Gun Control Poll

[Thorvir]

not sure if he's really 12, but he sounds about that old.

Alright then. Just wish he would calm down, regardless of his age.

[CrimsonKing]

not sure if he's really 12, but he sounds about that old.

Psyche is actually a smart guy,i have had several discussions with him on other topics....

In my time on this forum i have just come to accept that with so many people from vastly different backgrounds and cultures i'm not going to change anyones mind on this subject....

I believe in the 2nd and will continue to no matter what others opinions are,there will be no changing that.

I like to hunt with a gun and a bow....Both are designed for 1 purpose!

I live on the outskirts of a large city when i go there i'm carrying concealed.I train MMA fighters and boxers for a living,but in a 4 or 5 on one situations those skills become a lot less usefull and i will use what i have to use to defend myself.If someone else gets badly hurt for their actions that is just to damn bad!

Consequences and repercussions....

[aztek]

Psyche is actually a smart guy,i have had several discussions with him on other topics....

In my time on this forum i have just come to accept that with so many people from vastly different backgrounds and cultures i'm not going to change anyones mind on this subject....

I believe in the 2nd and will continue to no matter what others opinions are,there will be no changing that.

I like to hunt with a gun and a bow....Both are designed for 1 purpose!

I live on the outskirts of a large city when i go there i'm carrying concealed.I train MMA fighters and boxers for a living,but in a 4 or 5 on one situations those skills become a lot less usefull and i will use what i have to use to defend myself.If someone else gets badly hurt for their actions that is just to damn bad!

Consequences and repercussions....

well according to him, you are a weak man, for even considering a gun as a defence option.

his words

I would not want to have countrymen that need weapons to defend themselves, and think they can just lie down and die without them. You could not be my countryman, you are too much of a wuss to be an Aussie mate. Keep your views, just don't expect other to advocate such a weak defeatist and illogical position.

idk about you, but i do not see this post being written by even half smart adult.

Edited July 17, 2014 by aztek

[Thorvir]

Psyche is actually a smart guy,i have had several discussions with him on other topics....

I have noticed that too. Not sure why he decided to abandon that when confronting me, but, well, it's a free forum.

In my time on this forum i have just come to accept that with so many people from vastly different backgrounds and cultures i'm not going to change anyones mind on this subject....

I agree completely, but I do take offense when someone belittles my culture without any real justification for it.

I believe in the 2nd and will continue to no matter what others opinions are,there will be no changing that.

I like to hunt with a gun and a bow....Both are designed for 1 purpose!

I live on the outskirts of a large city when i go there i'm carrying concealed.I train MMA fighters and boxers for a living,but in a 4 or 5 on one situations those skills become a lot less usefull and i will use what i have to use to defend myself.If someone else gets badly hurt for their actions that is just to damn bad!

Consequences and repercussions....

Exactly. If they don't want to get killed/hurt, then leave well enough alone.

[Sweetpumper]

Anti-gun advocates routinely argue that more guns will result in more crime — but the exact opposite appears to be happening in one of the most progressive cities in the United States.

The city of Detroit has seen 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014, compared to the same period in 2013. Further, there have been 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig says the dramatic drop in these crimes is partly due to more residents arming themselves and fighting back against criminals. The police chief, who has repeatedly argued armed citizens deter crime, said “there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/16/whats-happening-in-one-of-the-most-progressive-cities-in-the-u-s-seemingly-undercuts-key-anti-gun-argument/

[Myles]

there have been 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses

To be fair, this is Detroit. There are also 22 percent fewer businesses.

[Thorvir]

To be fair, this is Detroit. There are also 22 percent fewer businesses.

LOL.

[aztek]

To be fair, this is Detroit. There are also 22 percent fewer businesses.

good point.

[+DieChecker]

He's saying that if insurgents in these countries can put up a fight against the invincible western military, we as citizens can as well.

Did your educators have to draw the lines between the dots for you as well?

We could defend against the military if we had to. The military ultimately depends on people, and ultimately infantry, to win any war. And if a sizable amount of citizens resisted and were armed, the military would not win.

Psyche sometimes will be purposefully dense to hammer home his point.

[Thorvir]

We could defend against the military if we had to. The military ultimately depends on people, and ultimately infantry, to win any war. And if a sizable amount of citizens resisted and were armed, the military would not win.

Psyche sometimes will be purposefully dense to hammer home his point.

Also I want to add that's it's not so much that we would have to fight against our own military in a situation like this, but the fact that the citizenry is armed (and armed well), would give mighty pause for any military that has to contend with such a situation.

[+DieChecker]

We've got one "Ban all guns" vote now!!!

[Myles]

We could defend against the military if we had to. The military ultimately depends on people, and ultimately infantry, to win any war. And if a sizable amount of citizens resisted and were armed, the military would not win.

This is not at the top of my list for reasons I own guns. However, I think we can all agree that things will not stay as they are for another 100 years. It some point there will be major power outages and unrest. Past lengthy power outages have shown us that people get stupid and loot, scavage and take advantage of others. I live out of town limits, so It would be up to me to protect my family.

[Drayno]

Enforce the laws already in place.

More laws would be redundant as criminals do not follow laws.

Gun control is a pretext to monopolize violence in the hands of the state, anyways.

Silly sheep. Let me translate:

Baaaaaaa

[+DieChecker]

This is not at the top of my list for reasons I own guns. However, I think we can all agree that things will not stay as they are for another 100 years. It some point there will be major power outages and unrest. Past lengthy power outages have shown us that people get stupid and loot, scavage and take advantage of others. I live out of town limits, so It would be up to me to protect my family.

Just ask the "peak oil" doom people. They will tell you that in 30 years we're going back to burning wood and riding horses.

[Thorvir]

Just ask the "peak oil" doom people. They will tell you that in 30 years we're going back to burning wood and riding horses.

They've been saying for 30 years anyway.

[psyche101]

The insurgents that still exist, ten years later. Wars can be won or lost in more than one way. Are you familiar with victory by attrition?

Middle Eastern Terrorists have enough resources to outlast the US? I seriously doubt it. All I see is leaders being killed off.

We disagree on this core thought; The American people can defend itself as a free people from a rogue, tyrannical gov't.

I think we can, others disagree.

No, that's a sideline everyone wants to discuss, I am one step further back, I do not think that the threat of The Government attacking it's people is a worthy excuse to own a deadly weapon, that's a crock. Everyone then started saying that guns would be good defence when I said "even if it did happen and it won't" THEN guns would be useless anyway. The Government is going to attack one day - as an excuse - is preposterous. Now if people think such a lame excuse is valid, how would one not come to the suspicion that an annual 12 Billion dollar industry is not influencing people? Australia and the UK came to the conclusion that home invasion a not a good enough reason to own a weapon, and after decades of being what Americans call "defenseless" we are doing just fine. And a big dog and good screens is much more effective than a gun anyway. If one is worried about such, you learn to defend yourself resulting in a healthy nation all round. As I said, when I did boxing the night before last, half the people I work with were there too. That health aspect is another positive side effect of banning guns.

[psyche101]

lmao, you are 12, and even less bright than i thought before,

And you are even more pathetic than I thought, gee, good comeback there, lots of vital information to bolster your view......

i never said you are weak without a gun, i said you are weak fighting alone, huge difference, yep, my assessment of you stands, insecure arrogant kid, nothing more. have fun growing up.

Yes you did, face up man!

aztek, on 15 July 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

you otoh, wont do anything until it concerns you, but guess what when it does, you alone will be too weak to do anything, and others wont do a thing cuz it does not affect them.

You think you are one to give advice about growing up? And here I was thinking you didn't have a sense of humour!!

and i see no reason to see your posts ever again, since you do not read what is written, but what you want to see, and argue with.

Gee, how will I get through my day without your pathetic ad homs and nonexistent debate!!! Tragedy!!!

Really bolstered your point there! Just not the one you intended to I think....

And you think I would be happy that someone like you has a gun? Your a poster boy for banning them.

[psyche101]

Now that is as crazy as you say people protecting themselves against the government is.

Yes Myles, sorry to let you down, but I think the threat of the Government taking over is a huge pile of Horse Hockey.

I know many people who favor legalizing pot, and none of them for medical reasons.

Fair enough, but I feel a drug issue should be in it's own thread. I don't feel comfortable discussing drugs and honestly do not feel they should be discussed here. I am sure there are some giant holes in the reasoning from this particular set of people.

[psyche101]

You can feel sorry for me all you want to. Doesn't make my statement any less true.

I wont argue that, everyone has an opinion but I still feel sorry for you if you think that is macho.

Show me where that is true.

You calling me tough when saying one who does not have a gun is defenseless.

I never said you were weak, so calm yourself. And, how do you think this has "hit some nerves"? How is it a "bit close to home"? You're starting to just make up stuff on the spot.

No, you did not say I was weak, Aztek did, and look at the responses - you're 12, your angry - how about just answering the damn question? I am not 12, I am not angry I am a grumpy old man, deal with it.

What have I made up on the spot?

Another common misconception. If you take guns away from every person, then the criminals will get guns illegally and use them against an unarmed populace. How is that so hard to comprehend? Wow.

How is it so hard to comprehend that making guns hard to get makes them expensive as well, so these people won't have them.

Who says I want to fight in the first place? Where does that come from?

And while he's doing that, show me where we don't have the right to defend ourselves, and don't have to right to oppose a repressive government.

Plus, this "macho" codswallop about being a man and fighting fair and not relying on a gun is really stupid. When it comes to my life, or the life of my loved ones, why in the hell would I ever want to fight fair?

Again, you've confused yourself. It IS about defense. That's not hard to grasp, why are you having so much difficulty with it? Also, where did this pacifist nonsense come from? I am as far from a pacifist as one can get. You're making up stuff on the spot again. Or maybe you're referring to someone else?

Macho codswallop = Pacifist nonsense.

I do not see it as about being about defence - the government, I mean really, that is the biggest load of crap and home invasion is NOT an excuse, what other reasons do you have for owning a gun?

Show me the stat that says nobody in the US has guns. And, actually, show me the stat that nobody in Australia has guns. Again, your misplaced tantrum toward me has confused you.

Who said nobody in the US has guns? What they hell are you talking about? The poll is about Guns in America man.

I did not say nobody in Australia has guns, I said we have banned guns. Farmers may still own them, as may police and military, and illegal guns are not used in home invasions, they are used by high level criminals against each other for the largest part. There will always be some troglodyte hiding a gun under his bed thinking he is getting away with something as well. But my kids have never seen an actual gun.

Come again? Show me where that is true. Please. I'd rather to NOT have to shoot an assaulter, but when it comes down to it, my life or his, it's an easy choice. Best that he didn't try to assault me in the first place, that's just plain common sense.

How many people die from accidental gun deaths every year? How many public shootings have claimed how many lives? Have you ever used a gun against a home intruder yourself? How many people actually do?

Right, our "archaic barbaric" culture.

Yes, killing by any standard should be considered as such. Gun culture is archaic and barbaric, deal with it.

I'll take that compared to a world where the citizens do not have the right to defend themselves, and are just considered prey. I'll take any culture that values the individual life so much that they are allowed to defend it at all costs. And you call me barbaric. Wow. Did you even think when you were posting this codswallop?

You think Australians are considered prey, yet who are the ones losing countrymen to public shootings?

No, I do not feel vigilante Justice is appropriate nor necessary.

Listen, I'm not sure why you flew off the handle like this, buy my initial post was not directed at you at all. It was in general; certain people tend to think that gun-owners who would rather defend themselves with any means necessary (with guns) are weak and cowardly. And that's a complete fabrication. I pointed that out, but it must have hit a bit close to home with you. I am sorry that happened, but your internet-rage is a bit misplaced.

You probably should not have quoted me then.

I do not have Internet rage, the forum does, I keep saying that "The Government" is not an excuse to own a gun, and as soon as anyone saw the slightest bit of reasoning that guns might actually be a bad thing I got pounced on how necessary they are, but the excuses just do not wash. 63 million in the UK and 22 and a half million Australians get by just fine without weapons for home invasion, and neither of us has had to worry about the Government bearing down on us. And THAT is what started the heated posting. Daniel told me that he defends the right for others to fight the government "in case they attack" all the meanwhile people are dying from accidents and massacres, all for what - the peace of mind that IF the Government attacks you will be prepared? Come ON. Who in their right mind would swallow that nonsense? Well, that is what I thought anyway, it seems many are keen to swallow that nonsense, and being as illogical, childish and stupid as the reasons to own a gun are, somehow, some people fight for them. If that illogical nonsense isn't tied to a 12 Billion dollar a year industry in some way, I would be rather surprised.

Nobody NEEDS a gun, just be honest, you have a culture in place, you WANT them, and will find any excuse to keep them. Mexico is the perfect excuse because as soon as the guns are gone, they will be replaced - decent logical reasoning - see the difference? I can't argue the Mexican angle because it makes sense, home invasion and "the Government" does not. It strikes me that any gun ban on the states would have to begin outside of the states. There would be a way, but the Gun Manufacturers would make sure it never sees the light of day, and lets face it, with the culture so entrenched in place nobody in the US wants guns gone really do they?

Edited July 17, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Psyche is actually a smart guy,i have had several discussions with him on other topics....

In my time on this forum i have just come to accept that with so many people from vastly different backgrounds and cultures i'm not going to change anyones mind on this subject....

I believe in the 2nd and will continue to no matter what others opinions are,there will be no changing that.

I like to hunt with a gun and a bow....Both are designed for 1 purpose!

I live on the outskirts of a large city when i go there i'm carrying concealed.I train MMA fighters and boxers for a living,but in a 4 or 5 on one situations those skills become a lot less usefull and i will use what i have to use to defend myself.If someone else gets badly hurt for their actions that is just to damn bad!

Consequences and repercussions....

Thank you for your kind words, very nice of you.

I don't wish to change minds, I simply believe a Gun Ban in the US is possible despite the opposition. I voted for the ban "like Australia" as it would be long term, but I do believe eventually possible - if people wanted that. I would say they do not because of brandishing poor excuses as reason. Diechecker explained the demographics, I accept that, demographics are the largest hurdle to overcome - no doubt. Logic works, bad excuses do not.

I can appreciate Hunting too, I get into sports, martial arts and boxing, but I have hunted pigs myself when I lived in a rural area. Good to be honest, both are indeed designed for one purpose.

But I cannot understand "The Government", I can understand Home Invasion, but feel there is more argument against than there is for. What I would like to dig up is how many home invasions happen with weapons that result in use of weapons against accidental gun deaths and public shootings and see if the fear is justified. I honestly doubt that it is.

A thought that has crossed my mind is the immense industry -12 billion annually. Imagine how many jobs that sort of money would create! And imagine how much infrastructure that would build. No more slum areas, and many more people employed with no reason to steal from others. What buys millions of guns could also provide housing and work for thousands and ease the problems people associate with need for a deadly weapon in the home.Some people just should not have a gun. People with Anti Government mindsets bring images of people like Timothy McVeigh to mind.

Edited July 18, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

Anti-gun advocates routinely argue that more guns will result in more crime — but the exact opposite appears to be happening in one of the most progressive cities in the United States.

The city of Detroit has seen 37 percent fewer robberies in 2014, compared to the same period in 2013. Further, there have been 22 percent fewer break-ins of businesses and homes, and 30 percent fewer carjackings.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig says the dramatic drop in these crimes is partly due to more residents arming themselves and fighting back against criminals. The police chief, who has repeatedly argued armed citizens deter crime, said “there’s no question in my mind it has had an effect.”

http://www.theblaze....i-gun-argument/

And Australia has not had a public shooting since the gun ban.

Psyche sometimes will be purposefully dense to hammer home his point.

In this case mate, I am having to drop to the same level in some instances.

Also I want to add that's it's not so much that we would have to fight against our own military in a situation like this, but the fact that the citizenry is armed (and armed well), would give mighty pause for any military that has to contend with such a situation.

One million shotguns won't be any deterrent against one Nuke. The year is 2014. Not 1800.

Edited July 18, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

We've got one "Ban all guns" vote now!!!

LOL, I have to say I am pleased for you, lets hope the voters speak up as to why they voted that

Edited July 18, 2014 by psyche101

[danielost]

Here is the problem in england, from what I have read on this site, the judges don't think you should defend yourself, and the police can't.k

[psyche101]

Here is the problem in england, from what I have read on this site, the judges don't think you should defend yourself, and the police can't.k

Yet 63 million people manage to live there. And without guns.

As such, it's not the problem you think it is - is it?

[danielost]

http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/year-of-the-gun-sydney-in-grip-of-upswing-in-shooting-crime-20130730-2qxev.html

Gun violence down in Detroit people armed.

Gun violence up in Sydney people in armed..

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

And since you insisted gun violence is up in england too.

Edited July 18, 2014 by danielost