Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
NEWS BOX
We last left off where Seth decided to go to Valor on his black dragon Erath. And when he got there...And if anyone forgot the story, Kyan found his long lost friend Seth on Valor, and his black dragon Erath. Kyan is a mamkute that can still use swords as well as dragon stone attack.
Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
Gun-grabbers suck.
Topic Started: May 13 2007, 09:17:31 AM (2,332 Views)
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Colonel Jade Curtis
May 15 2007, 13:25:09
F3nr1L
May 14 2007, 23:52:09
Colonel Jade Curtis
May 14 2007, 19:38:01
F3nr1L
May 14 2007, 21:29:34
That is just one incident.
Everyone having a gun doesn't mean they will ever have the opportunity to draw it(if I were holding a place up, and was seeing someone reach for a gun, I would shoot them...duh.), but it doesn't mean they will have any accuracy.
And so everyone has guns and crime goes down. Oh no. If you take away ALL the guns, crime would go down just as much if not more I would wager and-- get this-- it would be safer(due to the fact that psychotics not only aren't required to own guns, but can't).

Obviously, exceptions are made to the under certain conditions. We don't require bipolar people to have guns. You obviously have no idea how easy it is to get an illegal weapon, do you? As has been said before, you outlaw guns, and only the criminals have them, leaving the innocents as free game.

Alarm systems + effective police = win.

Tell that to the 5 people saved in my city alone because of others having guns. The people I'm talking about weren't cops, and were outside. Last time I checked, the outdoors doesn't have an alarm system, though if it does, please point me in the correct direction. This could always be useful info.

And for the record, police don't just magically appear every time an alarm sounds. It takes time for them to show up, during which the killer shoots everyone in sight and runs, killing more people. And don't trust the police to be able to stop everything either. About a year and a half ago, Atlanta had something like 4 people killed, in a courthouse shooting.

Train the police force. Make all of them fit, and able bodied-- I have seen hundreds of fat fuckers wearing the badge. Then, get them off their lazy asses and patrolling the street, instead if sitting in an air conditioned car/building, eating sammiches and doughnuts.

This will mostly solve the public issue.
Or maybe even better yet, provide all police with tranquilizer or rubber ammunition. That way, the criminals will know that they cannot just get shot, die, and be out of the crime in a worst case scenario. They will have to face punishment.

Now, personal property, residences, things like that. Have a security system. Deadbolts should come preinstalled on every door in every house. Windows should have locks and sensors. If they hear an alarm, most criminals are going to flee.


Effective law enforcement and effective personal security measures would greatly reduce all crime imaginable. It will not only more than likely be better than giving everyone a gun, but it will also make things safe-- any random person of age being REQUIRED to have a gun can be dangerous.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Unregistered

OOTF, you seem to be under the assumption that every crime in the USA is committed using a gun. That is, most certainly, not so.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
rnn2walls
Member Avatar
*does a backflip*
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Oh boy, a field day of horrible logic here.

ocrinaoftimefreak
May 15 2007, 15:33:26
here in the UK 9/10 firearms are ILLEGAL - most legal firearms are only for use by the military, very VERY high ranking police and ex of either and registerd hunters. heres a few hard facts from that


Oh boy, let's take away firearms from our cops too! That's sure to help lower crime. Dumbest. Idea. Ever.

ocrinaoftimefreak
May 15 2007, 15:33:26
WE have a HUGE difference in the crime rate here from you guys due to lack of acsess to firearms. hell, standard police dont even use them - thats why theyre so effective.


You also have no borders with underdeveloped countries and have no developing cities. It's a lot easier to say that when isolated by Western Europe than when your whole Southern border is developing. Anyone can get a 9mm here.

ocrinaoftimefreak
May 15 2007, 15:33:26
STANDARD civillians do NOT have acsess to firearms uinless they are A) military B) high ranked police or C) registerd hunters (the test take years - most peeps dont bother)


And how does one learn to shoot if they want to become a hunter?

ocrinaoftimefreak
May 15 2007, 15:33:26
so if america had EVERY LAST FIREARM destroyed and its police (minus high ranked) trained in hand to hand combat and given batons etc etc instead of pistols, the crime rate would drop. why? FEAR. most "gansta`s" have very little phsyical knowlege of fights and little training. when trained, hand to hand id twice as deadly as a firearm.


Sure hand to hand can be more deadly than a fire arm, at a foot away, but even a lousy shot can take you out at five feet, and you have to get that close to enter hand-to-hand. Our cops are trained with hand-to-hand, but they're a hell of a lot safer when they use a gun, so they do. I can't say I blame them myself.

F3nr1L
May 15 2007, 16:29:44
Train the police force. Make all of them fit, and able bodied-- I have seen hundreds of fat fuckers wearing the badge. Then, get them off their lazy asses and patrolling the street, instead if sitting in an air conditioned car/building, eating sammiches and doughnuts.


They stay in cars because you can drive a hell of a lot faster than you can run, even if you are Roger Bannister or El Guerrouj, which I doubt. Cars also help stop bullets, and have all sorts of fancy things like rader guns and CB radios.

F3nr1L
May 15 2007, 16:29:44
This will mostly solve the public issue.
Or maybe even better yet, provide all police with tranquilizer or rubber ammunition. That way, the criminals will know that they cannot just get shot, die, and be out of the crime in a worst case scenario. They will have to face punishment.


Most criminals would prefer this. They commit the crime, and at worst get a few years of jail. No threat to life involved. Why not just just let them off afterward?

F3nr1L
May 15 2007, 16:29:44
Now, personal property, residences, things like that. Have a security system. Deadbolts should come preinstalled on every door in every house. Windows should have locks and sensors. If they hear an alarm, most criminals are going to flee.


Security systems don't come cheap. Guns do. Personally, I think it's a bigger deterrent to know that the person on the other side of the door has a gun than an alarm. With an alarm, you have five minutes before anyone gets there with the ability to stop you. Most thieves need three. Alarms don't stop shit.

F3nr1L
May 15 2007, 16:29:44
Effective law enforcement and effective personal security measures would greatly reduce all crime imaginable. It will not only more than likely be better than giving everyone a gun, but it will also make things safe-- any random person of age being REQUIRED to have a gun can be dangerous.


They can't stop a crime if they aren't on site. Think about it, when people go to rob banks, they know it's risky as hell because somewhere in the bank, there's most likely an armed guard. If they didn't think there would be, they would be more likely to do it. The same thing works for houses and private property too.
The opinions expressed in the above post are totally and completely correct. If you disagree with them, you are wrong, there's just no other way to put it.

I've seen knights in armor panic at the first hint of battle. And I've seen the lowliest, unarmed squire pull a spear from his own body, to defend a dying horse. Nobility is not a birthright. It's defined by one's actions.
-Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves


Khairos,Jul 25 2006
19:36:54
rnn ftw!
CO Gage,Jul 12 2008
01:21:34
rnn ftw!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Jim
Member Avatar
There can be only one.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
While I can't prohibit any guy getting a gun if he makes him feel safer, I will never accept that people SHOULD carry guns for better protection against whatever.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

Quote:
 
They stay in cars because you can drive a hell of a lot faster than you can run, even if you are Roger Bannister or El Guerrouj, which I doubt. Cars also help stop bullets, and have all sorts of fancy things like rader guns and CB radios.

I meant that they shouldn't be arbitrarily sitting somewhere, that they should constantly be on patrol. I can understand why it was misunderstood though, I was pretty vague.
Quote:
 
Most criminals would prefer this. They commit the crime, and at worst get a few years of jail. No threat to life involved. Why not just just let them off afterward?

Well there are three possible outcomes of someone breaking the law: they get away, they die, or the go under arrest.
I imagine they don't intend the outcome to be the latter two. So let's look at the first: Policemen are trained to not shoot at someone unless they are a direct threat to their(or someone else's) life. Now, if cops had rubber bullets, they could shoot the piss out of that guy until he was on the ground, unable to feel his body through all the pain. They should carry a clip of lethal ammunition, but by default have rubber bullets.

Looking at the others: Death? If they killed someone, then they don't have to pay for it. Which murder goes for a LONG time in prison. Lesser crimes? They either hold a rather long sentence as well(albeit possibly in a jail instead) or are minor enough that them being dead is highly unlikely to happen. So if they can't successfully flee, then they should be taken in and have to spend multiple years of their life imprisoned because of it. Death would be the easy, unjust way out.
Quote:
 
Security systems don't come cheap. Guns do. Personally, I think it's a bigger deterrent to know that the person on the other side of the door has a gun than an alarm. With an alarm, you have five minutes before anyone gets there with the ability to stop you. Most thieves need three. Alarms don't stop shit.

Actually, unless you want hidden laser beams that shoot people(I don't think that exists), they do. And if you rent a house, the owner will more than likely reduce your payments because you just shot up their house value several thousand dollars. If you own the house, your insurance will probably decrease, along with the fact you just added several thousand dollars if you ever want to sell.
Quote:
 
They can't stop a crime if they aren't on site. Think about it, when people go to rob banks, they know it's risky as hell because somewhere in the bank, there's most likely an armed guard. If they didn't think there would be, they would be more likely to do it. The same thing works for houses and private property too.

Like I said. Less idling, more patrolling. Need more patrols that go around valuable things like banks, jewelry stores, etc. Double the police force-- hell, even get some of those National Guard people to patrol the outskirts(since they normally do a whole lot of: going to the store, playing cards). How about having cops regularly patrol neighborhoods, too?
Quote Post Goto Top
 
GyroNinja
Member Avatar
Guy Who Posts a Lot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
F3nr1L
May 16 2007, 11:04:36
Looking at the others: Death? If they killed someone, then they don't have to pay for it.

I think you and me have very different definitions of what qualifies as "paying for it". o_O
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

GyroNinja
May 15 2007, 18:07:42
F3nr1L
May 16 2007, 11:04:36
Looking at the others: Death? If they killed someone, then they don't have to pay for it.

I think you and me have very different definitions of what qualifies as "paying for it". o_O

You can't punish them. You can't make them constantly live through the agony of what they did. They just go BANG and kill someone and then BANG and they don't have to feel what they just did.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
GyroNinja
Member Avatar
Guy Who Posts a Lot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
F3nr1L
May 16 2007, 11:12:29
GyroNinja
May 15 2007, 18:07:42
F3nr1L
May 16 2007, 11:04:36
Looking at the others: Death? If they killed someone, then they don't have to pay for it.

I think you and me have very different definitions of what qualifies as "paying for it". o_O

You can't punish them. You can't make them constantly live through the agony of what they did. They just go BANG and kill someone and then BANG and they don't have to feel what they just did.

Right, but by that logic, the murder victim doesn't have to live through the agony of what happened to them either, so why is such punishment even necessary? .-.;
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
F3nr1L
Unregistered

GyroNinja
May 15 2007, 18:19:42
F3nr1L
May 16 2007, 11:12:29
GyroNinja
May 15 2007, 18:07:42
F3nr1L
May 16 2007, 11:04:36
Looking at the others: Death? If they killed someone, then they don't have to pay for it.

I think you and me have very different definitions of what qualifies as "paying for it". o_O

You can't punish them. You can't make them constantly live through the agony of what they did. They just go BANG and kill someone and then BANG and they don't have to feel what they just did.

Right, but by that logic, the murder victim doesn't have to live through the agony of what happened to them either, so why is such punishment even necessary? .-.;

because the victim didn't kill someone(or maybe they did, but that is a TOTALLY different matter). It should be punishable to kill another human being, someone who should be completely equal to you. There is no reason to punish the victim of a crime, because they weren't the ones doing something lawfully wrong. That would just be stupid.

I am just saying that capital punishment-- even say, killing someone who just killed someone-- really doesn't do enough. Why give them a one time pain(or maybe none at all), for doing one of the worst things possible, that is, keeping someone completely innocent from living their lives? It should be long, drawn out, and painful. They should have to live their full life, facing all hardships that come to them, giving into their remorse. THAT is much more worthwhile than simply going BANG you are dead.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moon
Member Avatar
excuse me princess
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I am happy that there are no citizens with guns in mah country. Except for those guys who make them to hunt animals and get caught and appear on the news.
I wish I were what I was when I was trying to become what I am now.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Breadmaster Tubba
Member Avatar
Chief Alcoholic of GHEB
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Srsly, it's a lot easier to pull a trigger than to stab someone with a knife. FACT
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Inedible Bulk
Member Avatar
*clips toenails*
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Jeff
May 15 2007, 21:33:42
OOTF, you seem to be under the assumption that every crime in the USA is committed using a gun. That is, most certainly, not so.

thats not ehat im saying - im saying if the police where trained like they were over here with physical instead of weasponary force, your crime rate would be a lot lower than it is.
Posted Image
<a href="http://www.factorizer.co.uk" title="Funny Facts"><img src="http://www.factorizer.co.uk/the inedible bulk,0,ffffff,000000,0.png" alt="Funny Facts" /></a>

do me a favour, join: http://bd1.battledawn.com/referx.php?serv=8&ref=76
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Inedible Bulk
Member Avatar
*clips toenails*
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Lord Jim
May 15 2007, 21:14:03
You can't.
The whole point was, not to be such an abundance in the first place.

this guy gets it - if the rigfht to bear arms was never placed on your amendmants, you wouldent have your current crime probelm -as for illeghal and unregisted fireamrs - thats allways gonna be a problem, hell, even here theres citizens with illegal firearms. you cant stampt it out completely, but if there wa a crackdown, your rate would fall drastically.
Posted Image
<a href="http://www.factorizer.co.uk" title="Funny Facts"><img src="http://www.factorizer.co.uk/the inedible bulk,0,ffffff,000000,0.png" alt="Funny Facts" /></a>

do me a favour, join: http://bd1.battledawn.com/referx.php?serv=8&ref=76
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
GyroNinja
Member Avatar
Guy Who Posts a Lot
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
ocrinaoftimefreak
May 19 2007, 04:59:45
Lord Jim
May 15 2007, 21:14:03
You can't.
The whole point was, not to be such an abundance in the first place.

this guy gets it - if the rigfht to bear arms was never placed on your amendmants, you wouldent have your current crime probelm -as for illeghal and unregisted fireamrs - thats allways gonna be a problem, hell, even here theres citizens with illegal firearms. you cant stampt it out completely, but if there wa a crackdown, your rate would fall drastically.

That's great. I'll keep that in mind if someone invents a time machine.

Also, as someone else has pointed out, crackdown on illegal firearms here is almost impossible; We're not an island country. Even if we drastically reduced the number of illegal guns here, criminals would probably have little trouble smuggling them from Latin America or someting. <_>
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lord Jim
Member Avatar
There can be only one.
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Yesm we will go back a century and inform them of the blights of the world.

"BEWARE...RAP MUSIC...AND SILLy POP TUNES"
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8

Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ