Free MMORPG Forums

Norrin Radd

Manic's reply was shorter, so that goes first:

If he's keeping them in Iraq, which he plans to do, and if he'd be dangerously gung-ho about Iran, which he will, he is absolutely using the military for his own benefit on a mass scale. That's what all presidents do; war is young men dying and old men talking.

This is all slightly irrelevant though. You claimed he hasn't used it for personal gain, and he has.

He wouldn't do that because he's catch backlash, don't assume he doesn't want to.

Clicky'd. The article is from end of year 2005, a time when there was a high amount of gun crime, particularly in the Manchester area. A lot has happened in this country in three years, genius. That all started in 2003, it hit a peak in 2005 and by that time it was understood that it couldn't go on. Many initiatives have been introduced in crackdowns on gun crime.

The answer was not "More guns for everyone.".

Who said anything about me being unaware of illegal firearms?

I simply said that nobody would be as stupid as carrying around a revolver in plain enough sight for someone to see at the store, especially because cops on the beat are especially vigilant in Essex. Furthermore, a revolver is a highly uncommon firearm for any random youth to possess.

Hence why I call bs, cos too much of your shit doesn't add up nor sound realistically plausible. You've visited Essex how many times? I've lived where I do for 22 years, not once have I seen such sloppy criminality.

And you feel the general public are responsible enough to adhere to this? The POLICE in this country that actually have guns, cannot act rationally half the time.

Guns would not make one-on-one muggings, nor assaults, any better.

Quotes and statistics from THIS side of the millenium would be a great idea, just for your information.

Secondly, your stats prove my point. Felons are worried about running into armed victims, that's precisely why they're hardly ever running in there to take your life, they just want your shit. If they took a poll regarding "How Many Felons Would Willingly Kill with Their Weaponry?", it would be a low percentage, and even then it's probably just talk.

Burglars fear being shot because that is why people have guns in their home, AS I PREVIOUSLY SAID. Burglars have less intent to kill than the people who want guns, that's the twist.

Seeing as you're a fan of 2005, though. Here's something interesting:

http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif

Let's review that again, it's baffling at first glance. Look where U.S.A. is...now look at EEEEEEVERYONE else.

We won't stop now:

"Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.".

U.S.A. consistently ranks highest in terms of fatal gun crime.

To quote Bill Hicks: "When comparing gun crime in the States to gun crime here, the American government believes that there is no connection between having a gun and being able to shoot someone, and not having guns...and not being able to shoot people. Apparantly, you're a fool and a communist if you make such a wild connection.".

Guns are not a solver of problems, they are a killer of people.

Do you have trouble staying relevant? England's justice system isn't perfect, whose is? We have this thing though, where we don't just kill criminals. We'd rather work on making our jail systems work, and work well. It may cause some people to slip through the gap, but at least we're not pissing away money on capital punishment.

On topic; gun crime is an intolerable thing and it has been met with increasing force over here.

My mistake, misread.

Exactly, and look how nightmarish England is. We don't have C.C.W. and that, according to you, is something so absolutely necessary. It's not. The less guns, the less gun crime. What about that does not correlate with you? It's not something you need to see on a graph, you don't need a degree; less guns, less gun crime.

We have less guns...we have less gun crime. If it's always going to exist, isn't it better to just have some, than a lot?

And what about every other American that will be free to use this right? Can you say the same for them?

This isn't like the ability to freely smoke pot, where you're only getting yourself high. This is a freedom that people can use to kill other people, and I can guarantee they would do so. Your wife, girlfriend, loved one gets into a public argument, the guy shoots her with his gun, what then? You are one of the people who wants to make this a possibility.

The problem with you is, you've never seen it, and you've never known or experienced what gun crime does. I've seen it, ironically, and I did not think "If only I had a gun.". Cos I am human, and I would now be in jail. No matter how much you train someone, we're human, and we are not responsible to hold guns so freely.

If you want to stop failing so hard, stop going off on random tangents, start being more realistic regarding what's being discussed, and get a bit more experience in the matter.

You claim to have been robbed at home, fine, keep a gun there if it means that much to you. There is absolutely no justifiable reason for C.C.Ws to be allowed. It will cause more harm than good, it's Occam's Razor;

Less guns, less gun crime.

All you've provided is hyperbole and exaggerated reasoning for why everyone should be allowed guns. You present me with the theory and hope that it would work out, overlooking the fact that there's insane amounts of gun crime there as it is, and your solution is more weaponry?

Keep promoting this kind of passive-anarchic behaviour and just like the gnomes you so unintelligibly referenced, you'll come up criminally shorter than Gary Coleman and look more foolish than someone who's just had their underwear stolen.