We need a bit more gun controllin'

[DLaw3000]

What do you guys think of US gun laws?
Should they be more strict? What about high school shootings such as the one performed by Jeff Weise this week. What should be done?

[ASsman]

Yah, gun's are the problem.

Then we might only have school stabbings.

[Ace42]

"And today two californian teens hacked their way through twenty classmates before an armed response unit arrived at their school and were forced to bayonet them. Onlookers screamed at the chaos, saying 'what could we do, there were only thirty of us against one knife...'"

[ASsman]

Plastic box cutters.

[RT400z]

For once I would like to see a high school stabbing spree. Shooting someone with a gun is cowardly. (y)

[BGirl]

What do you guys think of US gun laws?
Should they be more strict? What about high school shootings such as the one performed by Jeff Weise this week. What should be done?

We need a Department of Peace!

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, since over 90% of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally I would say it would be rather pointless legislation.

[EN[i]GMA]

And wouldn't they just start using bombs?

What would you do then, ban explosives?

[ASsman]

/household chemicals

[EN[i]GMA]

/household chemicals

...are good to drink.

Or so I hear.

But yeah, we need to ban those too.

[Ace42]

GMA']Well, since over 90% of guns used in crimes are already obtained illegally I would say it would be rather pointless legislation.

Yeah, because societies where guns are tightly controlled still have plenty of highschool shootings...

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah, because societies where guns are tightly controlled still have plenty of highschool shootings...

How many high school shootings have there been in Switzerland, a country with a 100% gun ownership rate among adult males?

Hint: It's less than one.

The country with the highest gun ownership rate in the world has zero school shootings.

Gun control has NO effect, for or against, on school shootings and higher gun ownership has a positive influence on reducing the amount of crime.

[Ace42]

GMA']How many high school shootings have there been in Switzerland, a country with a 100% gun ownership rate among adult males?

Gun control has NO effect, for or against, on school shootings and higher gun ownership has a positive influence on reducing the amount of crime.

Hah, you are such a dumb fuck. Gun Control does not mean "stopping adults from having guns."

It DOES mean not giving guns away free in banks.

On June 20, 1997, the Swiss Parliament adopted a federal law on arms, arms accessories and ammunition (Arms Act), which entered into force on January 1, 1999. As a general rule, the Arms Act requires a permit for each transaction involving weapons or relevant parts of weapons purchased from an authorized gun dealer's shop. Permits for purchasing weapons are issued by the competent authorities of the Cantons, which have to ensure that the necessary legal requirements are fully met. The selling party has to verify the absence of any legal obstacle on the buyer's side (18 years of age, absence of an apparent risk to the buyer or third persons, no entry in the Register of Convictions for Violent Crimes and Misdemeanors). Subsequent transfers either by sale or by another transaction among private individuals have to be documented through a written contract between those individuals themselves, which they have to keep for at least ten years. In addition, foreign nationals without a permanent residence permit in Switzerland need an authorization to purchase weapons or relevant parts of weapons from private dealers as well. Foreign nationals must obtain their permit from the competent authority of the Canton in which the purchase will take place. In order to obtain a permit, foreign nationals have to present an official certificate issued in their home country to prove that they are entitled to purchase a weapon or a relevant part of a weapon.

In addition to requiring the above-mentioned permit to purchase weapons, the Arms Act also requires a special certificate to bear arms in public. A person who requests such a permit must demonstrate that he needs to bear arms in public in order to protect himself, other persons or goods against specific risks. To obtain a permit to bear arms one also has to pass an examination on the correct handling of weapons as well as a test on legislation on the use of firearms. Permits are normally valid for a specific type of weapon and for the entire territory of Switzerland, but are limited to five years.

Yah, much less gun-control than in the US where you can get a gun in the time it takes to order a drink.

Switzerland is frequently cited as an example of a country with high gun ownership and a low murder rate. However, Switzerland also has a high degree of gun control, and actually makes a better argument for gun regulation than gun liberalization.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

And there is NO correlation between percentage of population with guns vs lawlful/lessness, so stop making shit up and pretending you have some evidence to support your claims.

Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.

http://www.guninformation.org/

And no, Switzerland does not have 100% gun ownership rate among adult males. Infact, the gun ownship in 1991 was approximately 14% of households. For it to be 100% male ownership, 86% of housholds would have to have no adult males in them. 29% of US households had guns then - more than double.

If you look at more recent statistics, that goes up to 36.4% of households.

http://www.research.ryerson.ca/SAFER-Net/regions/Europe/Swi_SR01.html

That would mean that 63.6% of Swiss households have *no male adults in them* - either those swiss don't go in for family units, or the adults have been killing each other with guns something fierce.

That or you are making up shit.

Surveys show that half of U.S. households own at least one firearm.

US gun ownership is STILL higher.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176sidebar1.html

*and* a significant proportion of the swiss who own guns own them in a military capacity and store their military issued firearms at home. That is very different to a random pleb choosing to buy one for their own personal usage.

Go back to your hole, Enigma, you have nothing to say.

[EN[i]GMA]

I was incorrect in saying Switzerland has a 100% gun ownership rate.

What I should have said was they have a mandatory militia where they are required to use a gun.

Read this about Switzerland, and then go die: http://www.gunownersofvermont.org/swiss_army.html

And let's see here:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html

Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S. increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4 homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).


Blows that all to hell.


This: Two studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine revealed that keeping a gun in the home increases the risk of both suicide and homicide. Keeping a gun in the home makes it 2.7 times more likely that someone will be a victim of homicide in your home (in almost all cases the victim is either related to or intimately acquainted with the murderer) (source) and 4.8 times more likely that someone will commit suicide (source). Guns make it more likely that a suicide attempt will be successful than if other means were used such as sleeping pills.

is intellectually dishonest bullshit.

First of all, it's obvious that guns in homes increase gun deaths in homes.

But the statement that it increases homicide among people you know is disengenious. Many times, it's someone you know commiting a crime against you, that you commit this homicide.

Furthermore, let them kill themselves, I don't really care.


Gun Control arguments are universally non-sensical, as shown by all this shit:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-control.html
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gunslott.html
http://www.tsra.com/Lott7.htm
http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/HTML/research2.html
http://www.guncite.com/
http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/cowards.html

[Ace42]

GMA']I was incorrect in saying Switzerland has a 100% gun ownership rate.

No shit. Were you perhaps being "Intellectually dishonest" ?

What I should have said was they have a mandatory militia where they are required to use a gun.

Perhaps you are stumbling on the word "militia" - they do not mean groups of survivalist hicks trapesing around Vermont woods pretending they are soldiers. The Swiss militia is actually a structured army.

Clearly military weapons do not count as civically owned firearms.

Read this about Switzerland, and then go die: http://www.gunownersofvermont.org/swiss_army.html

Go die? It is merely a dumbed down and incomplete version of the links I game. It says nothing to support your case, and is over a decade out of date. The legislation it refers to has been superceded (in 1999), as stated quite clearly in the link I offered to the Swiss embassy in New York.

Secondly, "Gun owners of vermont dot org" - why not get a signed affadavit from Charlton Heston while you are at it?


http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html

Myth No. 1: Guns cause crime. A review of the academic literature shows that there is no relationship between the number of guns and the amount of crime in the United States. Criminologists Gary Kleck and E. Britt Patterson reported in 1993 their finding that gun ownership had no significant effect on the rates of murder, assault, robbery, or rape in the U.S. Between 1973 and 1992, the rate of gun ownership in the U.S. increased by 45 percent (from 610 guns per 1,000 people to 887). The homicide rate during that period fell by nearly 10 percent (from 9.4 homicides per 100,000 people to 8.5).


Blows that all to hell.

And you called MY link "intellectually dishonest" ?

If you google for Kleck and Patterson, you'll see the formost conclusion of their work was, and I quote:

(3) there are no known measures that are valid indicators of trends in gun levels, making credible longitudinal research on the subject impossible at present.

http://jrc.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/41/1/3

So actually they reported that research on the subject was impossible at present. Making your "myth busting" link actually a very cynical lie.

is intellectually dishonest bullshit.

First of all, it's obvious that guns in homes increase gun deaths in homes.

So it is bullshit that is obviously correct? Right...

And yes, guns in the home increase deaths in the home. Which means less guns in the home mean less deaths in the home. An argument for gun control right out of your own mouth.

But the statement that it increases homicide among people you know is disengenious. Many times, it's someone you know commiting a crime against you, that you commit this homicide.

Stating the fact that in the majority of cases the person you kill is a person known to you is a cold hard fact. Thus it cannot be disengenuous, as facts cannot be "insincere". It does not imply either literally or by context anything beside the fact that you will know the victim.

Furthermore, let them kill themselves, I don't really care.

I concur. The good thing about the yanks having stupid attitudes towards guns is that the dumbasses do such a great job of killing each other with them.

Gun Control arguments are universally non-sensical, as shown by all this shit:
http://www.guncite.com/

If you check that website, you'll see that it *is* pro-gun. I assume by "gun-control arguments" you mean arguments for gun-control, as opposed to arguements about it (both for and against).

The latter I would agree with solely because it is such a moot point. Guns are bad, hmmkay?

http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/cowards.html[/QUOTE]

Also not an argument FOR gun-control.

Now, at best, I take this as that you are recanting and disavowing this argument as pointless. For that I commend you. Guns are stupid, and arguing about something so self-evident as guns being a big ball of trouble that no-one should want is equally so.

At worst you got the wrong end of the stick. I am willingto give you the benefit of the doubt, however.

[Schmeltz]

You know, if there's one issue on which I've somewhat come around, it's gun control. Here in Canada it's all good, but if I lived in George W. Bush's America I would definitely hook up some way of defending myself. The prospect of a totalitarian coup in an allegedly democratic government has never been more real. Who knows who they'll come for next? Might be you. Best be packin' in case the pigs bust down yo do.

[Ace42]

Best be packin' in case the pigs bust down yo do.

When they kick in your front door, how you gonna go - with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun? When the law breaks in, how you gonna go - shot down on the pavement, or sitting on death row?

[synch]

Yah, much less gun-control than in the US where you can get a gun in the time it takes to order a drink.
At least you get ID'ed if you order a drink.




yes I know you get ID'ed when you buy a gun

[ASsman]

Shit, finger on the trigger sounds about right.

[Whois]

"And today two californian teens hacked their way through twenty classmates before an armed response unit arrived at their school and were forced to bayonet them. Onlookers screamed at the chaos, saying 'what could we do, there were only thirty of us against one knife...'"

Classic... :eek: (y)

[The Eric H Show]

Even though I dont like micheal moore and I hated farenheit 9/11. When i saw bowling for columbine, it really changed my outlook on guns.

I think every1 hear should see the movie "Bowling for Columbine". Its not an anti-gun movie. Its a documentary about guns in america.

[EN[i]GMA]

Even though I dont like micheal moore and I hated farenheit 9/11. When i saw bowling for columbine, it really changed my outlook on guns.

I think every1 hear should see the movie "Bowling for Columbine". Its not an anti-gun movie. Its a documentary about guns in america.

I think I'll pass.

[The Eric H Show]

Why would you pass? I am a bush supporter and I still saw farenheit 9/11.

Are you really that close-minded that you cant watch a 90 minute movie?

[yeahwho]

Why would you pass? I am a bush supporter and I still saw farenheit 9/11.

Are you really that close-minded that you cant watch a 90 minute movie?
hahahahahahaha. yep he is. it hurts the way those people think.

[EN[i]GMA]

Why would you pass? I am a bush supporter and I still saw farenheit 9/11.

Are you really that close-minded that you cant watch a 90 minute movie?

Have you watched every single movie about politics ever made?

How about released recently?

Why then, did you watch this particular one?

Why am I somehow obligated to watch this one?

Is it at all fair for me to say "Watch movie x" than insult you if you refuse for any reason?

What makes this movie so special that it deserves my attention and time?

Micheal Moore has never said or done anything that would make me the least bit interested in watching his movies.

So simply because you or everybody watches some movie, I'm obstinsibly obligated to see it too?

Homie don't dat.

As for my close-mindedness, I'll read books and watch movies that contradict what I believe but I'm not going to read EVERY book and watch EVERY movie that contradicts my beliefs. Why then, should I watch this particular movie?

EDIT: Have you seen Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State?

[EN[i]GMA]

hahahahahahaha. yep he is. it hurts the way those people think.

Have you seen Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State?

[yeahwho]

GMA']Have you watched every single movie about politics ever made?

How about released recently?

Why then, did you watch this particular one?

Why am I somehow obligated to watch this one?

Is it at all fair for me to say "Watch movie x" than insult you if you refuse for any reason?

What makes this movie so special that it deserves my attention and time?

Micheal Moore has never said or done anything that would make me the least bit interested in watching his movies.

So simply because you or everybody watches some movie, I'm obstinsibly obligated to see it too?

Homie don't dat.

As for my close-mindedness, I'll read books and watch movies that contradict what I believe but I'm not going to read EVERY book and watch EVERY movie that contradicts my beliefs. Why then, should I watch this particular movie?

You and Bill O'Rielly have it in for Moore, don't you. Nevermind it is one of the highest rated movies on earth or the fact that millions upon millions of citizens watched this film and catapulted Michael Moore into the mainstream of the American consciousness.

He did an excellent job on Bowling for Columbine (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/), it doesn't matter only to those that the Columbine shootings don't matter to, and that is what I think is real. Real sad.

[The Eric H Show]

ok so ur not close minded. I was just sayin that if your goin 2 purpously not see that movie because its somethig u dont agree with, then that is somewhat close-minded.

And why do i get picked on everytime i say i support bush. I already know that every1 on this board hates him. I guess your not allowed to share your opinion on this board withought getting shit from every1.

[yeahwho]

ok so ur not close minded. I was just sayin that if your goin 2 purpously not see that movie because its somethig u dont agree with, then that is somewhat close-minded.

And why do i get picked on everytime i say i support bush. I already know that every1 on this board hates him. I guess your not allowed to share your opinion on this board withought getting shit from every1.

Some people are so insecure all they can do is lash out at somebody who thinks differently. You don't get picked on that much do you? I like almost 20% of what Bush does, that is it though.

NOW, back to gun controllin' and a quote from the ever insightful Chris Rock;

You don't need no gun control. You know what you need? Bullet control. I think all bullets should cost $5000. You know why? If a bullet cost $5000 there'd be no more innocent bystanders.

Or if someone has a score to settle, being like, "You know what, I would fucking put a cap in your ass... if I could *afford* it! I'm gonna save up some money, maybe get a second job or something, then you a motherfuckin' dead man!"

[EN[i]GMA]

ok so ur not close minded. I was just sayin that if your goin 2 purpously not see that movie because its somethig u dont agree with, then that is somewhat close-minded.

And why do i get picked on everytime i say i support bush. I already know that every1 on this board hates him. I guess your not allowed to share your opinion on this board withought getting shit from every1.

It's not because I disagree with it politically, but because I have a severe dislike for the maker, I see no real reason why I should see it, and argument that you should 'see it anyway' is stupid.

I'm expressing my dislike for Moore by refusing to see any of his movies.

[EN[i]GMA]

You and Bill O'Rielly have it in for Moore, don't you. Nevermind it is one of the highest rated movies on earth or the fact that millions upon millions of citizens watched this film and catapulted Michael Moore into the mainstream of the American consciousness.

He did an excellent job on Bowling for Columbine (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/), it doesn't matter only to those that the Columbine shootings don't matter to, and that is what I think is real. Real sad.

Yeah, me and my bestist buddy O'Rielly.

You sure have it figured out.

And even more people watched fucking Titanic, are you hailing it as a great movie?

Critical appeal and popularity in no way reflect actual merit or worth, you should know that.

Seriously, what is the big deal about this movie? How does it say anything profound?

And I seriously doubt Mr. Moore gives us any real insight into the Columbine massacre and I think it rather presumptious of him to use that in his title, in effect, benefitting of the deaths of those teens.

[likeOMG!]

GMA']And even more people watched fucking Titanic, are you hailing it as a great movie?
well I liked it

[yeahwho]

GMA']Yeah, me and my bestist buddy O'Rielly.

You sure have it figured out.

And even more people watched fucking Titanic, are you hailing it as a great movie?

Critical appeal and popularity in no way reflect actual merit or worth, you should know that.

Seriously, what is the big deal about this movie? How does it say anything profound?

And I seriously doubt Mr. Moore gives us any real insight into the Columbine massacre and I think it rather presumptious of him to use that in his title, in effect, benefitting of the deaths of those teens.

Just like the way he's exploiting 9/11 in his other movie?

Bowling is a documentary, and all these awards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/awards) and the people who nominated him are nothing more than shills trying to make a buck off the deaths of "those teens" you so lovingly refer to them as. They loved the way they came away from the film with less information about that day. Everybody involved in anyway with Michael Moore just doesn't get your higher level of insight into Columbine.

I don't give a fuck what movies you watch, sure they're all subjective, we live in a free country, that is why I find your opinion to basically never be more than an opinion. Not fully informed nor based in any solution based thought. At least some people are looking into the culture which creates such an enviroment, for that I give Mr. Moore credit, like the millions of other people who live here in reality.

Or would you rather Mr. Moore just keep to himself? Quit making documentaries? He is basically a middle of the road guy who is worried about the derailing of the American Dream, which is more than I can say about 90% of the other movies out there.

[ASsman]

Heh, the spankin' continues.

[EN[i]GMA]

[QUOTE=yeahwho]Just like the way he's exploiting 9/11 in his other movie?

Bowling is a documentary, and all these awards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/awards) and the people who nominated him are nothing more than shills trying to make a buck off the deaths of "those teens" you so lovingly refer to them as. They loved the way they came away from the film with less information about that day. Everybody involved in anyway with Michael Moore just doesn't get your higher level of insight into Columbine.

I don't give a fuck what movies you watch, sure they're all subjective, we live in a free country, that is why I find your opinion to basically never be more than an opinion. Not fully informed nor based in any solution based thought. At least some people are looking into the culture which creates such an enviroment, for that I give Mr. Moore credit, like the millions of other people who live here in reality.

Or would you rather Mr. Moore just keep to himself? Quit making documentaries? He is basically a middle of the road guy who is worried about the derailing of the American Dream, which is more than I can say about 90%

It's like I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I don't want to watch his movies, for any number of reasons, but of course until I do, I'm a close-minded fool who can't accept any other opinions, but if I did watch, and disliked them, my suspicions would have been true and I would be a out a few bucks, out a few hours, and out feeling like a dumbass because I knew better.

What should I do, watch it in pursuit of an open mind? Than why am I not obligated to watch every political movie?

Answer me this, have you watched Farenhype 9/11?

I sure as hell wouldn't. From what I've heard, it's hatch-job meant only to villify Moore.

But wouldn't be arrogant of me to dictate to you that you MUST watch this movie in the interest of fairness, even though you suspect, or even know it's a biased piece of shit?

Do I get to porclaim some sort of moral highground because I watched a shitty movie and bought it, and you didn't?

I've yet to hear or see any compelling reason to see any Moore movies and have read or heard from sources I deem credible, that it's a waste of time.

What more do you want?

[yeahwho]

GMA'][QUOTE=yeahwho]Just like the way he's exploiting 9/11 in his other movie?

Bowling is a documentary, and all these awards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/awards) and the people who nominated him are nothing more than shills trying to make a buck off the deaths of "those teens" you so lovingly refer to them as. They loved the way they came away from the film with less information about that day. Everybody involved in anyway with Michael Moore just doesn't get your higher level of insight into Columbine.

I don't give a fuck what movies you watch, sure they're all subjective, we live in a free country, that is why I find your opinion to basically never be more than an opinion. Not fully informed nor based in any solution based thought. At least some people are looking into the culture which creates such an enviroment, for that I give Mr. Moore credit, like the millions of other people who live here in reality.

Or would you rather Mr. Moore just keep to himself? Quit making documentaries? He is basically a middle of the road guy who is worried about the derailing of the American Dream, which is more than I can say about 90%

It's like I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I don't want to watch his movies, for any number of reasons, but of course until I do, I'm a close-minded fool who can't accept any other opinions, but if I did watch, and disliked them, my suspicions would have been true and I would be a out a few bucks, out a few hours, and out feeling like a dumbass because I knew better.

What should I do, watch it in pursuit of an open mind? Than why am I not obligated to watch every political movie?

Answer me this, have you watched Farenhype 9/11?

I sure as hell wouldn't. From what I've heard, it's hatch-job meant only to villify Moore.

But wouldn't be arrogant of me to dictate to you that you MUST watch this movie in the interest of fairness, even though you suspect, or even know it's a biased piece of shit?

Do I get to porclaim some sort of moral highground because I watched a shitty movie and bought it, and you didn't?

I've yet to hear or see any compelling reason to see any Moore movies and have read or heard from sources I deem credible, that it's a waste of time.

What more do you want?

Like I said before, in reality people did go see this movie, not because of a "moral highground" but because they wanted too. I don't want anything from you, but I do admit your kneejerk responses' are humourous. Every major reward a documentary can have lauded upon it was given to this film, yet you say, I've yet to hear or see any compelling reason to see any Moore movies and have read or heard from sources I deem credible, that it's a waste of time.

Your cracking me up, it's as if reality and you have some sort of inner struggle. Most people I know wonder what all the fuss is about. I make a point of seeing alot of movies that society find redeemable, at least then I don't sound like a jackass when I talk about them.