Guns

[Polymirize]

Well I thought you said that if there were no guns murder rates would drop?

Oh wait, lol, I forgot, you were wrong.

Are you really so juvenile?
What do you think the murder rates would be in prison if they allowed everyone to have a gun? Because that's the comparison you'd need to show to make any sense here. Too logical for you to figure that out?

I'll use smaller words for you in the future...

No one thinks that without guns there would be NO murders. Simply that it would create a rather sharp decrease in the numbers.

[bedake]

Also do you think those people would have followed HItler had they not thought they could be part of his world dominating scheme. Would they have followed him had he not had the weapons that they thought were needed to conquer? Had he not had tanks? Had he not HAD GUNS? Now take that same scene, and put it in a world where all guns had been taken and destroyed and you have a recipe for disaster. When countries go to war, many times they make major advancements in their fighting and weaponry. Those advancments are WELL DOCUMENTED for later use. Lets say all guns are gone. They have technology and plans to make more.

actually Hitler's brown shirts didnt use guns, they beat people at the voting times with clubs into voting hitler into power, you have no idea what you are talking about

[Polymirize]

If guns are gone murders just get more heinous. People use cinder blocks and pipes, knives and bats, hands and cans of chicken noodle soup. Yes anything can be used as a weapon in a murder.

People use all of that (well, maybe not the soup cans... Or at least not in any case I've heard of) now. But at least we've done a good job of keeping fully automatic soup cans and semi-auto cinder blocks off the streets.

Face it. Guns (and especially handguns and automatics, which is the main debate here) are designed to kill. That's it. You can use one as a paper weight if you're irresponsible but for the most part they exist to kill. How many other things can you say that for?

[tadaa]

Are you really so juvenile?
What do you think the murder rates would be in prison if they allowed everyone to have a gun? Because that's the comparison you'd need to show to make any sense here. Too logical for you to figure that out?

I'll use smaller words for you in the future...

No one thinks that without guns there would be NO murders. Simply that it would create a rather sharp decrease in the numbers.

See you avoid the point, the mother fucking bottom line. The bottom line is that you said a society without guns is safe. Well obviously you're wrong, end of story. The fact that it's prison doesn't mean a godamn thing. YOUR STATEMENT WAS WRONG.

[m4ster chef]

OH IT IS POSSIBLE, but you'll never be able to destroy all the weapons. To stop war you would have to kill every human on earth. And as said in Lord Of War, "your AK-47 is the real weapon of mass destruction. Those nuclear missles, they sit in their silos."

People nor countries will ever let themselves be totally unarmed. That would leave everything open to evil people who want nothing more than to be the biggest and baddest mother fucker around. And advancements are made EVERY DAY in medicine. Look up the average life span these days. Its pushin 80. Back in the days when there werent guns, the average life span was something like 40.

Countries dont just have massive amounts of guns laying around and say to themselves, Ya know what we need, we need a war to put these guns to use.

No, people think of something they want, then get the weapons that they think necessary to take what they want. Then the country who is getting attacked has to get the weapons they feel appropriate to defend themselves with. Its an unstoppable cycle.

[bedake]

People use all of that (well, maybe not the soup cans... Or at least not in any case I've heard of) now. But at least we've done a good job of keeping fully automatic soup cans and semi-auto cinder blocks off the streets.

Face it. Guns (and especially handguns and automatics, which is the main debate here) are designed to kill. That's it. You can use one as a paper weight if you're irresponsible but for the most part they exist to kill. How many other things can you say that for?

guns are illegal in Australia, to the point where owning one requires the police check up on you every 3 months

there is hardly ever any shooting deaths in Australia, knives are illegal too

[da haze meister]

please excuse me.... Its a camo 835. I have an 870. I wouldnt have a tactical shotgun that wont shoot 3 and a halfs. Buddy I know my guns and I do apologize for confusing an 870 and an 835. ha... im sorry. I quit using my 835 for hunting purposes because it jammed BAD on me one day i was duck hunting. I was using 3 1/2" and when i pumped, the empty stayed on top and the fresh shell was under and i missed out on about two hours of hunting because i had to go in and break it down.

okay okay you win lol... it did seem suspicious though...

[tadaa]

guns are illegal in Australia, to the point where owning one requires the police check up on you every 3 months

there is hardly ever any shooting deaths in Australia, knives are illegal too

If cars were outlawed in the United States there would be no car accidents, does that make it a good idea? Personally I perfer freedom over being told what I can and can't own.

Knives aren't illegal you fucking moron. Nobody would be able to cut steak. Why don't you actually read up on what you're posting about so you don't embarass yourself anymore. Only certain knives can be outlawed.

[m4ster chef]

OH GODDAMMIT YOU STUPID MOTHER....JESUS, what was that "they beat people into voting for him" shit supposed to mean? You yourself just showed that it isnt guns that cause bad things to happen. Hitler had a plan. He wasnt stupid like you. He knew if you were to use guns to get votes you couldnt get many votes. INSTEAD he USED otherwise non dangerous things to get himself into power. see how it works......?

[Polymirize]

See you avoid the point, the mother fucking bottom line. The bottom line is that you said a society without guns is safe. Well obviously you're wrong, end of story. The fact that it's prison doesn't mean a godamn thing. YOUR STATEMENT WAS WRONG.

That statement I never made? Find it. I challenge you to seek it out. I personally haven't been arguing for the eradication of all guns. Simply pointing out that they're irresponsible and in turn calling for heavier controls of handguns and automatic weapons.

Prisons. Then shouldn't I be able to point out a Buddhist monstary in Lhasa where are there are no guns and remarkably, no murder rates?

Your biggest mistake has been trying to tell me what I've said, rather than what you've feebly inferred