Gun Control

[Vy'drach]

People who regard guns as "lower" than them are imbeciles who don't realize its just a tool. Is a man any less of a man because he has to use a hammer for a nail? Admittedly, I would admire anyone who could hammer nails with their bare hands, but I also admire someone with the balls and charm to talk himself out of a gunpoint situation too.

For the rest of us who lack these natural and rare abilities, we have tools to help us. They are not "crude", or "below" anyone's intelligence. They help solve problems we otherwise may not overcome, and like any other tool need to be handled with responsibility.

Agreed, and guns are far from crude themselves. A club is "crude" (But still highly effective), but a gun, some of the designs now are revolutionary. Are blowing the minds of what people thought possible, even outside the fields of firearms. Granted their perceived "purpose" may seem crude, but they themselves aren't.

[Asper Sarnoff]

That's because you live in a socialist country compared to anywhere in North America.

Canada isn't as socialist as other European countries but I feel much the same way when I walk the streets at night in Toronto...there just isn't a sense of danger.

THAT, you don't have to tell me. Another reason why the idea of moving over the 'pond' is so intriguing to me.

But, politics doesn't fully explain why it is like this. Particularly if one look at the difference between the US and Canada. I'm fully aware that he is viewed as "socialist-rat" by more conservative Americans, but if one watches Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" it's hard not to agree with the conclusion he comes to. Neither violent games, movies, hidden messages in metal songs or other of the things normally blamed fully answers the question to why it is like this. The answer, is fear. Being bombarded by tales from the mass media about people being killed in their own homes, or shot down on their way to the grocery store are causing an all-consuming paranoia. And as said by a certain tiny green man with big floppy ears: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to  hate. Hate leads to suffering".

Not a source known for accuracy perhaps, but there is a fair point to it.

People who regard guns as "lower" than them are imbeciles who don't realize its just a tool. Is a man any less of a man because he has to use a hammer for a nail? Admittedly, I would admire anyone who could hammer nails with their bare hands, but I also admire someone with the balls and charm to talk himself out of a gunpoint situation too.

For the rest of us who lack these natural and rare abilities, we have tools to help us. They are not "crude", or "below" anyone's intelligence. They help solve problems we otherwise may not overcome, and like any other tool need to be handled with responsibility.

Liking a weapon to a tool sounds quite twisted in my ears. While one can easily kill someone with a hammer, or simply use your own hands, it's meant to fit inside a very specific role. If you have something to nail together, you'll get a hammer (Or a spike-gun if you're doing something big), it's very much a necessity for doing the job. The reason firearms was originally created was to cause as much damage to a being or an object as possible. Is that a necessity?

Pardon me if I come across as anti-gun, as that is not the case. With army service ahead of me, and a redneck town in Montana, where every third person out on the street was packing a piece, was the place I've felt the most... home, and fitting for me, ever, that would be a tad backwards and hypocritical. Besides, I'm a enough of a man to admit I'm still a little boy inside, and like things that go: BOOM.

Before I end, I'll ask a question. I hope as many of you as possible can find time to answer it.

If you could chose between a world where guns are readily available, legally, or one where they didn't exist at all, where would you chose to live, and maybe raise a family even?

[Vy'drach]

Before I end, I'll ask a question. I hope as many of you as possible can find time to answer it.

If you could chose between a world where guns are readily available, legally, or one where they didn't exist at all, where would you chose to live, and maybe raise a family even?

I'd live in the world where guns are readily available, since the absence of guns wont change the occurrence of crime. If it isn't guns, it's knives, if it isn't knives, it's clubs, if it isn't clubs, it's rocks, if it isn't rocks, it's fists.

The lack of firearms wont cause an absence in violence and crime, just a slightly different way it is presented.

And guns are a tool, granted they were designed to inflict bodily harm on things, but that is not their sole use. Hell, I have seen my grandfather trim trees with a 12 gauge. Not necessarily the most practical approach to trimming the trees (though it's up there considering he doesn't like people on his property too much, the trees are tall, and he is an aging man). Same way that a steak knife, designed to render cooked cow muscle into bite sized bits is a common cause of intentional death. It wasn't designed for it, but it works perfectly in that regard.

["User"]

I'd live in the world where guns are readily available, since the absence of guns wont change the occurrence of crime. If it isn't guns, it's knives, if it isn't knives, it's clubs, if it isn't clubs, it's rocks, if it isn't rocks, it's fists.

I don't know about in the states but Toronto (5th largest city in North America) has an almost virtual "gun ban" in our city (and province - except for hunting) yet our crime rate via knives, clubs etc is one of the lowest among big cities on the continent.  Same with other big Canadian cities.  I fail to see how this would be any different across the border...unless the mentality there is a completely different.

The lack of firearms wont cause an absence in violence and crime, just a slightly different way it is presented.

In Canada this is clearly not the case though.

And guns are a tool, granted they were designed to inflict bodily harm on things, but that is not their sole use. Hell, I have seen my grandfather trim trees with a 12 gauge. Not necessarily the most practical approach to trimming the trees (though it's up there considering he doesn't like people on his property too much, the trees are tall, and he is an aging man). Same way that a steak knife, designed to render cooked cow muscle into bite sized bits is a common cause of intentional death. It wasn't designed for it, but it works perfectly in that regard.

You have a valid point.

[Vy'drach]

I don't know about in the states but Toronto (5th largest city in North America) has an almost virtual "gun ban" in our city (and province - except for hunting) yet our crime rate via knives, clubs etc is one of the lowest among big cities on the continent.  Same with other big Canadian cities.  I fail to see how this would be any different across the border...unless the mentality there is a completely different.

In Canada this is clearly not the case though.

The mentality is a bit different here, but it's also the environment and people.

I'm not sure exactly how it is in Canada, but down here in the states, the economic state, along with cultural mingling, and various other things make people here worse it seems.

People in Canada just seem to be more tolerant of others, while down here, large groups of one ethnicity hate another. At my first high school (and middle and elementary too, actually), the Hispanics HATED the Armenians for the most part. Rare exceptions, but for the most part, they'd claim certain "territories" for themselves and make wanna be gangs (in middle school), and there'd be "hell to pay" if you crossed their lines. Then when it got to high school, they were in actual gangs, and like I said... somewhere, my first high school had six murders in one year. On school grounds, during school hours, no less. None of em were firearm related. One of em was tire-iron related, but I don't see anyone trying to ban those or any other bludgeoning tool.

Anyway, people here seem to be less educated, more violent, and in a state of desperation and aggression. Banning guns here won't change that, at "best" you'd have people killing each other with tire-irons, crowbars, and blades (which is considerably harder to trace someone down if they use than a gun), and most likely, you'd have more people killed in their homes by other means, since the law-abiding citizens wouldn't have guns, thus making criminals less afraid to go after them.

Just to give you an idea of what I mean, sort of, one of my best friends, James, has in his room:

Several bats (Some of them with nails driven through them, one with barbed wire wrapped around it)

Tire-irons

Several sections of rebar

Several lead pipes

"Fantasy" weapons that are still capable of killing a man quite easily. One was something he calls the "Ogre bat," which, as his dad put it, "If you hit someone in the head with that, you'd have to put your foot on their face to yank that thing out."

Industrial crowbars (or prybars, if you prefer)

several machetes (he actually found one stashed near the train tracks. His friend said it was most likely one a gang member hid there so it'd be nearby incase shit hits the fan, and he was right, that probably is why it was there)

and around his room are several very nice knives, all ready at a moments notice.

Thing is, these are all legal and easily acquired. And would be very hard to track if he actually killed someone with em.

[Asper Sarnoff]

A weapon like those you mention there Vydrach might be harder to track down after the murder. But while a single man with a gun can kill an entire group of people standing around him, a person trying the same with a crowbar would quickly be overwhelmed, at least is those people he attacked weren't spineless cowards. A more efficent weapon does make killing easier and considerably more efficent, and thus more common.

As for the gangs. Also spawned from fear, because people feel unsafe and gang together in groups for protection.

[Vy'drach]

A weapon like those you mention there Vydrach might be harder to track down after the murder. But while a single man with a gun can kill an entire group of people standing around him, a person trying the same with a crowbar would quickly be overwhelmed, at least is those people he attacked weren't spineless cowards. A more efficent weapon does make killing easier and considerably more efficent, and thus more common.

As for the gangs. Also spawned from fear, because people feel unsafe and gang together in groups for protection.

If someone goes batshit insane and tries to mass kill people, yes, a gun may cause more fatalities. But the more common occurence is someone killed in a parking lot, back alley, or their own home, in which case a bludgeoning tool/blade is by far better, since it makes little noise, doesn't draw attention, and the person killed might not be discovered from hours to weeks (It has happened that a body wasn't discovered for weeks). In that time, the murderer can remove all evidence, escape, and/or kill again easily, making the gun a liability, not an aid.

As for gangs, I wouldn't know the mentality of it, since I don't like gangs. However, I don't think it's so much a "fear" thing, as a "common goal and efficiency" thing, at least when it comes to the larger gangs around here.

["User"]

The mentality is a bit different here, but it's also the environment and people.

I'm not sure exactly how it is in Canada, but down here in the states, the economic state, along with cultural mingling, and various other things make people here worse it seems.

People in Canada just seem to be more tolerant of others, while down here, large groups of one ethnicity hate another. At my first high school (and middle and elementary too, actually), the Hispanics HATED the Armenians for the most part. Rare exceptions, but for the most part, they'd claim certain "territories" for themselves and make wanna be gangs (in middle school), and there'd be "hell to pay" if you crossed their lines. Then when it got to high school, they were in actual gangs, and like I said... somewhere, my first high school had six murders in one year. On school grounds, during school hours, no less. None of em were firearm related. One of em was tire-iron related, but I don't see anyone trying to ban those or any other bludgeoning tool.

Anyway, people here seem to be less educated, more violent, and in a state of desperation and aggression. Banning guns here won't change that, at "best" you'd have people killing each other with tire-irons, crowbars, and blades (which is considerably harder to trace someone down if they use than a gun), and most likely, you'd have more people killed in their homes by other means, since the law-abiding citizens wouldn't have guns, thus making criminals less afraid to go after them.

Just to give you an idea of what I mean, sort of, one of my best friends, James, has in his room:

Several bats (Some of them with nails driven through them, one with barbed wire wrapped around it)

Tire-irons

Several sections of rebar

Several lead pipes

"Fantasy" weapons that are still capable of killing a man quite easily. One was something he calls the "Ogre bat," which, as his dad put it, "If you hit someone in the head with that, you'd have to put your foot on their face to yank that thing out."

Industrial crowbars (or prybars, if you prefer)

several machetes (he actually found one stashed near the train tracks. His friend said it was most likely one a gang member hid there so it'd be nearby incase shit hits the fan, and he was right, that probably is why it was there)

and around his room are several very nice knives, all ready at a moments notice.

Thing is, these are all legal and easily acquired. And would be very hard to track if he actually killed someone with em.

You're exactly right with everything you've said from my personal experience. I've seen more then my fair share of travel in the states (from the west, north, south, and east) and I understand how the mentality is down there.  Makes me feel silly for even asking the question because I should have figured it out myself

And yes, we are extremely tolerant up here up in general because of multiculturalism.  You come up to the Greater Toronto Area and it will probably be the most diverse city you've ever seen. 

[CrypticQuery]

Yeah, for some reason, the U.S. is filled with several groups that are intolerant or hate each other.  We're statistically more violent than many other countries

Just to get outta serious mode for a second, this video demonstrates a hilarious scenario for the banning of guns

[Robert Monroe]

Liking a weapon to a tool sounds quite twisted in my ears. While one can easily kill someone with a hammer, or simply use your own hands, it's meant to fit inside a very specific role. If you have something to nail together, you'll get a hammer (Or a spike-gun if you're doing something big), it's very much a necessity for doing the job. The reason firearms was originally created was to cause as much damage to a being or an object as possible. Is that a necessity?

Pardon me if I come across as anti-gun, as that is not the case. With army service ahead of me, and a redneck town in Montana, where every third person out on the street was packing a piece, was the place I've felt the most... home, and fitting for me, ever, that would be a tad backwards and hypocritical. Besides, I'm a enough of a man to admit I'm still a little boy inside, and like things that go: BOOM.

Before I end, I'll ask a question. I hope as many of you as possible can find time to answer it.

If you could chose between a world where guns are readily available, legally, or one where they didn't exist at all, where would you chose to live, and maybe raise a family even?

I don't see how its twisted. By definition a tool is merely a mechanical device that helps perform a function. A gun is merely the descendant of the bow, a device meant to maim or kill from a distance. So yes, it is a tool. I see where you are coming from, and agree to an extent, but a gun IS a tool, and nothing more or less.

And I wouldn't really care either way which world I lived in. A world without guns would just be using rocks and sharp sticks instead.

Yeah, for some reason, the U.S. is filled with several groups that are intolerant or hate each other.  We're statistically more violent than many other countries

Just to get outta serious mode for a second, this video demonstrates a hilarious scenario for the banning of guns

I'm pretty our statistics are higher because we have a dickton higher population than pretty much every other nation in the world but Russia and China.

[CrypticQuery]

I'm pretty our statistics are higher because we have a dickton higher population than pretty much every other nation in the world but Russia and China.

There is always that

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I'd live in the world where guns are readily available, since the absence of guns wont change the occurrence of crime. If it isn't guns, it's knives, if it isn't knives, it's clubs, if it isn't clubs, it's rocks, if it isn't rocks, it's fists.

The lack of firearms wont cause an absence in violence and crime, just a slightly different way it is presented.

And guns are a tool, granted they were designed to inflict bodily harm on things, but that is not their sole use. Hell, I have seen my grandfather trim trees with a 12 gauge. Not necessarily the most practical approach to trimming the trees (though it's up there considering he doesn't like people on his property too much, the trees are tall, and he is an aging man). Same way that a steak knife, designed to render cooked cow muscle into bite sized bits is a common cause of intentional death. It wasn't designed for it, but it works perfectly in that regard.

Same here.

And I agree with Vydrach's statement.

[Asper Sarnoff]

I don't see how its twisted. By definition a tool is merely a mechanical device that helps perform a function. A gun is merely the descendant of the bow, a device meant to maim or kill from a distance. So yes, it is a tool. I see where you are coming from, and agree to an extent, but a gun IS a tool, and nothing more or less.

Perhaps I just worded myself a little bad in that example. Still suffering from jet-lag, bear with me.

What I really meant, is that those people are against violence and weapons in general, not just firearms. While I respectfully disagree with that choice, believing there can be situations where violence is the only option, it's a choice they have made, and I have no right to tell them if they are in any way lesser beings for that more than I could scorn someone for believing in a different deity than me.

And I wouldn't really care either way which world I lived in. A world without guns would just be using rocks and sharp sticks instead.

But, I think most will agree with me here, it's in most situations easier to kill another being with a firearm than with a rock or a stick. Not only is it much more efficent, but it also gives a certain distance between the people on either side of the gun. Many people could under the right circumstances gather enough determination to just squeeze a trigger in for a split second, but not as many would be able to sit over someone for half a minute, bashing a rock to their head untill their victim finally let go off live.

With great power, comes great responsibility. Sadly, not all people have a high enough quantity of that rare quality.

I'm pretty our statistics are higher because we have a dickton higher population than pretty much every other nation in the world but Russia and China.

China and India in fact. But even when the amount of homicide is split on the population, US rank pretty high. Higher than all other, well, I can't really say civilised can I? developed countries. Also the amount of homicides caused by guns put the US quite high up. Around 40% if memory serves.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

[Asper Sarnoff]

Ah, come on Julius! It's funny, but propaganda nonetheless. Fact of the matter is, both extremes can work just fine under the right circumstances. Norway has strict laws on gun-control, and is one of the safest places on planet earth to live in.

[Robert Monroe]

Ah, come on Julius! It's funny, but propaganda nonetheless. Fact of the matter is, both extremes can work just fine under the right circumstances. Norway has strict laws on gun-control, and is one of the safest places on planet earth to live in.

While this is true, I would like to cite that heavy gun control is WHY the USA has the second ammendment specifically mentioned. In the 18th and 19th centuries, civilians could not own weapons beyond hunting in Britain, for fear of, what else, revolution. A defining point of the 2nd amendment is it exists to overthrow the government should it fall out, and to that degree Julius' poster, propagandish as it may be, has a point.

And now you know.

[CrypticQuery]

While this is true, I would like to cite that heavy gun control is WHY the USA has the second ammendment specifically mentioned. In the 18th and 19th centuries, civilians could not own weapons beyond hunting in Britain, for fear of, what else, revolution. A defining point of the 2nd amendment is it exists to overthrow the government should it fall out, and to that degree Julius' poster, propagandish as it may be, has a point.

And now you know.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

While this is true, I would like to cite that heavy gun control is WHY the USA has the second amendment specifically mentioned. In the 18th and 19th centuries, civilians could not own weapons beyond hunting in Britain, for fear of, what else, revolution. A defining point of the 2nd amendment is it exists to overthrow the government should it fall out, and to that degree Julius' poster, propagandish as it may be, has a point.

And now you know.

Heh, thanks.  

I couldn't resist posting that, I did it partly for shits and giggles...

Ah, come on Julius! It's funny, but propaganda nonetheless. Fact of the matter is, both extremes can work just fine under the right circumstances. Norway has strict laws on gun-control, and is one of the safest places on planet earth to live in.

Um, Asper, no offense, but Norway is "safe", with "low crime" because

1) Norwegians have better social services there to keep people employed and off the streets

2) Norway more effective police and

3) Norway is a mostly white nation.  It doesn't have certain racial/ethnic minority expatriate groups (for example, Muslims, Arabs, Blacks, etc.) living in expatriate slums there in mass quantities, creating gangs, going on welfare, leeching off the social services, having 1,000,000 kids per family, and causing problems.  Sorry to sound racist, that's NOT my intention.

The strict gun laws have nothing to do with it.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Can you really prove this though?  While I can't speak for Norway I can tell you that Canada is one of the most multicultural countries in the world with a LOT of minorities - heck our 911 services in Toronto have to be available in like....at 50 different languages upon request.

There were 2 other factors:

1) Norwegians have better social services there to keep people employed and off the streets

2) Norway more effective police and

I KNOW Canada has those 2 factors, good social services and effective police, and it's that stuff that also keeps crimes down.  Not strict gun laws. 

Hell, if the anti gunners had their way, everyone but police and military would have their hands chopped off so they can't use a gun. [/sarcasm] 

["User"]

I KNOW Canada has those, and it's that stuff that also keeps crimes down.  Not strict gun laws. 

Hell, if the anti gunners had their way, everyone but police and military would have their hands chopped off so they can't use a gun. [/sarcasm] 

You know...there's a reason I deleted my previous post.  I try not to typically make weak points and short poor posts at times like 2:25 am. :)

[Guest Julius Quasar]

You know...there's a reason I deleted my previous post.  I try not to typically make weak points and short poor posts at times like 2:25 am.

We all make mistakes *pats your head*

Also, please read:

*link removed* (wrong article, sorry!)

Here we go:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

[Asper Sarnoff]

Note to y'all, I'm just playing the devils advocate her for fun. If you'd rather that the discussion ended, give me a shout.

While this is true, I would like to cite that heavy gun control is WHY the USA has the second ammendment specifically mentioned. In the 18th and 19th centuries, civilians could not own weapons beyond hunting in Britain, for fear of, what else, revolution. A defining point of the 2nd amendment is it exists to overthrow the government should it fall out, and to that degree Julius' poster, propagandish as it may be, has a point.

And now you know.

True that. But who honestly expects the majority of US citizens to want to overthrow their government anytime soon? All people are unhappy with their politicans decision from time to time, but you still have a long way to go before entering a dictatorship.

And in the unlikely case that a revolution took place, I doubt there would be a place easier to quench it than the states. With, or without an armed civilian population. With so long distances, and the government having the possibility of shutting down all communications with the exception of amateur radios and the sort, a revolution I doubt would get of its initial stages before the isolated sparks where stomped out.

Um, Asper, no offense, but Norway is "safe", with "low crime" because

1) Norwegians have better social services there to keep people employed and off the streets

2) Norway more effective police and

3) Norway is a mostly white nation.  It doesn't have certain racial/ethnic minority expatriate groups (for example, Muslims, Arabs, Blacks, etc.) living in expatriate slums there in mass quantities, creating gangs, going on welfare, leeching off the social services, having 1,000,000 kids per family, and causing problems.  Sorry to sound racist, that's NOT my intention.

The strict gun laws have nothing to do with it.

Completely missing the point Julius. If you read my post, gun-control works under certain circumstances, in this case because of those circumstances, it's not the foundation for them. As that poster implied "Gun-controll NEVER works, ANYWHERE, EVER!" I felt there was a need to call BS.

Usually, discussions like this, where a public agreement is never made, happens because BOTH sides has its pros and cons. Refusing to accept that ones own standpoint is to a certain extent flawed, and that the opposite has some truth in it, doesn't really do any good in drawing more support to your side.

Example: This I think is a better argument...

"I see your point, but I've chosen to support this view because I think it overall is the better option."

...than this.

"No! That will never work, because my viewpoint is the only one that is right! You're just a commie, talking commie talk!"

And now on the post itself. I'd be interested in hearing why you opted to write 'safe' and 'low crime' in quotation marks. I think you'll be hard stressed to argue that Norway is unsafe and with high crime rates.

1. About same level as the UK and Mexico last I checked. The unemployment rate isn't as important as how one deal with it, and here a small country naturally has a much easier job organizing than a larger one.

2. Fun fact. Do you know that the Norwegian police is unarmed, and only carries their guns locked down in the back of their cars until having received permission from their superiors to unlock them. Been several times unarmed policemen have gone up against armed criminals, and managed to talk them to surrender. And before you ask, no, very few policemen are killed in service.

As for effective, that's not the word I'd use. They have only half the budget to work with compared to what a police department of that size is really required to perform well. As a result, there are a lot more unresolved cases than there should be.

3. Around 12% immigrants. Many of them in the capital, which is the closest thing you'll ever find to a "less-than-totally-safe" place here. Whether or not there is a connection, I'll refrain from saying.

Here we go:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

Isn't that a little contradicting with the fact that you earlier said crime-rates depends on unemployment, bad law enforcement, and not guns, and now link to an article that claims crime has fallen due to a large number of guns?

Articles from a biased standpoint can help strengthen your case, or weaken it, keep that in mind. I usually only resort to them when arguing with people I know for a fact aren't bright/observant enough to spot dents in the logic.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Completely missing the point Julius. If you read my post, gun-control works under certain circumstances, in this case because of those circumstances, it's not the foundation for them. As that poster implied "Gun-controll NEVER works, ANYWHERE, EVER!" I felt there was a need to call BS.

YOU missed the point completely.  The poster was a joke.

Usually, discussions like this, where a public agreement is never made, happens because BOTH sides has its pros and cons. Refusing to accept that ones own standpoint is to a certain extent flawed, and that the opposite has some truth in it, doesn't really do any good in drawing more support to your side.

Example: This I think is a better argument...

"No! That will never work, because my viewpoint is the only one that is right! You're just a commie, talking commie talk!"

I am NOT talking like that... ( )

And now on the post itself. I'd be interested in hearing why you opted to write 'safe' and 'low crime' in quotation marks. I think you'll be hard stressed to argue that Norway is unsafe and with high crime rates.

1. About same level as the UK and Mexico last I checked. The unemployment rate isn't as important as how one deal with it, and here a small country naturally has a much easier job organizing than a larger one.

2. Fun fact. Do you know that the Norwegian police is unarmed, and only carries their guns locked down in the back of their cars until having received permission from their superiors to unlock them. Been several times unarmed policemen have gone up against armed criminals, and managed to talk them to surrender. And before you ask, no, very few policemen are killed in service.

As for effective, that's not the word I'd use. They have only half the budget to work with compared to what a police department of that size is really required to perform well. As a result, there are a lot more unresolved cases than there should be.

3. Around 12% immigrants. Many of them in the capital, which is the closest thing you'll ever find to a "less-than-totally-safe" place here. Whether or not there is a connection, I'll refrain from saying.

Norway is safe and with low crime rates.  I put them in quotation marks to quote what you were saying, "Norway is safe with low crime rates".  That's because you guys DO have better social services.  Better social services and cops can mean lower crime.  Norway doesn't have the huge pockets of poverty like America has.  The strict gun laws have nothing to do with curbing crime.  Switzerland has lax gun laws, and they have good social services and good police, and they're a safer place to live than America OR Norway.  Finland has lax gun laws, good social services and cops, and they have lower crime.  My pinpals in those nations told me so.

Also, your immigration stats are probably mostly Swedes and Danes.

Isn't that a little contradicting with the fact that you earlier said crime-rates depends on unemployment, bad law enforcement, and not guns, and now link to an article that claims crime has fallen due to a large number of guns?

No it isn't.  That article said that a higher presence of guns in AMERICA led to lower crime.  America has poor social services, poor law enforcement (hampered by bureaucrats), and that's why we have the crime.  However, our looser gun laws compared to the rest of the world's gun laws keep America's crime rate down so we're not like Brazil, Thailand, India, or somewhere like that.  They got strict gun laws, AND poor social services AND poor law enforcement, and they got very high crime there.

Articles from a biased standpoint can help strengthen your case, or weaken it, keep that in mind. I usually only resort to them when arguing with people I know for a fact aren't bright/observant enough to spot dents in the logic.

same here :P

[Asper Sarnoff]

YOU missed the point completely.  The poster was a joke.

Of course it was. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not helping your cause as a pro-gun.

I am NOT talking like that... ( )

Like the first example? No, you don't really. Among friends, one can pull of a stunt like you did with that poster. If you however likened followers of strict gun-control to despots and mass murderers in a more serious discussion, even as a joke, you'd get a bullet to your hea... no, wait... a tomato in the face.

Norway is safe and with low crime rates.  I put them in quotation marks to quote what you were saying, "Norway is safe with low crime rates".  That's because you guys DO have better social services.  Better social services and cops can mean lower crime.  Norway doesn't have the huge pockets of poverty like America has.  The strict gun laws have nothing to do with curbing crime.  Switzerland has lax gun laws, and they have good social services and good police, and they're a safer place to live than America OR Norway.  Finland has lax gun laws, good social services and cops, and they have lower crime.  My pinpals in those nations told me so.

Well said! Though I believe cultural differences also have a saying in whether or not crime levels are higher in other countries than others.

But, what if I try to pull one of more common anti-gun cards when facing this argument. "Wouldn't the money spend on guns be better spent fixing the problem at its source, improving social services and standards of living?"

Also, your immigration stats are probably mostly Swedes and Danes.

Around 30% of total immigration last time I checked. But those can be dangerous and violent too!

I did however use the numbers for non-western immigrants. If that statement has some racist undertones, then I apologise, as that's not the intention.

No it isn't.  That article said that a higher presence of guns in AMERICA led to lower crime.  America has poor social services, poor law enforcement (hampered by bureaucrats), and that's why we have the crime.  However, our looser gun laws compared to the rest of the world's gun laws keep America's crime rate down so we're not like Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, India, or somewhere like that.  They got strict gun laws, AND poor social services AND poor law enforcement, and they got very high crime there.

That's not to obvious really when posted like that in an international forum. It WILL be taken as a claim that it works like this ANYWHERE.

Don't care what the rest of the world thinks about American pro-guns? You should do. Remember what feeds the anti-gunners literal guns with ammunition. Stories from foreigners, pissed at the pro-guns, about other countries with strict gun-control, low crime and high standards of living. Make sure that it's clear that while that example speaks about America, that it's a solution to an American problem.

same here

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Of course it was. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not helping your cause as a pro-gun.

Like the first example? No, you don't really. Among friends, one can pull of a stunt like you did with that poster. If you however likened followers of strict gun-control to despots and mass murderers in a more serious discussion, even as a joke, you'd get a bullet to your hea... no, wait... a tomato in the face.

That's why I joked.  Though it has a grain of truth to it.

Well said! Though I believe cultural differences also have a saying in whether or not crime levels are higher in other countries than others.

Thanks.

But, what if I try to pull one of more common anti-gun cards when facing this argument. "Wouldn't the money spend on guns be better spent fixing the problem at its source, improving social services and standards of living?"

Not in America, or some other countries.  Corrupt officials pocket that money.

Around 30% of total immigration last time I checked. But those can be dangerous and violent too! 

Yeah, Danes and Swedes might BORE you to death, or depress you to death.  Or slap and scratch.

I did however use the numbers for non-western immigrants. If that statement has some racist undertones, then I apologise, as that's not the intention.

The eastern immigrants/expatriates are mostly the problem...(sorry to sound racist as well)

That's not to obvious really when posted like that in an international forum. It WILL be taken as a claim that it works like this ANYWHERE.

Don't care what the rest of the world thinks about American pro-guns? You should do. Remember what feeds the anti-gunners literal guns with ammunition. Stories from foreigners, pissed at the pro-guns, about other countries with strict gun-control, low crime and high standards of living. Make sure that it's clear that while that example speaks about America, that it's a solution to an American problem.

True.  All countries have different solutions to problems.  No 2 nations are alike.  America vs. Norway, the difference is night and day.

(sorry, couldn't resist)