handguns

Post by **Sylvus** » April 20, 2007, 11:58 am

Funkmasterr wrote:p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.

You mean more than once?

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 20, 2007, 11:59 am

Sylvus wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.
You mean more than once?

I just think it's a retarded fucking term that I hadn't seen anyone here say until the past week- and now I have seen it so much I want to fucking puke.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 20, 2007, 12:01 pm

Sylvus you're making a great arguement, without even knowing it. You're right, when they find something dangerous about automobiles, they pass regs and laws etc. to improve the safety of said automobiles.

In this case, there are two lessons to be learned...maybe more even. The nutjob was found to be a nutjob, he shouldn't even have been released into society. However, he was. There is error number one. He then went to purchase a weapon and the check doesn't come back notifying the gunshop he was once found to be a danger to himself and others. Problem number 2. Just like 9/11 found out that the many government agencies didn't talk well to eachother, I think this has shown there are loopholes in the background check that need to be fixed. All the other stuff is BULLSHIT!!!!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 20, 2007, 12:11 pm

I personally feel that the restriction on any access to firearms is wrong, based on the 2nd Amendment, but I do not think that more strict controls on who can legally own one and what must be done to qualify to own one would violate this.

While the news has been constantly updating on the shooter's status, we have gone from: He should not own a weapon due to his legal status; his legal status allowed him to have the firearm; he should not have been allowed to purchase due to his mental status; he was not ordered to get the help, but went willingly which would allow him to purchase the weapons; he should not have been able to purchase the handguns due to being sent to an institution for treatment regardless of who "made" him go there.

The primary focus, in this case, has been his residency and his mental status. The residency should be easy to argue since he had gone through whatever steps were necessary to legally purchase a gun based on that measure. The mental status is one that, I feel, should have much more strict guidelines than it does today. There is no single place that would be able to track the specifics of a person's mental issues. I have been involved with working with people on multiple levels of mental (and physical) disabilities, and there are many that I would never want to see with a chance to be armed. It is not just because they have a "violent streak," but it is because of their disregard for their own life and the lives of others around them. The fact that they could "act" normal for a few days in order to be released does not mean they are actually "better."

If anyone knows a person that has dealt with something like bipolar disorder, they would know that the person really DOES have "normal" days. You have to be willing to wait and support that person through all kinds of changes before you may see the imbalance actually start to seep out of the "good" days. To me, this is the bigger issue. It is bigger than the actual weapon this person used. It is the fact that we are currently living in a society that defines "normal" based on immediate actions rather than acknowledging that the person's actions may be different tomorrow. If this person had been as "disturbing" as the people who were around him have said, someone should be responsible for not TRULY addressing it. Police are not trained to do this in a fashion that would actually allow them to "deal" with the person. They are trained in what will/will not set the person off while they take them to a "professional." This same doctor will probably be someone that will make an assessment clouded by what the facilities are designed to handle. Keep a person isolated for a few days while they "cool down," and then you send them out on their way again.

*Sorry if I rambled too much, but I am typing between calls at work

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » April 20, 2007, 12:34 pm

Lynks wrote:While I think there is no point, people want to ban handguns for that very purpose (concealment), which is why I do not think that a car can be compared to a handgun (not the same as a shotgun).

I wouldn't argue if you compared a shotgun or rifle or bazooka to a car. Thats more of a similarity. One of peoples problems with handguns is that you can have it in your back pocket and you would never know.

I think part of the problem here is there are several comparisons being made at once. Personally, I would agree that there is better standing for a comparison of larger weapons and vehicles than there is of handguns or other small arms. That being said, I don't think that the concealment point invalidates the entire comparison, but it should be taken into consideration.

So anyway, some statistics (and limited interpretation), since no one seems to really want to back anything up. I'm just throwing these out there, people can use them how they will.

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

Are firearms the leading weapon used in homicides? Absolutely. In 2005, 68% of homicides were caused by firearms. That's 10,100 firearms-related homicides out of a total of 14,860. Of this, 7,543 were caused by a handgun (source).

What were the crimes? Let's see (firearm/handgun):

Robbery: 698/588
Narcotics: 499/407
Rape: 4/3
Argument over money or property: 151/122
Other arguments: 2273/1765

Are firearms the leading weapon used in justifiable homicides by law enforcement? Yes. How about for private citizens? Yes. If you review these data points in comparison with the total firearms homicides, justified homicide by firearms account for 4.75%.

I have yet to come across a reliable source for the number of registered firearms for the United States. Without this, it is difficult to provide a realistic comparison.

An interesting study on US Gun Control (from 2000).

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

As for automotive deaths, according to the NCSA, in 2005 there were a total of 39,189 fatal crashes claiming 43,443 lives. They don't have vehicle statistics for 2005 at this point, but in 2004 there were 237,961,000 vehicles registered in the United States. Based on trends, I would estimate between 242 and 247 million vehicles in 2005.

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

Most of the other points I intended to make have already been made. I don't think the 2nd Amendment is outdated or barbaric. After the last two presidential terms, my concern with government policy has increased. I think King George is trying to get everything his way and it's pretty apparent that he's willing to use whatever political means necessary to do it (go do some research on Presidential Signing Statements). Do I think he's stupid enough to use force against the American people to get his own way? No. But there are still nations around the world where political leaders do impose their personal whims on the populace. Until there exists a perfectly altruistic government, the threat of force is a necessary deterrent.

If you haven't watched the P&T Bullshit episode that Xou posted, go give it a watch. We aren't quite 250 years removed from the founding of the United States, but the political beliefs of the founding fathers still hold true and I don't think time has diminished them.

Now before anyone goes off and misinterprets my position on this, do kindly remember that I am all for responsible firearms ownership. This means that there are classes of citizenry that should not be allowed to own a firearm of any kind, including handguns. This means that I believe all firearms owners should attend training both in use and safety. I believe that there is nothing wrong with a national firearms registry. Some firearms manufacturers are now test-firing every weapon that comes off the assembly line and archiving the ballistic data for use by law enforcement. I think that's a great thing.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 20, 2007, 12:45 pm

Some other interesting facts.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#vtrends

Weapon use

In 2005, 24% of the incidents of violent crime, a weapon was present.

Offenders had or used a weapon in 48% of all robberies, compared with 22% of all aggravated assaults and 7% of all rapes/sexual assaults in 2005.

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons.

So almost 1/3 of all murders don't involve firearms at all.

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1260/Viol ... urder.html

On average, over the period presented, blacks were 6.3 times more likely to be murdered than whites and they were 7.7 times as likely to be arrested for murder.

Almost 8 times as likely to commit murder? Hmmmmm. I wonder if we can find some data about exactly how many murders with handguns as a percentage were committed by black males. Maybe we should just eliminate their ownership of hand guns.

http://www.mppgv.org/Publications/polic ... street.htm

The firearm death rate for young adults aged 20-24 escalated 36 percent from 1985 to 1990. Almost all of the increase was attributable to a rise in firearm homicides among black males: Nationally, the rate for this group more than doubled during the period, reaching 140.7 per 100,000. During the same period, the rate of firearm homicide deaths among white males aged 20-24 increased 32 percent to 12.9 per 100,000. The rate for black females in this age group increased from 8.8 per 100,000 in 1985 to 12.4 per 100,000 in 1990.(86)

The national trend continues, as evidenced by the 1993 firearm homicide rates: For black males aged 15-24 the rate was 154.9 per 100,000 and for those aged 25-34, it was 96.1;(87) in Michigan, during the same period, the rate was 218.6 and 153.0.(88) The annual firearm homicide rate per 100,000 for Michigan black males aged 15-24 in 1994 and 1995 was 217.7 and 172.2,h respectively.(88) The 1993 national firearm homicide rate for white males in the two age categories was 14.0 and 10.9, respectively;(87) in Michigan the rates were lower: 5.49 and 5.95, respectively.(88)

You want to stem the tide of gun deaths, go find and eliminate the cause of the black males' violent tendencies. I could offer you a few theories that are pretty wdely held, but if you find a solution then you will probably win a Nobel.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » April 20, 2007, 1:51 pm

Funkmasterr wrote:It does amaze me that so many people are jumping to defend her - she is a stupid bitch, and people like you that are constantly defending her right to be a stupid sarcastic bitchy waste of everyones time are beyond pathetic.

p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.

Kyoukan is demonstrably not stupid. To claim she is just proves you're the stupid one, stupid. She's well informed and frequently very funny. You just don't like her because she makes you look and feel stupid. All the time. As you deserve.

Straw-man is a real term used to define a real thing. You know how we humans use words to convey our thoughts accurately? You should try it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 20, 2007, 1:54 pm

vn_Tanc has become a kyoukan apologist!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 20, 2007, 2:06 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:It does amaze me that so many people are jumping to defend her - she is a stupid bitch, and people like you that are constantly defending her right to be a stupid sarcastic bitchy waste of everyones time are beyond pathetic.

p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.
Kyoukan is demonstrably not stupid. To claim she is just proves you're the stupid one, stupid. She's well informed and frequently very funny.

BWAHAHA....now that was funny.

You like a good amount of female comedians don't you? That or you were one of those assholes in school people like Cho want to kill. You get your kicks out of trashing others and laughing at them. Trashing someone and making them feel stupid and horrible is funny as long as you can keep your clicque together. Be stuck on the outside a little you piece of shit. It's okay to do that shit to your friends, but you keep on doing it outside your circle and a Cho will come along and take care of you......with a brand new car!! DUM DUM DUM *scary music*

Spang · Post by **Spang** » April 20, 2007, 2:25 pm

Most comedians make fun of people. A lot of people have a sense of humor and laugh. The great comedians feel nothing is taboo and make fun of everything, including themselves.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 20, 2007, 2:31 pm

Spang wrote:Most comedians make fun of people. A lot of people have a sense of humor and laugh. The great comedians feel nothing is taboo and make fun of everything, including themselves.

...and Cart was banned for that!

Post by **Sylvus** » April 20, 2007, 2:36 pm

Winnow wrote:
Spang wrote:Most comedians make fun of people. A lot of people have a sense of humor and laugh. The great comedians feel nothing is taboo and make fun of everything, including themselves.
...and Cart was banned for that!

No, he wasn't. He was banned for constant trolling without providing anything of value.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 20, 2007, 2:55 pm

So full of shit.

How can you completely ignore her violent sexual comments and ONLY see Winnow or Cartalas?

Anyone else with a handgun is either a criminal, a murderer or a guy with a small penis.

I guess as you long as you can post blatantly false facts it is not trolling.

However every handgun debate always turns into a bunch of shrill rednecks (with small penises) screeching at the top of their lungs about how liberals want to take away their ability to defend their families from the hordes of crack addicted black people lining up outside their daughter's bedroom window with I LOVE RAPE T-shirts on.

I didn't see Winnow pulling up the violent sexual anecdotes to precipitate this comment. Gee.....I didn't see any of you lining up to bust her chops for the same shit you(and she) accuse Winnow of.

Criminal, obviously. I was carrying a weapon illegally on my person.

Lets not forget that in addition to being an an annoying troll, she is also an admitted felon. Yay! Guess she is one of those nappy headed ghetto ho's.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 20, 2007, 2:56 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Winnow wrote:
Spang wrote:Most comedians make fun of people. A lot of people have a sense of humor and laugh. The great comedians feel nothing is taboo and make fun of everything, including themselves.
...and Cart was banned for that!
No, he wasn't. He was banned for constant trolling without providing anything of value.

It's not up to you to decide what everyone thought of his comments. He provided value some of the time to some people. Taking that away was wrong because it didn't fit into some peoples percentage of acceptability. It was wrong.

Post by **Sylvus** » April 20, 2007, 3:13 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:So full of shit.

How can you completely ignore her violent sexual comments and ONLY see Winnow or Cartalas?

Anyone else with a handgun is either a criminal, a murderer or a guy with a small penis.
I guess as you long as you can post blatantly false facts it is not trolling.

How is the generalization that gun owners have small penises sexually violent? I'd call it more of a joke than anything else. If you really need me to dig up the differences between that statement and the stuff cartalas said to her and other women here on a regular basis, I can do it. I'd rather not, though.

However every handgun debate always turns into a bunch of shrill rednecks (with small penises) screeching at the top of their lungs about how liberals want to take away their ability to defend their families from the hordes of crack addicted black people lining up outside their daughter's bedroom window with I LOVE RAPE T-shirts on.
I didn't see Winnow pulling up the violent sexual anecdotes to precipitate this comment. Gee.....I didn't see any of you lining up to bust her chops for the same shit you(and she) accuse Winnow of.

Yeah he did. She had already responded, in this very thread, to his rape analogies in this very thread. Then she went on to make an observation about what she felt this thread was already devolving into. There was even more to that post that you didn't quote.

Why are you classifying the generalization that gun owners have small penises as "sexually violent"? Does that get under your skin that badly just because you own guns and she said that, not directly about you? To try and compare her to cartalas is laughable

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » April 20, 2007, 3:29 pm

Please rename this thread to "Handguns or How to make bad comparisons".

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 20, 2007, 3:35 pm

Not really.

They are both trolls. One is substantially smarter than the other, but both remain trolls.

(Cue fanboy claim troll)

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 20, 2007, 3:44 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
Funkmasterr wrote:It does amaze me that so many people are jumping to defend her - she is a stupid bitch, and people like you that are constantly defending her right to be a stupid sarcastic bitchy waste of everyones time are beyond pathetic.

p.s. When you are making your next response, see if you can outdo yourself with how many time you can say straw-men in one post.
Kyoukan is demonstrably not stupid. To claim she is just proves you're the stupid one, stupid. She's well informed and frequently very funny. You just don't like her because she makes you look and feel stupid. All the time. As you deserve.

Straw-man is a real term used to define a real thing. You know how we humans use words to convey our thoughts accurately? You should try it.

Is she paying you? Seriously?

Where did I say straw-man isn't a real term? It annoys me and I refuse to use this most recent term of the week on VV..

Truant · Post by **Truant** » April 20, 2007, 3:46 pm

This thread has been thoroughly gayed. Well done you bunch of fucking crybabies.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » April 20, 2007, 3:48 pm

Thoroughly gayed? What because a thread that wasn't ever going to go anywhere got derailed? Sorry that the same people on opposing sides of the argument couldn't go back and forth rewording the same shit over and over again for 20 pages!

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 20, 2007, 3:56 pm

I see Sylvus has has taken her under his protection...most likely because she is an admitted felon. Typical Michigan alumni.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 20, 2007, 4:17 pm

Sylvus wrote: No, he wasn't. He was banned for constant trolling without providing anything of value.

If he really didn't provide any value to the board, there wouldn't be anyone upset over his banning so he must be contributing something for that to be the case.

Several people that do contribute to this board don't care at what level Cartalas is perceived to have contributed to it.

We let Cart respond to all the lame one liners (which were are funnier than kyoukan's) for us so we didn't have to deal with the flood of them from kyoukan and others. That's why he was perceived to have more than his share. He's being penalized because of his sacrifice to Team Sane, excusing us from responding to every stalking post from the psycho up north.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » April 20, 2007, 4:24 pm

Winnow please stop the fundamentalist Cartsian dogma. It stopped being funny ages ago. "Team sane"? Ffs come off it!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » April 20, 2007, 4:28 pm

On topic:

Sylvus wrote:So the only argument for handguns that anyone has presented is the "fight fire with fire" argument?

I'd be happy to make one.

Assumption: We are not viewing guns as inherently bad. We are viewing violence, and especially gun violence, as inherently bad. So the normative goal is to reduce gun violence.

1. The status quo position is relatively unrestricted gun ownership rights.
2. Many people view gun ownership as an individual rights / liberty issue.
3. When we try to enact social change which involves taking away what some people consider to be their rights, we ought to be reasonably certain that the social change will have net positive consequences.
4. The evidence at hand does not demonstrate that gun control leads to a reduction in violence or gun violence. The evidence is either ambiguous or leans in the opposite direction.
5. No one has posted a persuasive explanation as to why, notwithstanding the evidence, gun control would lead to a reduction in gun violence if implemented in a method different than what has been done thus far.

Therefore, we are not reasonably certain that the social change in question would yield positive consequences, and we ought not to make it. In fact, we can't even say that it's more likely than not that it would yield positive consequences.

Xatrei is the only person on this thread, as far as I recall, who's tried to make the sort of argument called for by step 5.

I don't feel like gun defenders have the burden to generate arguments for handguns. I think that gun opponents, given that they are the ones in a position of advocating for social change, bear the burden of demonstrating that such change is worthwhile.

Vaemas · Post by **Vaemas** » April 20, 2007, 4:44 pm

/buys Sueven a Yuengling.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » April 20, 2007, 4:49 pm

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

Some interesting odds there.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 20, 2007, 9:50 pm

The reason you're seeing the term 'straw man' show up this week is because there is a thread about gun control. Every thread about gun control will contain at least 50% straw man arguments from pro gun people who, like I've already stated, start squealing like wounded pigs about how liberals are trying to take away their god given right to defend their families when someone suggests that it might not be a very good idea for a person who has been diagnosed as mentally ill with violent tendencies to be able to walk into a store an pick up one or two firearms that they can hide in their pockets, with enough ammunition to kill entire classrooms full of innocent people.

Because obviously our intentions are not to protect people from armed psychopaths, but to make sure your wife gets raped nightly by the legions of people breaking into your house.

The fact that you have a small cock is probably fairly accurate, but I mostly bring it up so I can sit back and laugh at the people who get most offended by it.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 20, 2007, 10:16 pm

And again....Kyoukan is the one to bring up sexually violent subject matter. And again, can post no facts to back up what she has said. At least she is using more than one sentence! Oh boy am I glad....hate to see her banned!

Just for clarification on your retarded post there shithead, but NOWHERE has anyone agreed that selling guns to mentally unstable people is a good idea. I am all for denying any mentally ill person weapons of any variety....and that includes vehicles. Oh...and I think one's penis size might be relative. I guess everyone is tiny when you have a cavernous cunt.

Enough of that...more facts someone took the time to look up on another forum

Gun control does work...just take a look at this.

... In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> and exterminated.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ... In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
> million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ... Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
> million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded
> up and exterminated.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ... China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
> political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ... Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981,
> 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ... Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
> Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> ... Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
> million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
> and exterminated.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
> of gun control: 56 million.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
> law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
> government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million
> dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are
> up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide,
> armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of
> Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that
> while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and
> criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25
> years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
> changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now
> are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic
> increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians
> are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such
> monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding
> Australian society of guns." The Australian experience and the other
> historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American
> evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians
> disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save
> lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding
> citizens

Fyndina · Post by **Fyndina** » April 21, 2007, 12:14 am

Leave my guns alone!

Some of us don't want to live in the Utopian Canada or European countries. Some of us actually LIKE taking care of ourself and not have the governement control our lives. Like, not taking handouts, and protecting my loved ones and myself.

No one else know better than me how to protect myself, and when I need protection. And I have the benefit of allways being there when needed. And I am a better shot than most cops. Last year I put about 6K rounds trough my carry weapon, in a variety of work outs, up to an including IDPA competitons. As has been mentioned above, a lot of cops only does whatever training is required to pass their annual qualifications test. (That being said, some of the best shooters i know are cops).

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » April 21, 2007, 8:18 am

Sorry I haven't been around in a while. 2 things.

1) I simply cannot believe that Cart was banned. He was very entertaining, even if that entertainment was his sheer stupidity. He offered some one liners that put smiles on my face. The administrators should truly be ashamed of themselves.

2) I'm very liberal. However, I agree with everything in that Penn & Teller as I do with almost every single one of those I've ever seen. You can argue day and night but it won't change the constitution, and it won't change the law. So really, the point is moot. The right for the people to bear arms was important enough to be the 2nd amendment, end of story.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 21, 2007, 12:48 pm

No one here is talking about taking away anyone's second amendment rights.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 21, 2007, 6:14 pm

Xyun wrote:Sorry I haven't been around in a while. 2 things.

1) I simply cannot believe that Cart was banned. He was very entertaining, even if that entertainment was his sheer stupidity. He offered some one liners that put smiles on my face. The administrators should truly be ashamed of themselves.

Add another non conservitive neocon to the list that doesn't agree with Cart being banned.

The problem here is that there's a small group of people that must PM each other so much about this that they think more than the scant few thin skinned people in the group care (sort of like kyoukan and her imaginary friends when she uses ALL or EVERYONE in responses) and are blinded to the fact that the majority of this board had no problem with Cart and didn't keep track of a mysterious contribution level required to be here. It's a self help group gone bad and is fucking up the board.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » April 21, 2007, 9:16 pm

How the fuck could you tell Cart was a conservative?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 22, 2007, 12:54 am

Kilmoll wrote: > It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
> law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
> government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million
> dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are
> up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide,
> armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of
> Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that
> while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and
> criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25
> years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
> changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now
> are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic
> increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians
> are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such
> monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding
> Australian society of guns." The Australian experience and the other
> historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American
> evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians
> disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save
> lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding
> citizens

Since you're too lazy/retarded/much of a troll (circle one) to look it up yourself, here's the snopes rebuttal of that pile of shit: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

We never really HAD guns in this country and other than one lone idiot like this bloke in VA, I don't recall ever hearing about anyone getting shot that wasn't a French tourist (the cops in Victoria shot him, unarmed, on the beach). There was no real reason for the whole buy-back, other than political point scoring based on a massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant), but that you would even post "spam" as fact in support of your argument points to near heroic stupidity.

Also, a good amount of the guns that were turned in were quite likely ex-military cruft from WWII, and old 22 target pistols owned by people that lost interest in plugging cardboard. If you have nearly any reason at all to have a gun in this country you can have it; farmers, target shooting, hunters, etc. You can't have an automatic, but then again, there's no good reason for a private citizen to need an automatic other than "I need to be able to kill a lot of people very quickly".

Tuddi2 · Post by **Tuddi2** » April 22, 2007, 2:31 am

For the U.S. i think it's too late, changing the law now wont help much at least not quickly enough for people to be happy about it, or feel it was a justified change. The society they have today has been molded for years and removing one aspect, one reason for a huge problem they're dealing with that is the stupid amount of violent crime a lot of which is gun related, isn't going to fix the problem.

It´s as if you were gonna try and cure obesity in that same country by banning donuts or something, there are just too many other things that have popped up which will prevent anything significant in the way of a good change to happen.

That beeing said, i agree whole heartedly with gun control laws much stricter then what the U.S. has today. The reasons i see people saying it wouldn't work is that criminals wont give up their firearms whilst the law abiding citizens would, which will make for a crime wave of epic proportions ensue. Maybe so, but changing this law is a huge step for a civilized society, and especially one molded so much by violence, so it's gonna get a lot worse before it will get better, personally i'd accept some casualties of war in order to reach a greater good.
The result i think wouldn't happen over night or 12 months as mentioned in some well rebuttled article, but after a considerable time.

gun is created, gun is sold to a retailer, gun is sold to a buyer, gun is lost or stolen, gun is used by criminal, gun is stolen from criminal, gun is taken from dead said criminal by his killer, gun is sold to a pawn shop, gun is sold to a prostitute trying to protect herself from an overzealous pimp, gun is used in killing of said pimp, prostitute is caught by police, gun is used as evidence, gun is destroyed after x amount of time.

a bullshit scenario but i'm sure not too far fetched, but lets hope that in the end, if the public at large isn't allowed to buy handguns which is the big problem i think we can agree on, the law enforcement agencies of the country eventually will remove most of the guns from criminals as they fuck up and get caught or what ever the scenario in which the police get their hands on the weapons.

turning of the faucet wont dry up the grass instantly, there's still water in the hose, sprinkler, and loads on the lawn that has to get soaked through and eventually evaporate from the heat of the sun at which point you can call the grass dry.

On another note, lets say there are 100 crimes commited
68 of them have guns involved, if you remove 95 % of all guns, from the equation, do some people here actually think you'd still have 100 crimes, given only a moron would think that number would be reduced to 32 but to try and bullshit yourself into believing that every singler perpetrator would find another way of dishing out their share of unlawful bravado is just ignorant.

and after that, if removing guns would lessen crime by lets be optimistic and say 30 % and now we have 32 crimes beeing commited before that still happen, but only 38 instead of the 68 come to fruition by means of getting a knife or god forbit a huge dildo mace in absense of a handgun.
those against gun control law, how could they not want to lower crime rate by some x % by giving up their guns.

something i read in a local newspaper, about there beeing some 700 million small arms in the world, with some clause i think, didn't check up on it much, but i'm guessing those used by militaries aren't counted here.
and of those a third are in the U.S.

that's stupendous, and more so to think having stricter gun control laws wont have any effect on crime rates, mind you that alone isn't going to remove all crimes or even gun related crimes for years and years, but it's a step in the right direction or do people still like the idea of living in the wild wild west like some people i write comments from sorta suggest, correct me if i'm wrong fyndina.

Leave my guns alone!

Some of us don't want to live in the Utopian Canada or European countries. Some of us actually LIKE taking care of ourself and not have the governement control our lives. Like, not taking handouts, and protecting my loved ones and myself.

No one else know better than me how to protect myself, and when I need protection. And I have the benefit of allways being there when needed. And I am a better shot than most cops. Last year I put about 6K rounds trough my carry weapon, in a variety of work outs, up to an including IDPA competitons. As has been mentioned above, a lot of cops only does whatever training is required to pass their annual qualifications test. (That being said, some of the best shooters i know are cops).

a lot of people seem to focus on the mass murders in virginia, but that's only the reason people started talking about gun control laws, i think most realize you wont prevent crazy people from killing a lot of other people if they set their mind to it. personally i dont see a reason to help them along by having easy, legal access to a superb tool to dish out their violence, but i know those assholes are gonna pop up from time to time, gun control issues is not only beeing talked about to prevent mass murders it's about all gun related crimes, but people sorta get numb by the "regular" murders or driveby shootings, and it takes a tragedy like this to get people talking about the problem.

anyways .. found an interesting read

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/sa ... ull_en.pdf

check out the bottom of page 65 and read a few paragraphs after that on page 66, i'm revolted personally.

Post by **Sylvus** » April 22, 2007, 3:40 am

Winnow wrote:
Xyun wrote:Sorry I haven't been around in a while. 2 things.

1) I simply cannot believe that Cart was banned. He was very entertaining, even if that entertainment was his sheer stupidity. He offered some one liners that put smiles on my face. The administrators should truly be ashamed of themselves.
Add another non conservitive neocon to the list that doesn't agree with Cart being banned.

The problem here is that there's a small group of people that must PM each other so much about this that they think more than the scant few thin skinned people in the group care (sort of like kyoukan and her imaginary friends when she uses ALL or EVERYONE in responses) and are blinded to the fact that the majority of this board had no problem with Cart and didn't keep track of a mysterious contribution level required to be here. It's a self help group gone bad and is fucking up the board.

i'm virtually certain that xyun's message was posted before/without seeing the thread that saw cartalas banned. you're wrong if you think that it was a small group of people that thought he was worthless, the list of people that don't think he was worthless can be counted on one hand. you can search just fine, the last poll posted asking if he should be banned said "yes" with a slight margin. you're still one of two people (xyun being the other) that has stated that cartalas ever provided anything worthwhile. everyone else that has complained about his banning has only done it because they have stronger hate for the person that he most often stalked. i haven't seen any of them argue that he was at all worthwhile, they just don't like an individual and say that he or she should also be banned if cart was. unfortunately there is a much larger contingent on these boards who don't share their opinion.

it matters very little because there is literally no chance that i will ever unban him. hate me if you want, i thought i'd proven myself as a pretty reasonable person throughout my tenure here, but he sealed his own fate.

This post may end up biting me on the ass, because I shouldn't post when I'm drunk. But it's the last I'll ever say in public about the only justified banning that has ever occurred on this board. If my stance makes you not want to come here anymore, i feel that it will be to the detriment of the board, but I stand by what I did. Proceed accordingly.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 22, 2007, 4:32 am

Sylvus wrote:it matters very little because there is literally no chance that i will ever unban him. hate me if you want, i thought i'd proven myself as a pretty reasonable person throughout my tenure here, but he sealed his own fate.

This post may end up biting me on the ass, because I shouldn't post when I'm drunk. But it's the last I'll ever say in public about the only justified banning that has ever occurred on this board. If my stance makes you not want to come here anymore, i feel that it will be to the detriment of the board, but I stand by what I did. Proceed accordingly.

The only reason I'd leave here is if I manage to get myself banned of which there is always a good possibility.

Some of the most wordy people on this board lean toward not banning Cart (Jice (if I recall correctly, I've had a few beers myself), Sueven, Xyun) to name a few that are pretty much polar opposites of Cartalas in most of their views.

Nick's an OK guy but really has no business asking for anyone to be banned considering his posting history on this board. For that matter, myself or kyoukan would fall in that same category but I doubt you'd ever see a ban request from either of us. That cuts your number down to four of which I'm sure a few are close friends of yours on this board. Now, the overwhelming majority on this board don't speak up on these matters and some of the most vocal and involved posters on this board would never call for a ban.

Bottom line is that Cart did contribute, he was funny whether you thought so or not. Contributing to this board takes several forms and making people laugh is a big one or the board would be dull. There's no win or lose in this although I sense the "ban clan" thinks there is and doesn't want to lose face or something so it will probably be a pride thing that keeps Cart banned if nothing else.

My opinion of you or anyone else on this board isn't affected by stances on things like this. I like some of the people that hate me on this board. I can't change my ways though and so it's just a matter of whether they can handle heated debates. We all play favorites, even if just a little. I will word responses differently for some but won't change my opinion. I've seen your flames in action and know you could fire off a similar response to any number of my posts on this board.

The most interesting people are those that you can go flat out with in a heated debate and then switch gears instantly as soon as the topic changes. I can't stand the "yes men" mentality where people go along with the company line to not cause trouble or jeopardize their career/promotion.

Anyways. Who knows if Cart reads this board or not anymore. I'm guessing he does. Who knows if he'd last more than a week if he returned. I do know that I'll probably drop the issue in a year or two, after several hundred posts on the subject, scattered throughout the forums.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » April 22, 2007, 5:11 am

i'm virtually certain that xyun's message was posted before/without seeing the thread that saw cartalas banned.

link prs.

BTW, I have not seen the thread. However, I highly doubt that its content will make me change my opinion. The one thing that I've always like about this board is the lack of censorship and its general acceptance of everyone. There is no one on this board that could say anything to me that would make me want them banned. The same should be true of everyone else.

Being offended by someone like cartalas is just pathetic.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » April 22, 2007, 10:54 am

Winnow wrote:The only reason I'd leave here is if I manage to get myself banned of which there is always a good possibility.

Yeah, given the hundreds of bans handed out over the years by the highly volatile moderators and their ban-happy ways, it's only a matter of time before you are banned

Seriously though, stop mucking up threads with this shit. If you still want to whine about Cart, start a new fucking thread. Better yet, get the mods to create a Cartalas Suck Off forum for you and the handful of retards that actually miss him. Just do it somewhere other than threads where people are actually trying to have a legitimate discussion.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 22, 2007, 12:07 pm

I put a poll up in General about Cart being banned. Maybe this will put an end to it. Maybe not.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » April 25, 2007, 9:59 pm

Interesting chart about gun deaths in the US

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/ ... APHIC.html

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » April 30, 2007, 11:08 am

Zaelath wrote:
Kilmoll wrote: > It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
> law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
> government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million
> dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are
> up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide,
> armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of
> Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that
> while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and
> criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25
> years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has
> changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now
> are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic
> increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians
> are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such
> monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding
> Australian society of guns." The Australian experience and the other
> historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the American
> evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians
> disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save
> lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding
> citizens
Since you're too lazy/retarded/much of a troll (circle one) to look it up yourself, here's the snopes rebuttal of that pile of shit: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

We never really HAD guns in this country and other than one lone idiot like this bloke in VA, I don't recall ever hearing about anyone getting shot that wasn't a French tourist (the cops in Victoria shot him, unarmed, on the beach). There was no real reason for the whole buy-back, other than political point scoring based on a massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant), but that you would even post "spam" as fact in support of your argument points to near heroic stupidity.

Also, a good amount of the guns that were turned in were quite likely ex-military cruft from WWII, and old 22 target pistols owned by people that lost interest in plugging cardboard. If you have nearly any reason at all to have a gun in this country you can have it; farmers, target shooting, hunters, etc. You can't have an automatic, but then again, there's no good reason for a private citizen to need an automatic other than "I need to be able to kill a lot of people very quickly".

By the way shithead.......i went and found Australia's latest figures from their .gov site. Firearm related homicides DID spike to nearly double when their ban went in effect in 1995. Since then they leveled back out. It is also interesting to note that robberies also soared. Assaults have doubled since that time. Sexual assaults....you guessed it....doubled. Guess you really showed me!

http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~wcjlen/WC ... ralia.html

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 30, 2007, 1:32 pm

Old Article (2001) but it shows that countries with huge numbers of hand guns aren't shooting each other just because they own them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

Switzerland and the gun

Swiss troops

Switzerland has long maintained its armed neutrality

Guns are deeply rooted within Swiss culture - but the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept.

The country has a population of six million, but there are estimated to be at least two million publicly-owned firearms, including about 600,000 automatic rifles and 500,000 pistols.

This is in a very large part due to Switzerland's unique system of national defence, developed over the centuries.

Instead of a standing, full-time army, the country requires every man to undergo some form of military training for a few days or weeks a year throughout most of their lives.

Between the ages of 21 and 32 men serve as frontline troops. They are given an M-57 assault rifle and 24 rounds of ammunition which they are required to keep at home.

Once discharged, men serve in the Swiss equivalent of the US National Guard, but still have to train occasionally and are given bolt rifles. Women do not have to own firearms, but are encouraged to.

Few restrictions

In addition to the government-provided arms, there are few restrictions on buying weapons. Some cantons restrict the carrying of firearms - others do not.

The government even sells off surplus weaponry to the general public when new equipment is introduced.

Guns and shooting are popular national pastimes. More than 200,000 Swiss attend national annual marksmanship competitions.

But despite the wide ownership and availability of guns, violent crime is extremely rare. There are only minimal controls at public buildings and politicians rarely have police protection.

Mark Eisenecker, a sociologist from the University of Zurich told BBC News Online that guns are "anchored" in Swiss society and that gun control is simply not an issue.

Some pro-gun groups argue that Switzerland proves their contention that there is not necessarily a link between the availability of guns and violent crime in society.

Low crime

But other commentators suggest that the reality is more complicated.

Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.

Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.

From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country. [shadow=][/shadow]

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » April 30, 2007, 1:56 pm

You need to revisit the statistics you allegedly looked at, Kilmoll. Homicides in Austrailia have been on a downward trend over the last 10 years, having fallen from approximately 2 homicides per 100,000 citizens in 1997 to about 1.5 per 100,000 in 2005 (the last year for which statistics are published). Of those homicides, an average of 88.5% have been actual murders each year. Murders involving firearms have been on a steep decline since the mid 70's, and are now around 15% (using the most recent numbers available).

The "spike" you point to as evidence of the failure of gun restrictions occurred in 1996 and can largely be attributed to the Port Arthur massacre in which 35 people were killed (an additional 37 wounded) by a nut with an AR-15. That incident caused the percentage of firearm murders to jump to about 31% that year compared to around 20% in the years before and immediately after (this is not double, or even nearly double as you contend). It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of murders that occurred in Australia during these years involved friends, spouses, lovers or relatives. Only a relatively small percentage were committed by people unknown to the victim. These types of murders are not the sort that are typically prevented by gun-toting NRA zealots. Most people aren't packing heat to save themselves if / when their jilted lover decides to kill them.

Additionally, you need to do some homework on the alleged government gun grab you seem to think happened. The supposed forced surrender of firearms that you allege happened never occurred. The buyback program purchased restricted firearms from citizens who voluntarily relinquished the weapons for which they were legally licensed to own. In Australia, you can obtain a license to own firearms if you have a legitimate need to do so (being a collector or hunter is a good enough reason for most types of firearms), and have a secure means of storing your weapons and ammunition. Law abiding citizens were not stripped of their access to weapons (it's worth noting that there's no inherent right to own firearms in Australia as there is here).

miir · Post by **miir** » April 30, 2007, 2:52 pm

Hehe Xag... don't even waste your time with Kilmolol.
He usually opts for the 'make shit up' method when posting info to support his little arguments.

He also likes to isolate obscure factoids and present them out of context.
Typical tactics of gun freaks and whackjobs like michael moore.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » April 30, 2007, 3:01 pm

Xatrei wrote:It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of murders that occurred in Australia during these years involved friends, spouses, lovers or relatives. Only a relatively small percentage were committed by people unknown to the victim.

I am pretty sure that this is a common fact almost everywhere, not just in Australia.

Xatrei · Post by **Xatrei** » April 30, 2007, 3:23 pm

Boogahz wrote:I am pretty sure that this is a common fact almost everywhere, not just in Australia.

Certainly. I was hesitant to include it in my post, but decided that it was worth pointing out the fact that the perceived reduction in the amount of guns available to the law abiding citizens probably did little or nothing to prevent the majority of the murders committed with guns.

miir wrote:Hehe Xag... don't even waste your time with Kilmolol.
He usually opts for the 'make shit up' method when posting info to support his little arguments.

He also likes to isolate obscure factoids and present them out of context.
Typical tactics of gun freaks and whackjobs like michael moore.

True enough, but I just couldn't help myself hehe. Besides, even though Kilmoll can't be bothered to accept or understand the facts and actual statistics involved, hopefully shining a little light on his BS will sway any semi-retarded folk who are at risk of being convinced by his rhetoric.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » April 30, 2007, 5:01 pm

They need to pass laws banning concealed carry permits from wanna-be cops that still harbor dirty harry fantasies.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 30, 2007, 5:18 pm

kyoukan wrote:They need to pass laws banning concealed carry permits from wanna-be cops that still harbor dirty harry fantasies.

LOL. You are such a troll. Here's a snack for you, cunt. Take off your rose colored glasses and stop making stupid utopian statements without qualifyign them first with, "It would be great if they actually could....". You don't need a narrowed down specific law for everything. You will never have 100% perfection on anything. If you really are a dude playing a stupid whore on the intarweb, you do an amazingly realistic job.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » April 30, 2007, 6:04 pm

As Sueven said, who's probably the most balanced poster here, or at least takes the time to respond calmly to hostile flames almost always...is someone really hurt by Cart's comments? If so, you need to go to one of those Japanese self confidence schools or learn to blow things off about 2-3 seconds after reading them and move on.

Very legitimate. ^ All I have to say on that matter (as I've said before) is that Cartalas was occasionally funny and that I'm capable of shrugging off online insults with ease.

On topic: outlawing handguns will not stop criminals from using them.

VeeshanVault

Handguns

What is the most compelling reason to allow the sale of handguns in the United States?