Guns Guns Guns Guns Guns Guns

["Sixhits"]

Alaric: good point on the bold stuff:

We are making a moral argument. We're also making an emotional argument. It's hard to convince those that disargee when you are making moral and emotional arguments. You can only hope something sticks in someone's heart.

[Ssickboy]

For those of you on the West Coast...check out Law + Order tonight.  The episode relates to this thread dealing with the sticky cross-over issues of legal gun ownership + mis-usage, federal civil rights abuse, one normal mom and pop family trying to make ends meat, scandal and murder.  

A man has taken justice into his own hands or was it government cover-up.  Strong valid points on both sides, but the final argument lands and sticks.  (It's ghostsniper on trial)

[Ssickboy]

Nobody saw the law and order show i bet?  

So a big coorperation wanted to buy out a mom + pop store.  Mom and Pop refuse, then they receive a ridiculous water bill from the city saying they owe $29,000.  Corruption or mistake? this part is not answered, but the family views it as corruption.  Hearing that they may go out of business they lose clients.  The family store begins making illegal shipments to make ends meat and salvage their business.  Without knowledge to the family the counter terrorism/Feds begin investigating the illegal shipments, breaking into their house, taking things, etc. Illegal or Legal warrents? Civil liberties are being broken.  Family feels they're being harassed with nowhere to go.  The son takes justice into his own hands and shoots two councilmen at city hall.  Their house is raided again by the Feds under secret warrants.  Meanwhile the son is being taken to trial for murder.  Prosecution argues son is guilty.  Defense is charging that the government conspired against the family with Illegal searches, breaking constitutional ammendments, etc. and that to convict the son then that opens the doors for government abuse.  Prosecution closes with - If you don't like the law then you take it up with your legislature and by voting, not shooting people.  Despite federal and coorperate abuses, the son is found guilty for murder.  The show ends on an awkward note.  You can't help but feel sorry for the family.    

   

[Abe 2.0]

Alaric,
I'm not necessarily in favor of nationwide gun control in the US, except to keep people who are criminals or psychos from getting them. I think mostly it should be up to state and local goverments to determine what the laws should be as the US is a vast country and in some places firearms are more appropriate than others. I'm talking about handguns, shotguns and rifles here, not assault rifles, landmines, rocket launchers, tactical nukes....
Responsible gun ownership is fine, but i don't think it will make you much safer, unless you live in a really shitty neighborhood. Most gunowner have guns because they are cool, which is a totally legitimate reason to have them, but far from rational. Thats what i meant in my other post.
Yes, guns are different from because they are specifically designed to kill people, but also because that makes them incredibly easy to use. Running somone over with your car or stabbing them with a knife are harder and take much greater physical and mental effort to do than shooting somone with a gun.
Firearms are much more accessible in the US than anywhere else. If guns were as easily to get a hold of in Europe i'm sure the homicide rate would be much higher there. Does that make sense the other way around as well? Practically speaking though, it doesnt make sense to take away peoples guns because then it would indeed only be the criminals who have them. So in conclusion, I think the whole debate about guns is pointless.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Hello GG Moderators? Is this acceptable then?

No it isn't...we aren't on 24/7 like some of you might believe.

[BTs_Lee.Harvey]

Running somone over with your car or stabbing them with a knife are harder and take much greater physical and mental effort to do than shooting somone with a gun.

I beg to differ... It is easier and quicker to stab someone w/ a knife... lets say you are 4 ft away from someone.. they pull out a knife........ you go to pull out your gun.... they will stabb and kill you b4 you are able to get a shot off..... thats a proven fact that is taught to law enforcment all over.

[alaric]

Running somone over with your car or stabbing them with a knife are harder and take much greater physical and mental effort to do than shooting somone with a gun.

I beg to differ... It is easier and quicker to stab someone w/ a knife... lets say you are 4 ft away from someone.. they pull out a knife........ you go to pull out your gun.... they will stabb and kill you b4 you are able to get a shot off..... thats a proven fact that is taught to law enforcment all over.

Yes, as a rule, a person can cover 20 feet in the time it takes an officer to pull and aim his weapon. This is why when things get confrontational, they don't want you close to them. And also why people get shot just for rushing a cop with ANY kind of weapon in their hand.

[BFG]

Quote from: :MoD: BFG on Today at 12:11:16am
Hello GG Moderators? Is this acceptable then?

No it isn't...we aren't on 24/7 like some of you might believe.

.. sorry didn't mean to go on. Just got seriously pissed by that comment. pretty disgusting.

[cO.gabe]

For those of you on the West Coast...check out Law + Order tonight.  The episode relates to this thread dealing with the sticky cross-over issues of legal gun ownership + mis-usage, federal civil rights abuse, one normal mom and pop family trying to make ends meat, scandal and murder.  

A man has taken justice into his own hands or was it government cover-up.  Strong valid points on both sides, but the final argument lands and sticks.  (It's ghostsniper on trial)

Was it the original Law and Order?  Or was it SVU or some shit?  Cuz' I only watch the original Law and Order, seen every episode too.