277 replies to this topic

[Little Fish]

maybe the government should just ban crime.

[ninjadude]

Michelle, on 21 July 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

You wouldn't like any of the pro gun sites that have lots of example so I looked up "muggings thwarted by guns" and "robberies thwarted by guns"  There were endless lists from various sources.

Personally, I know of quite a few examples.

That's true. But it varies by state and locality. There are just as many that show the "stopper" was arrested and carted off to jail.

A gun owner was available in the Gifford shooting. They were afraid of being targeted by the shooter and by law enforcement and did nothing. Consider what many claim here on UM, a gun owner in the theater, sees the shooter. Is it a special effect by the theater - you shoot and get charged with murder. OR/ You find he's really shooting people so whip out your gun and shoot him - law enforcement then shoots you dead. I'm sure you feel good in your hereafter. OR/ multiple gun owners decide to open fire on each other and you have a wild shootout. I see this happening yet in the future.

[Mr. Smith]

ninjadude, on 21 July 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

That's true. But it varies by state and locality. There are just as many that show the "stopper" was arrested and carted off to jail.

A gun owner was available in the Gifford shooting. They were afraid of being targeted by the shooter and by law enforcement and did nothing. Consider what many claim here on UM, a gun owner in the theater, sees the shooter. Is it a special effect by the theater - you shoot and get charged with murder. OR/ You find he's really shooting people so whip out your gun and shoot him - law enforcement then shoots you dead. I'm sure you feel good in your hereafter. OR/ multiple gun owners decide to open fire on each other and you have a wild shootout. I see this happening yet in the future.

All things considered Nijadude, if someone is dumb enough to pull a theatrical stunt like that to scare people then they're playing Russian Roulette. Kinda like a person dressed up in a bigfoot costume running around the woods during hunting season. It is sad no one took him down. His armour might have saved his life if he was shot, but it certainly wouldn't stop a few 9mm's from ringing his bell enough to incapacitate him.

[FLOMBIE]

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

I was explaining that the Jews never had a chance to defend themselves because their right to bear arms was taken away.  Would they have stood a chance?  Not against what Hitler had, no.  But at least they would have had the choice to fight.

It would not have made a real difference. And as you explain later, anything can be used as a weapon to fight back.

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

People want us to cool down and not get heated over this.  While you guys voice your opinions from Berlin and Australia, it's only effecting us.  I'm the one who wouldn't be able to go on hunting trips with my family and friends.  Not any of you.  We are raised to be proud of our ancestors who fought and gave their lives to defend our rights.  It's who we are and what we came from.  Maybe it wouldn't effect all Americans as it would myself.  But I don't care who it is, even our own President, nobody will be removing or modifying our 2nd Amendment.  And nobody ever will.  They can raise our taxes, we'll b****.

I only meant you to cool down. You take this way to personal. I do not mean you any harm. I only want to debate weather a constitutional right makes a society more safe or dangerous.

You revolted against the evil British with guns, kicked them out, and rightfully founded a great nation, indeed, but why do does that give you the right to own guns these days? What about all the other countries with revolutions, how come they don't do that?
And for the hunting, well, you could actually acquire a hunting license. It takes time, sure, but if you love it so much, it would be well worth the time.
So I actually get to see what makes owning a gun so important to you: You can go out to the woods with your friends and go hunting, and you honour your ancestors with them. And you keep them for a "just in case" scenario, like getting robbed, or being able to fight against an invading nation.

Is life really so different without guns? We all in Europe are just as free as you. Yes, banging around in the woods (no pun intended!) will be over, but hat would make your life so bad without guns? I only see advantages: It's much easier to identify crooks. And illegal guns are also more difficult to obtain in countries with strict gun control.

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

What you people don't understand is, anything can be used as a weapon.  If someone wants to kill multiple people without a gun, well, they could easily take a Escalade out and run people over.  There is plenty of legal everyday materials that could be used to build bombs.

Do you really believe we do not know this? We may not like guns, but we are not stupid. But it's not the point you can kill with a pencil, we talk about guns, advanced killing devices. Besides, objects like combat knives, batons and brass knuckles are criminalised here as well.

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Yes, there will always be morons who misuse property to harm others.  But guns are just the same as those mentioned.  Property.

Yes, that's a good excuse for everything.

I raise the question again you have neglected before: In which democracy, besides the US, do the citizens have a constitutional right to own a gun?

And why is it only for you such a fundamental right in a democracy?

Edited by FLOMBIE, 22 July 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[Obviousman]

That's an interesting comment. Every time those outside the US suggest that reducing the availability of firearms might be a good idea, there seems to be a common call from some that we shouldn't be telling them what's best for their country. A couple of points:

1. Why isn't it possible that in fact, yes, we DO know better than you?

2. When you say "don't tell us how to run our country", remember the US has had a history of doing exactly that to other countries.

[ZaraKitty]

sktm06, on 21 July 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

You are simple minded and have absolutely ZERO common sense.  You honestly asked me, what do I need guns for?  Haven't I told you NUMEROUS times why I love and use them?  Ah but I did just check your profile and found you are just 19 and think you know everything still.  Probably haven't even moved out of the parents yet.

Throughout history do you know what type of leaders never want their citizens to defend themselves?  Dictators.

I'm done even replying to your half brained comments and ridiculous thoughts.  Keep yourself in Australia, I'm just glad you have no power to vote here in my country.

Do you seriously think your government is going to kill you all, stuff you in concentration camps and take away all your rights?

You're living in fear of your government, and your fellow man.

And you think I'm the half brained one.

The New Richard Nixon, on 21 July 2012 - 05:01 PM, said:

But then you go back to bows and arrows and slingshots or throwing axes

That hasnt happened anywhere around the world, stop being afraid of your fellow man and government.

[Myles]

ZaraKitty, on 21 July 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

If you live on a farm, buy a dog to defend your flock. a Marmara sheep dog or a cattle dog.

I see no reason anyone needs a gun.

A dog must sleep.  A dog costs money and is another animal reliant on me.   i have a small dog that can travel with us.   But he's inside at night.    The animals get my chickens at night.

It's OK to own guns.   There are uses for them.   More people die from cars than guns.   it doesn't matter what they are used for.   It matters how they are misused.
No matter how hard you try, Zarakitty, you cannot see the future.  You do not no when a gun may be needed for personal protection.  Mostly i speak of a collaps of the power in the USA.

[Toadie]

What a crying shame you can't go out and hunt wild innocent animals for fun. Maybe you want to stick their head up in your house and use their fur for mat in your house. Its disgusting killing animals for sport

Edited by Toadie, 22 July 2012 - 03:13 AM.

[Michelle]

ninjadude, on 21 July 2012 - 07:56 PM, said:

That's true. But it varies by state and locality. There are just as many that show the "stopper" was arrested and carted off to jail.

A gun owner was available in the Gifford shooting. They were afraid of being targeted by the shooter and by law enforcement and did nothing. Consider what many claim here on UM, a gun owner in the theater, sees the shooter. Is it a special effect by the theater - you shoot and get charged with murder. OR/ You find he's really shooting people so whip out your gun and shoot him - law enforcement then shoots you dead. I'm sure you feel good in your hereafter. OR/ multiple gun owners decide to open fire on each other and you have a wild shootout. I see this happening yet in the future.

In my neck of the woods the "stopper" is very rarely carted off to jail. Of course there is an investigation, but it is usually justifiable. Simply because the majority have guns doesn't mean it is the wild west. There have been many instances where business owners have held armed robbers until the police arrived. A few instances haven't turned out so well, but by in large, most of them do. It is rarely in the news, but is not uncommon among the business owners in the area where we have our own business.

Of course common sense needs to be used. The Gifford shooting was in a political arena, where there was a large crowd..not to mention probably having security. A wise, responsible, legal gun owner would certainly think twice about pulling a gun in that situation. It shows a level head as far as I am concerned.

As for the shooting in the theater...it's difficult for me to imagine the scenario. It's too surreal for me. My first instinct is to say it wouldn't have been wise to pull a gun in such chaos. Apparently there aren't as many trigger happy, gun carrying yahoos, in the US, as a lot of people think, or they are calculating, reasonable people that know when to use them and more importantly...when not to.

Edited by Michelle, 22 July 2012 - 03:54 AM.

[Myles]

Toadie, on 22 July 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

What a crying shame you can't go out and hunt wild innocent animals for fun. Maybe you want to stick their head up in your house and use their fur for mat in your house. Its disgusting killing animals for sport

Where did someone mention killing animals for sport?

[psychoticmike]

yes lets ban firearms. because hey, if we did that, all crime would completely cease to exist. oh thats right, it wouldn't!
but since some people want to ban guns we should also ban all of the following.

1. water (responsible for thousands of deaths all throughout history)

2. rocks. (one of the number 1 killers back in the day)

3. gasoline (its pretty easy to throw it on someone and light a match)

4. finger nails ( if i let mine grow long enough, i can slit peoples wrists or jugular veins)

5.rope (used a lot in the past and still to this day)

6.  cars ( you know how many people i could kill by driving one into a packed mall?)

7. kitchen knifes (used in countless murders)

8. pharmaceutical pills (great weapon, especially if the victim was a pill popper)

9.  wild animals ( all i gotta do is hook up a battery powered bug zapper to their butts and their good to go)

10. arms and legs (they can be very dangerous you know)

the list could go on and on. all of these can be used for good or evil. if we banned guns and all of these except 1. and 10. it wouldn't make a difference. killers will be killers, but if we banned guns, we would leave ourselves wide open to this.


Warning! The Following Link Is Very Graphic ( not for children)


History Of Gun Control

lets play a game of "would you rather"

would you rather be one of those armenians?

one of those soviets?

one of those chinese?

one of those germans?

one of those cambodians?

a former citizen of uganda?

should i keep going?

now do you see the importance of fire arms?

i would only concider giving up my right to own them right after every government gets rid of all of theirs.

in an ideal world there would be no crime, but we do not live in that world and anyone thinking of making a peaceful world by force is only gonna be met with force.

let me guess, i'm paranoid right? even after all this documented history, i'm nuts because i don't trust any of the corrupt criminal governments all around the world enough to let go of my 2nd amendment.

Edited by psychoticmike, 22 July 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[Obviousman]

"He was already amassing an arsenal of weapons and ammunition. He bought two Glock pistols, a semi-automatic rifle and a shotgun during the last two months from guns stores, and 6000 rounds from websites. All were purchased legally"

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz21Kamo81Y

Yeah, you guys don't need to think about gun control.

[Czero 101]

You know, the funny thing here is that this topic is really not about "banning guns".

Its interesting that the "pro-gun" crowd here seem to take the stance that "gun control" = "taking away my guns", when in reality, the treaty that this thread is about is concerned with regulating and safeguarding the international arms trade to prevent weapons of all kinds from illegally falling into the "wrong hands".

Has any one of the "pro gun" side who is here screaming (virtually, of course) "only from my cold dead hands!!!11!!" even bothered to look at the website that was linked in the first post?

http://www.un.org/di...varms/ArmsTrade

Oh wait... let me guess... some did go look at the site and saw where it occasionally refers to the "States" and, instead of understanding that this refers to "Member States" that are part of the United Nations (in other simpler words "other countries in the UN"), assumed that it was referring only to the "United States"....?



The section that is probably most relevant to this whole topic is the section on Small Arms and Light Weapons...

http://www.un.org/di.../convarms/SALW/

Quote

Small Arms

Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower. The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world.

A worldwide scourge
The illicit trade in small arms, light weapons and ammunition wreaks havoc everywhere. Mobs terrorizing a neighbourhood. Rebels attacking civilians or peacekeepers. Drug lords randomly killing law enforcers or anyone else interfering with their illegal businesses. Bandits hijacking humanitarian aid convoys. In all continents, uncontrolled small arms form a persisting problem.

Weapons of choice
Small arms are cheap, light, and easy to handle, transport and conceal. A build-up of small arms alone may not create the conflicts in which they are used, but their excessive accumulation and wide availability aggravates the tension. The violence becomes more lethal and lasts longer, and a sense of insecurity grows, which in turn lead to a greater demand for weapons.
Most present-day conflicts are fought mainly with small arms, which are broadly used in inter-State conflict. They are the weapons of choice in civil wars and for terrorism, organized crime and gang warfare.

Taking their toll, violating rights
The majority of conflict deaths are caused by the use of small arms, and civilian populations bear the brunt of armed conflict more than ever. Also, small arms are the dominant tools of criminal violence. The rate of firearms-related homicides in post-conflict societies often outnumbers battlefield deaths. These weapons are also linked to the increasing number of killings of UN employees and peacekeepers, as well as workers from humanitarian and non-governmental organizations.

Small arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groups. More human rights abuses are committed with small arms than with any other weapon. Furthermore, where the use of armed violence becomes a means for resolving grievances and conflicts, legal and peaceful dispute resolution suffers and the rule of law cannot be upheld.

Development denied
Contemporary armed conflict is the main cause of people fleeing their homes, and is now the most common cause of food insecurity. Armed violence can aggravate poverty, inhibit access to social services and divert energy and resources away from efforts to improve human development. Countries plagued by armed violence are behind in attaining the Millennium Development Goals. High levels of armed violence impede economic growth. According to the World Bank, nothing undermines investment climates as much as armed insecurity.

Less information on small arms than on nuclear weapons
Reliable data sets on small arms can only be built if countries provide information on production, holdings, trade, legislation and use. But of all transparency measures on weapons systems, those on small arms are the least developed. According to the Small Arms Survey, "more is known about the number of nuclear warheads, stocks of chemical weapons and transfers of major conventional weapons than about small arms".
There are no accurate figures for the number of small arms and light weapons currently in circulation globally. Sources estimate the total to be at least 875 million. The majority of small arms - generally the only category of weapons not falling under Government monopoly of possession and use - are in private hands.

How do small arms become illicit?
Sources of small arms supplies to areas of crisis and conflict are varied. Domestically, small arms can enter illicit circulation through distribution, theft, leakage, divergence, pilferage or resale. Shipments of small arms to conflict zones from abroad are most often small-scale consignments - a steady trickle of weapons across porous borders. The cumulative destabilizing force of such small-scale trade is not to be underestimated, particularly in unstable regions where small arms are traded from one conflict to another.

Small arms and the UN
Governments have a responsibility to ensure public safety and they have an interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. So they should ensure that small arms from Government stocks or from private ownership are not misused and do not enter illicit circuits, where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty.
To attain those goals, within the UN, countries have agreed on several commitments on small arms control: the Firearms Protocol, the Programme of Action on small arms - including an Instrument on marking and tracing - and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.
The topic of small arms comes up in other discussions as well. Countries are giving separate attention to closely related issues, such as armed violence, child soldiers, the protection of civilians in armed conflict, ammunition, the arms trade treaty and the UN register of conventional arms.

Please... someone else go through that site and tell me where it says that the UN intends to take legally obtained guns away from the US populace. I've looked... I can't find it... of course, its possible I missed it, though.

Oh, and I tried watching the OP's video about this, really I did.... but he's so paranoid an misinformed to the point of willful ignorance about this topic that I couldn't get through more than the first few minutes before I was in real danger of clawing my eyes / ears out.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 22 July 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[ZaraKitty]

Myles, on 22 July 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

A dog must sleep.  A dog costs money and is another animal reliant on me.   i have a small dog that can travel with us.   But he's inside at night. The animals get my chickens at night.

It's OK to own guns.   There are uses for them.   More people die from cars than guns.   it doesn't matter what they are used for.   It matters how they are misused.
No matter how hard you try, Zarakitty, you cannot see the future.  You do not no when a gun may be needed for personal protection.  Mostly i speak of a collaps of the power in the USA.

Dog's have been specifically BRED to protect your animals. After 14000 years I think they got it right, the dog sleeps with the animals and you usually have three.

Why are people in the USA so afraid of their government?!

[ZaraKitty]

Also, did I mention that about 500 gun related fatalities happen per year in Australia, England and Germany COMBINED. There's something like 9000 (closer to 10) in America per year. You can say cars do the same, you can say knives do the same. But the maths is simple. If you restrict the ability to obtain firearms you would save lives.


Are guns really worth all those lives?