StarGateWars Forums

I love how people try to do debates with people in other countries without understanding the countries laws, then try to use there own laws and terms in debates.

Rudy has a point though. But it's healthy to share your view and healthy debate has never hurt anybody. It is illuminating to hear what pro-gun Americans have to say about the situation.

Top 10 Famous World’s Safest Countries to Live in 2013

1.st Place

Iceland is on top and is widely recognized as the safest place everyone would like to live in 2013. This is No. 1 country in the world which has no enemies throughout the history of its independence. It is among the most stable economies of the world. The stable economy has happy people in the country that welcome people all over the world in pure friendlier manners. You would be amazed reading that Iceland has 0 percent crime rate.

Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact we don't all carry guns...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/my-wife ... -cornered/

That just happened yesterday! Who knows what that guy would've done to her or her kids.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/unconst ... peaks-out/
Also watch the video of this former marine being interviewed on CNN abou a letter he wrote to his senator in California. Brings some perspective. I like his last line "unconstitutional laws aren't laws"

KJ, if more guns create more crime, then how is it our crime rate is at historic lows while gun ownership is at historic highs?

Dovahkiin wrote:KJ, if more guns create more crime, then how is it our crime rate is at historic lows while gun ownership is at historic highs?

Your crime rate is still excessively high compared to civilised countries.
And it is also being lowered by people who no longer trust the police (ergo do not report the crime, thus lower crime rate) .. so yeah.. what does that say?

Juliette wrote:

Dovahkiin wrote:KJ, if more guns create more crime, then how is it our crime rate is at historic lows while gun ownership is at historic highs?

Your crime rate is still excessively high compared to civilised countries.
And it is also being lowered by people who no longer trust the police (ergo do not report the crime, thus lower crime rate) .. so yeah.. what does that say?

Yeah US crime rate might be at historical low... but that don't mean much. It's still more barbaric over there then our viking-era.

We can all find links that shows cases where guns help and where they don't help. Fact is I bet you I can find hundreds of cases right away where the guns are the problem - and a whole lot more people would have survived if it weren't for accidental shootings or police-mistakes.

-KJ

So basically your response is to say you don't care, guns are the devil and must be forbidden!

Kjarkur wrote:Rudy has a point though. But it's healthy to share your view and healthy debate has never hurt anybody. It is illuminating to hear what pro-gun Americans have to say about the situation.

[u]Top 10 Famous World’s Safest Countries to Live in 2013[/u]

1.st Place

Iceland is on top and is widely recognized as the safest place everyone would like to live in 2013. This is No. 1 country in the world which has no enemies throughout the history of its independence. It is among the most stable economies of the world. The stable economy has happy people in the country that welcome people all over the world in pure friendlier manners. You would be amazed reading that Iceland has 0 percent crime rate.

Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact we don't all carry guns...

No, it has to do with the culture and population size. if your country had even 30 million people, there would be crime and there would be murders as well.

I have a great respect for what the Icelandic people have done with regards to the banks and the home seizures by the banks...your country was even labelled a "terrorist nation" because your people refused to pay the debts of the banks. and just last week there were news reports of those same bankers being jailed...GOOD FOR YOU AND ICELAND!

But, what all that says is that your country is made up of a close community, for this reason alone you will not understand "bigger" country's problems.



Edit: and this is why the US needs guns: http://investmentwatchblog.com/h-j-res- ... ed-states/

Dovahkiin wrote:So basically your response is to say you don't care, guns are the devil and must be forbidden!

Actually I'm quite interested in other's people's view. You keep putting words in my mouth, but I do respect your opinions. I'd like you to meet me half way there and continue debating it in a civilized manner. There's no need for any BS.

I never said the guns were the devil. I said I BELIEVED they do more harm then good. This is my view, what I see, from where I'am standing.
You post links where guns help... have you never seen cases where guns caused more harm then good?


Regarding the banks of Iceland - Former prime minister of UK branded us terrorists(which was withdrawn and Iceland will pursue the matter) most international lawyers believe he can be sued for that and that Iceland is well within its rights.

Iceland DID negotiate to pay those debts (we said on day one that the estate of the banks in question would cover that, UK said no... and what happened? It recently showed that Iceland was right from the start. Former UK prime minister's terms which were outrages. Would US pay for debts of people that were no longer US citicenz, living in other countries? I think not - it's UK's job to keep an eye on their banks. Not our jobs. I suggest you read a bit more on this matter, and not only from UK media - you can look up for example what Eva Joly had to say about the matter. Iceland wanted it taken to court - and we would have payed whatever the court would decide.

I do agree with you that comparing small countries to big countries is different. But you also have to understand... small countries also have dangerous people. We have fewer, but the public is also smaller so they are the same threat to us as your criminals are to you. Again, aside from the fact, that we don't arm them. My point being, the problem begins when you arm the public - it's at that moment you arm the criminals as well.
-My view: More strict gun laws - like the suggestion said about mentally unstable people not being able to get guns. Perhaps a more up-to-date legislation system. (correct term?)

Let's try and keep on topic.

-KJ

Guild wrote:realistically , civillians should never h\ve been allowed guns.

but since they have been and taking them away would be impossible, at least stop selling assault rifles , or large capacity mags, there is no sense or reason to having any need for that much ammo

it takes 15 seconds for a barely expirienced gunman to change mags. Hi cap mags are more cosmetic and what most people call "high capacity" is actually standard clip size as designed.


Most gun deaths involve Less than a magazine worth of ammo. in fact, nearly half are suicides.
Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

debates such as this are what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.

However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.

What classifies an assault weapon? I've seen it classified in this thread and in regards to the clinton gun ban (and possible upcoming bans) as having a number of features.

1)fully automatic- These weapons are already banned to all but the biggest players in the gun world. You must first find a a dealer that deals in class III license to sell. only recievers
made before 1984 can be purchased, which runs at about 12,000-15,000 for ONLY the reciever.
In fact, only ONE, yes ONE crime on the record since 1934 was committed with a legally purchased fully automatic weapon.

2)Barrel Shroud. the only thing this accomplishes is that it keeps the user's hand away from the heat of the barrel.

3) and 4) pistol grip and moving stock. This rifle here Is actually ILLEGAL under the clinton gun ban, because it has these 2 characteristics


but this gun's firing mechanism is EXACTLY the same and both of these guns are .22



5) Silencers- silencers do NOT exist. they are called SUPPRESSORS. they dont make the movie *Ptew* sound. It reduces the Decibels that are put out by the gun, but you will still hear it. home defense uses prevent the temporary and permanent loss of hearing that is sure to occur when firing a pistol indoors, while also reducing recoil and eliminating muzzle flash, which can be temporarily blinding or disorienting. suppressors are rarely used in any type of crime and if someone was to be caught with one during commission of a crime, even if it is a crime that would normally get you a TICKET, increases the sentience to a MINIMUM 30 YEARS.

When the Clinton ban expired in 2004, everyone was anxious to study the results.

The National Institute of Justice found that the ban hadn't reduced gun crime or crime involving “high capacity” magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were “likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. Assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

The Center for Disease Control released a study and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”

The National Research Council noted that all of the studies they had looked at “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small…”

doc holliday wrote:[spoiler][/spoiler]

I have fallen in doc

GrizzZzzly wrote:Guns were designed to kill people. ergo, thus, therefore they are bad BAN THEM ALL! ALL OF THEM! FIGHT WITH WORDS!

ah yes, so all guns should be outlawed. those who would comply with that are not the ones that commit 99% of the gun murders in the US.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:Until such time as mental instabilities and insanity is cured, and until such time as criminality is finally eradicated, and until such time as the police can appear at a crime scene before a crime of violence can be committed people need to be able to defend themselves.

A few years back a fight broke out just outside my house. 2 big guys were kicking the crap out of 1 man. they were stamping on his head and kicking him in the face. not wanting to get involved i called the police. they told me someone else had already reported it and they were on their way. they never even turned up!

You can ban all the weapons you want, right on down the line from guns to baseball bats. if someone is intent on harming someone else they will use anything including their teeth...should we ban people from having teeth because we are willing to use our teeth to hurt others.

average response time of a police force in a metropolitan area is over 15 minutes, but a practiced CCW holder is 30 seconds can draw, aim and fire to put down a threat.









Let Me adjust your qote a little here KJ and leave you with some key points that were posted by YOU.

Kjarkur wrote:Look at other countries where guns aren't legal... have a look and see if children are being shot there.

Read up on the laws of EL Salvador. IT's law reads EXACTLY word for word to the laws in Iceland. E X A C T L Y. but explain to me how it has the HIGHEST gun homicide rate in the world?

Kjarkur wrote:A normal citizen should not be carrying automatic weapons!

automatic weapons are almost IMPOSSIBLE to own in the US. they are So difficult to own, that as I stated above, legally purchased automatic weapons have only been used in ONE crime since 1934

Kjarkur wrote:Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns. That’s 12,000 innocent people killed each year with guns, many of them possessed illegally.

the last 5 words are the key in that. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.

kj, the reason i think your country has an easier time enforcing the gun laws are because it is harder to get things into your country illegally (like guns), smaller population, and you guys didn't have many guns to begin with i bet compared to here. here on the other hand, there are already lots of guns, huge population, and it is EXTREMELY easy to get things here illegally (AKA guns) which given your countries situation, sure gun laws may work, here on the other hand, it would just do way more harm than good, and if anything i'd bet mass shootings would go up if there was an overall gun ban. different countries and different circumstances.

@KJ, you're still not getting the point i was making...never mind, have a look at this:

I don't see what it matters who dies. People are being killed and that's the only thing that matters. It's not for us to decide who is important and who is not.

Another policy I don't agree with - a person, conflicted or poor enough to break into somebody's home to steel a TV. Does that person deserve to be shot ?

You said laws wouldn't help. I'm saying guns wont help. Since people are being killed with guns.

If a person attacks you with their teeth you at least have a fighting chance. If someone walks up behind me and decides to kill me with his gun I don't stand much chance now do I. In fact, he can shoot my entire family with a pistol.

Oh and just because something else is killing more of your people, does not make the other options any less bad. It just means you have other problems as well.

P.S
What do you think to be American's problem ? What is the reason for so many cases of psychopaths on a killing spree ?
Could it perhaps be the results of violence ? Living somewhere where you may have to take a life to protect your own? Where you must be prepared to shoot those that enter your house without permission?
Is it possible that a mix of all of these things could be extremely damaging to people with fragile minds and require a safe, stable environment ?

No, that's pure speculation without even a hint if real psychology.

Should I allow someone to break into my house and do as they please, trust all they're going to do is take my TV and not harm me or my family?

If someone is breaking into an occupied residence, there's no guarantee they're not there to kill or rape.

If someone attacks me with their teeth,I absolutely will shoot them. Do I look like I want their rabies?