Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 82 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 77 guests


Most users ever online was 155 on Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:40 am

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

gun control

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Thu May 03, 2007 5:42 am

ok, ill take that, but in my opinion, the only way to keep people safe from a gun(i sound so stupid) is to completley seal off the countries borders. as much as i wouldn't like the thought of NO guns for anyone, i believe that either that, or really loosening up the laws in the US would be good options, becasue when we half ass it, kit doesn't really work
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu May 03, 2007 5:46 am

The US-UK statistics comparison just doesn't hold up - what about other countries where guns aren't as strictly controlled as the UK, they have far less murders than the US - most seem to agree that it's not the guns themselves that are the problem, rather it's a cultural phenomenon pertaining to the US.

"Even the claimed success of Operation Trident, with gun killings in London falling from 18 in 2004-05 to 15 in 2005-06, obscures an uglier figure: that over the same period non-fatal shootings rose from 185 to 251. All of this appears to suggest that while Londoners continue to try to murder each other with guns they are becoming steadily worse shots. It may even be a function of the youth of the some of the shooters."


Penn & Teller have some pretty convincing arguments:

Gun Control is bovine excrement

Hotwired, in spite of the fact that Copperhead Prime is an illegal firearm under UK law (barreled weapon capable of exceeding 12 ft/lbs) - you still have it. That's gun control working for you :wink:
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: jrrdw » Thu May 03, 2007 5:48 am

goathunter wrote:Beebs the last remark about knives was sarcastic.Eventually, The brits will have to pave there country in foam and walk in bubble suits to be safe from crime :D . Only The UK will have Utopia then :wink:

Anything can be a weapon.It's pretty easy to kill with a pen. There is no end to violence and crime.At least not until the second coming of Christ.

Thats rite! A rolled up news paper/magizine can knock out a person just as easy as a big stick/base ball bat ect...
  • 0

When life gives you lemons...throw them back they suck!
User avatar
jrrdw
Donating Moderator
Donating Moderator
 
Posts: 6538
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 25

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Thu May 03, 2007 6:35 am

Jack, I still have it because I haven't declared it. If I walked it into a police station or was seen in public using it I'd lose it.

12ft-lb in something like a 1.5" launcher results in a potato flying slower than you could throw it AND and a barrel under 30cm long so it's illegal because of that too.

You can tell me I'm being naughty the day someone kills someone else with a spudgun in the UK. Or for that matter when the Crown Prosecution Service decides it's in the public interest to take someone to court for manufacture and possession of a spudgun.

Can't see the video because the sites blocked where I am. Maybe later.
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Thu May 03, 2007 8:06 am

i didn't want this to turn into a raging debate, just a place to post youer ideas on my paper and your thoughts on the topic(what was i thinking??!?!?) i tend to swing more to the liberal side except on this issue, which i feel pretty strongly about. i dont think guns should be sold like a pack of gun, but completley restricting the sale of handguns(or any type) to law abiding citizens is pure bullshit
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu May 03, 2007 8:08 am

I'm not saying that you have used/intend to use your creation to commit a crime, the point is that there is a law against you actually owning it (as far as I know there's a mandatory 5 year sentence for owning an illegal firearm - I know it's pneumatic but in this case if it's a barreled weapon over 12 ft/lbs then in the eyes of the law it's a firearm) and that hasn't stopped you from owning such a potentially lethal weapon - so legislation clearly doesn't work.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: joannaardway » Thu May 03, 2007 8:36 am

When CornishTiger has had firearms officers in his house holding spudguns saying things along the lines "How cool is this?", then I would suspect that the UK law is prepared to bend on matters like spudguns.

A spudgun is nowhere near as dangerous as a pistol, or other such firearm. It's impossible to restrict the construction of spudguns - to do that, you'd have to crack down on every DIY place in the country.
If you outlawed plumbing supplies, you'd be hung drawn and quartered.

Wasting time on a few nutters & wierdos that build copper cannons is stupid, particularly given the limited offensive potential.
It is however possible to restrict the sale of ammunition and handguns, which is a far more important issue.
And it would seem that the UK police force has done excellently in cutting the number of properly dangerous firearms in the country.

@ Beebs111: Have you considered trying to argue the other way? For gun control?
You may not agree with that view, but I often find that assignments like that are more fun when you look at them the other way to your normal beliefs. Of course, that's not appropriate in some cases, where the other side is totally morally wrong (say for example, on matters of racial equality).

Hell, I could argue either way on a gun ban. I prefer one, but it doesn't mean I haven't considered the other side of the situation.
  • 0

Last edited by joannaardway on Thu May 03, 2007 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Novacastrian: How about use whatever the heck you can get your hands on?
frankrede: Well then I guess it won't matter when you decide to drink bleach because your out of kool-aid.
...I'm sorry, but that made my year.
User avatar
joannaardway
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 4:57 pm
Location: SW Hertfordshire, England, UK.
Reputation: 0

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Thu May 03, 2007 8:38 am

You can agree to legislation that cocaine should be illegal and punishable with being roasted alive then go into the next room, lock the door and stuff a ton of powder up your nose.

Legislation is nothing unless enforced and that requires co-operation of the public - they have to feel it's the right thing to do in the first place.

Theres more chance of a bunny rabbit getting through a blast furnace untoasted than enough americans agreeing to strict enough gun laws for it to make a difference - there is too much of a historical culture of it and the national rifle association will shoot down anything of the sort.
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jimmy101 » Thu May 03, 2007 11:03 am

You might want to look at the statistics for gun ownership in Canada. IIRC, the number of guns per person in Canada is very similar to the US.

The gun murder rate (murders/total population) is much lower in Canada than in the US.

If you compare the UK, Canada and US gun murder rates and gun laws you might be able to argue that it isn't the number of guns in the UK that give the lower murder rate, instead it is some other cultural difference.

An useful source that compares the US and Canada gun murder rates is Michael Moore's movie "Bowling for Columbine". If you are going with a pro-gun stance then Moore would be an excellent secondary (tertiary?) source. The entire movie is very anti-gun. But, near the end he discuses guns in Canada and pretty much refutes everything he has said about the relationship of guns to murder in the US.

And my personal view about writing an "opinion piece". Try not to go into the endeavor with a pre-conceived notion of what the result should be. If you do, your bias makes anything you say totally worthless.

For example, pretty much everything Rush Limbaugh says it total crap. Even on the rare occasion when he gets his facts right, it is still total crap. Why? Because he isn't smart enough (or honest enough) to look at a problem, gather facts, and then draw a conclusion. He draws a conclusion then gathers only the facts that supports his conclusion. (Not picking on Rush per se, essentially all "pundits" do the same thing.)

If you want to write a good persuasion piece, then try to do it from the opposite of your initial point of view. Make a real effort to convince yourself (and audience) of the opposite viewpoint.
  • 0

Image

jimmy101
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 3128
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:48 am
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: goathunter » Thu May 03, 2007 11:09 am

Take a look at Kenya where guns are banned totally.The corruption and crime rate is exorbinant.
@ Hotwired,Yes I did screw up my math last night.It was late and I was watching TV.The actual homicide for 2005/06 in The UK and US is:
US:14,860
UK:765
  • 0


goathunter
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:20 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: Hotwired » Thu May 03, 2007 12:40 pm

Kenya isn't exactly a prime example of law being enforced well let alone firearms. You need enforcement with law otherwise its just a paper tiger.
  • 0

User avatar
Hotwired
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am
Location: UK
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: paaiyan » Thu May 03, 2007 1:03 pm

It's my personal opinion that gun control should be in place to some extent, but not go too far. I'm living at home right now and we've had several break-ins on our street recently. I'm considering getting a 12-guage. As soon as I turn 21 I'm getting a pistol and a concealed-carry license because i just don't feel safe. Around here, if someone were to hold me up, it'd prolly be with a knife. My thinking is, I want one up on the bad guy.

Oklahoma seems to be the opposite of gun control really. First with the make my day law and more recently, the stand your ground law. I sit more on the conservative side of the spectrum. If guns are banned, bad guys will still get them, i can guarantee that. Cocaine is banned and they still get it right? If you ban guns, bad guys will have them, and good law-abiding citizens won't. Whereas if guns are given to everyone, I think people would be less likel;y to be mugged. Some punk gang member isn't going to think twice about mugging some old lady. If he knew the old lady, and everyone else on the street around her had a .45, I can bet you he'd reconsider his plan.

Oh, and about Kenya, it's not a prime example of any kind of law.
  • 0

"Who ever said the pen was mightier than the sword, obviously, never encountered automatic weapons."
-General Douglass MacArthur

Read my dog's blog - Life of Kilo
User avatar
paaiyan
Major General
Major General
 
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Central Oklahoma
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 1

Unread postAuthor: iPaintball » Thu May 03, 2007 1:46 pm

I was just wondering what grade you were in because you get such an easy assignment. I'm only in 8th and we have to do two papers a week, one narrative and one expository. We used two do almost three persuasive papers a week. In my opinion, persuasive papers are the easiest to write as long as you have some good facts. Good luck with your paper!
  • 0

User avatar
iPaintball
Colonel
Colonel
 
Posts: 695
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:37 pm
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: AmYisroelChai » Thu May 03, 2007 1:50 pm

I have typed and erased three long posts. Good luck on the paper. You have enough info on this thread alone.

Sorry I want to contribute but i get to worked up.

Kol Yihudi- Esrim V'shtayim. --M.K.

Come to think of it I may make that my signature.
  • 0


AmYisroelChai
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:50 am
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: beebs111 » Thu May 03, 2007 5:34 pm

thanks for all the support and information, just thinking about politics makes me sick to some extent, and i hate to argue about it with people. Quck story for yall, my dad's friend was over, and we got into this debate, and he was like "to make the streets safer make each bullet cost $25" i brought up the point that it would make it less safe, becasue people would not only not be able to practise without paying through the nose, but it would limit gun/bullet ownership to the rich. "well, then lets compromise, make the bullets cheap while at the range..." ok, then soemone will keep an unloaded gun for self defense, and no actually be willing to use it, which is even worse than having nothing. some people have the weirdest twists on reality, it blows my mind. im not sure why that would be practical or safe....
  • 0

in the upcoming presidential election, there will be several candidates who will be running, one of whom is Hillary Clinton. Now WAIT A SECOND!!! I though there was some sort of rule that prevented someone from serving more than two terms in office. Vote Against Hillary: Presidential Elections 08
User avatar
beebs111
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 807
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 3:08 pm
Location: massachussets
Reputation: 0

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'