For all you anti gun hoplophobes on here

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80

username547863

Op must be a troll and just wants a new toy to play with

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 81

Good bloke

Original post by Hardballer

I don't bend the facts to promote mine

You just ignore them.

Reply 82

matt10101

As much as I LOVE guns and want some of my own, it really is a terrible idea, just look at gun crime here against it in the US, it's so much worse over there

Reply 83

Hardballer

Original post by NGC773

Op must be a troll and just wants a new toy to play with

Like I've said before you're only using a selection of countries on this graph, only a very smal selection of the total number of countries in this world. If you used every country in the world than your little graph wouldn't have such nice little pattern. Like I said that graph is from the gun control network and they bend the facts to promote their agenda and only cherry pick the countries that promote your biased opinion. start putting countries like brazil and south africa on there and your little pattern might start to get a little ****ed up, then put the rest of the worlds countries on there and you'll find that the graph has no correlation to gun ownership and gun deaths. In conclusion asking the gun control network what they think of guns is like asking the kkk what they think of black people, so stop using their skewed evidence to back up your claims.

Reply 84

WelshBluebird

The argument against guns is quite simply really.

Make guns legal = more guns on the street = easier to get hold of one = more gun crime.
While it is true that criminals will get hold of guns whatever the law, surely its best to make that as difficult as possible?

Reply 85

silverbolt

Original post by Hardballer

I would do whats nessecary to protect my life and if that means putting a .45 in his head then so be it, not much of a survivalist are you?

Whilst i agree with you here, i dont feel giving the public access to firearms is a good thing, America has always had the right to bear arms and the numbers of school shooting are low in relation to the populace. Over here however they are forbiddon hence a secret pleasure/bigger desire to get one. If we opened the market for guns every muppet is going to get one and then we have more than gangs to worry about.

I agree that so many firearms are in the hands of people who really shouldnt have them nd not enough in the hands of those that should. But letting everyone have one will cause more harm than good.

Original post by Hardballer

Ok, I own a semi automatic shotgun. I want a fully automatic assault rifle. you see where my problem lies?

Why? what possible reason could you have for wanting to own that kind of weapon? Both hunting and target shooting do not require that kind of firepower. THe automatic assualt rifle is not designed for target shooting nor hunting, its designed to kill human beings quickly and in larger numbers.

Original post by tazarooni89

I often hear the argument that guns should be legal because we have a right to "defend" ourselves. But this doesn't seem to make any sense?

A gun is a weapon for attack, not a for defence. How are you supposed to defend yourself with a gun, against someone else who has a gun? Are you meant to shoot at their bullet and knock it off course or something? If you want to defend yourself, you can get yourself a bulletproof vest; it'll protect you from bullets better than any gun will.

It goes on the adage that the best defense is a strong offense. Or kill before getting killed. Just because you havea gun does not mean you cant use it to defend yourself. You can defend yourself by shooting back.

Original post by Hardballer

Seriously the comments just get better and better on this thread, a kevlar vest might stop a 9mm, but not a rifle, he can just keep shooting and shooting until you die or he can shoot you in the head, thus you need a way of stopping the threat, your logic is that we should just equip soldiers on peacekepping missions with bulletproof armour.

That arguement makes no sense - the balistics do (pun not intended) that bullet vest will stop a pistol but not a rifle, but the vast majority of illegal gun usesr do not carry rifles around, nor do they in America where guns are legal.

Reply 86

Jenii

I can't believe anyone could read that story and then conclude we need guns to be more easily available on our streets.

Hardballer: please go away.

Reply 87

Good bloke

Original post by Hardballer

start putting countries like brazil and south africa on there and your little pattern might start to get a little ****ed up, then put the rest of the worlds countries on there and you'll find that the graph has no correlation to gun ownership and gun deaths.

I think you'll find that those counties were selected mainly because they are all western first world nations at a comparable stage of industrial, social and financial development. To add countries such as Brazil and, especially, South Africa wouldn't be a sensible comparison.

Do you have the figures you mention? I assume you do or you wouldn't have made the claim you just did. :rolleyes:

Perhaps you could show us them to demonstrate that your claim isn't just specious and uncorroborated.

Reply 88

Hardballer

Original post by Jenii

Hardballer: please go away

Reply 89

Hardballer

Original post by Good bloke

Perhaps you could show us them to demonstrate that your claim isn't just specious and uncorroborated.

south africa has strict gun laws compared to the US but more homicides and gun deaths. you're the one wanting to make the claim so you make the graph

Reply 90

Good bloke

Original post by Hardballer

you're the one wanting to make the claim so you make the graph

No. You claimed that a graph of all countries would show there is no correlation between gun ownership and gunshot deaths. That is a claim you need to back up with figures or a graph or we'll think the claim is so much hot air.

Reply 91

Hardballer

Original post by Good bloke

but if you don't use all the countries in the first place then the original claim is invalid as its not a fair comparison

Reply 92

Philbert

Original post by Hardballer

but if you don't use all the countries in the first place then the original claim is invalid as its not a fair comparison

Then why don't you make us a pretty graph showing the gun crime rates of all the countries in the world. Go on, off you go.

Reply 93

fwed1

Just a quick question about using guns for defense.
How long do you think a gun crime lasts? It isn't like in the films when a guy points a gun at you for 3 minutes whilst giving you a lecture it is usually someone walking/running/biking/driving up to someone shooting them without the victim even knowing what just happened and then getting out of there as quickly as possible.
The only time I would see a benefit in owning a gun would be home invasion because you could surprise them instead of what is usually the other way round, this would then probably not be defense just protecting your property from being stolen.

Agreeing with the user who posted this earlier:
If you feel so threatened by guns wear a bulletproof vest.

Reply 94

Jenny_Jazz

Original post by Hardballer

has strict gun laws really worked in this country?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371371/Stockwell-shop-shooting-Girl-5-critical-condition-gunman-fires-indiscriminately.html

**** no they haven't, we need our right to bear arms now,

No we don't need the right to bear arms. We don't need it at all.

Reply 95

Good bloke

Original post by Hardballer

but if you don't use all the countries in the first place then the original claim is invalid as its not a fair comparison

Prove it.

Reply 96

callum9999

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in America wasn't the original inclusion of a right to own a gun aimed at creating a militia to overthrow any unruly government (or invasion force)? It seems a bit redundant now as obviously the US government has far more fire power than it's civilians.

I can see the merits of guns in defence of property, but not so much in defence of yourself. Take a break-in for example, if guns were legal the person breaking in is likely to have one. If they wanted to use it they could just walk up to your room and shoot you, where you are unlikely to be able to reach a gun, load it and fire it in time. The main use in that situation seems to be you confronting the burglar - which risks your life as well (unless you're willing to shoot on sight, hopefully most aren't - if at all).

By my interpretation anyway, the use of guns as "defence" usually needs an element of surprise, give someone with a gun a chance to react then who knows what will happen.

Reply 97

jimmyjango

Original post by Hardballer

I don't think your comments could get any more narrow minded or arrogant even if you put "because I'm ****ing awesome thats why" at the end of every one of your replies

Haha, believe me i'm open minded however your arguments are pathetic... you want to go around shooting things?

To me you're narrow minded.

You make no sense, you're ignorant, childish, you don't acknowledge facts. This is not a debate this is you wanting a bigger gun and crying about it. Get some facts and try and convince us it's a good idea... :rolleyes:

Also your thing about it preventing genocide in the UK, are you serious? Ok if you actually are, as i'm not sure where you are coming from I assume you think our government will commit genocide on us, in that case then right before they do surely they will just confiscate our weapons? If they don't then I doubt we would have much chance against the better trained better equipt government forces. :rolleyes:

Wow! Please move to America.

Reply 98

TurboCretin

You can't prevent gun crime. And when it does happen, the fewer gun-toting nutters like you there are around, the better. People can't just take the law into their own hands, it's ridiculous.