I want to own some anthrax

[headvoid]

I like to look at it and it's lovely.

I have no violent criminal convictions and am of sane mind. Everyone can have it in my neighbourhood - I'm not bothered. I will feel quite safe at night knowing that if everyone has this deadly weapon then none of us will be compelled to use it.

The laws not allowing me to hold biological weapons are antiquated and stifle my freedoms. It is all about government trying to control the populace.

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS FOR ALL

My campaign starts here.

 

[Tyrant]

Spoiler

?

 

[Tyrant]

Before that's taken as insulting:

I think you've been shown flimsy arguments used by those who disagree with gun control. I'd be happy to entertain you with some better examples, if I could.

 

[Acrimonious]

I don't think my arguments were flimsy. I think he's grasping at idealogical straws to try to bolster his own argument.

 

[jack]

I think all cupcakeers should be forced to snort anthrax.

 

[Starship Coyote]

I think all cupcakeers should be forced to snort anthrax.

And Jews. Don't forget them. With those big honkers, they can take a double dose.

 

[headvoid]

Flippancy is underated

I'm willing to hear all arguements. I am collating information on this subject.

Whilst Acrimonious and I will never agree on this matter, I suspect he would be surprised to know what guns I actually own.

Messenger - any arguements for would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Tyrant]

I grew up in a town in New Hampshire where taking a gun to school was considered normal, because you might be "varminting" the crops on the way back home or joining an older family member to shoot a little extra meat for dinner. My grandfather (the one who used to hoist a few with Dick Nixon) had a recipe for Venison mincemeat pie that started, "Step 1: Shoot a deer!" Everyone got their first rifle at age 12, and gun safety was the second religion. We didn't have to worry about drive-by shootings; anyone foolish enough to try such a stunt would have been instantly dead.

The current culture of crime blossomed when people were tricked into surrendering their own self-defense and allowed themselves to become dependent on a government with questionable motives for assuming such control of our lives.

All hype aside, the numbers speak for themselves. Where the people have guns, crime is low. Where guns are banned, crime is rampant.

Great Britain enacted a total gun ban supposedly in the name of public safety. Crime went up, including home invasions and attacks on the elderly. But the government of Great Britain, obviously more concerned with keeping the subjects helpless than safe kept the gun ban on the premise that British subjects BELIEVED they were safer with it, even though they were not.

Every year in the US, lawful gun owners prevent millions of crimes. Millions! The police do not prevent any crimes. They show up afterwards, act official, clean up the mess, collect their paychecks full of tax dollars and go home. Between the low convictions rate and high recidivism, the current police force seems little more than costumed show, suited to writing tickets to extort money from traffic offenders, and certainly far removed form the mythical crime-solving abilities of TV shows.

^Not my words, but they express my feelings on the subject.

Furthermore, gun control has the opposite intended effect on crime:


Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)

In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300 percent.

Figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms (but increased drastically in the past 12 months).

There has been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in safety has been served after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."


Washington DC, which has a gun BAN, has the highest per-capita rate of murder in the country, while Vermont, which has automatic conceal carry, pretty much the lowest.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and prevent crime.

 

[headvoid]

I grew up in a town in New Hampshire

The opinions by this person are only relevant in their community. Unless you would like to encourage people in cities to "devarmint" the streets on their way home

All hype aside, the numbers speak for themselves. Where the people have guns, crime is low. Where guns are banned, crime is rampant.

Just not true apart from some selected areas of the US. Everyone is allowed an AK47 in Iraq.

Great Britain enacted a total gun ban supposedly in the name of public safety. Crime went up, including home invasions and attacks on the elderly. But the government of Great Britain, obviously more concerned with keeping the subjects helpless than safe kept the gun ban on the premise that British subjects BELIEVED they were safer with it, even though they were not.

This is simply not true. Your sources would be interesting, but gun crime in the UK is on the rise but restricted to a very small geographic amount of areas and ethnic groups. We have had NO school gun lone killers AT ALL since the law was passed. My children are safer because of the law.

Every year in the US, lawful gun owners prevent millions of crimes. Millions! The police do not prevent any crimes.

I have no doubt of this - I would not advocate gun control in your country. Your gun culture and penetration is too great - the genie is out and that creates a different situation

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings) - 6.6%were committed with firearms
New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 - 70% involved the use of firearms

But the gun laws were not designed to reduce the crime - this is such a chewbacca defence. They were introduced as a result of the dunblane massacre, hungerford and other atrocities. The law will never stop a crack dealer in Birmingham from finding a gun and killing a rival. They were not designed for this.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and prevent crime.

Who decides this? Michael Ryan was a law abiding normal citizen.

 

[jack]

And Jews. Don't forget them. With those big honkers, they can take a double dose.

Jews are invulnerable to anthrax anyway.

 

[jack]

Everyone has a gun here in Vermont. Lowest crime and death rate too related to gun crime or accidental death or otherwise.

 

[jack]

A gun is a tool, not a weapon or a toy.

 

[jack]

I know it's a weapon, but that's the point of my rhetoric. I think anyone who wants to be responsible around a gun should have access to whatever kind of gun they want.

 

[Tyrant]

The opinions by this person are only relevant in their community. Unless you would like to encourage people in cities to "devarmint" the streets on their way home

No, they are relevant as they summarize my thoughts on the topic as a whole, not one aspect of if you've isolated.

Just not true apart from some selected areas of the US.

No, it is true, and Australia and South Africa are good examples of it.

Everyone is allowed an AK47 in Iraq.

You seriously want to cite Iraq as an example?

This is simply not true. Your sources would be interesting, but gun crime in the UK is on the rise but restricted to a very small geographic amount of areas and ethnic groups.

Do you dispute the statement pertaining to increasing crime rates, especially home invasions and attacks on the elderly?

We have had NO school gun lone killers AT ALL since the law was passed. My children are safer because of the law.

I have no doubt of this - I would not advocate gun control in your country. Your gun culture and penetration is too great - the genie is out and that creates a different situation

Either gun control harms citizenry and helps criminals, or it does not. What sort of situation does it create?

But the gun laws were not designed to reduce the crime - this is such a chewbacca defence. They were introduced as a result of the dunblane massacre, hungerford and other atrocities. The law will never stop a crack dealer in Birmingham from finding a gun and killing a rival. They were not designed for this.

It's not a Chewbacca defense, because what I wrote was an example of gun control resulting in increasing crime rates in Australia, and not laws in Great Britain and the motivation behind drafting them.

But since you've switched the subject of our scrutiny from overall gun control and its effect on crime to specific, extraordinary examples in the UK, let's talk about that.

It would seem you're in a bit of a pickle. We all are, if we're forced choose between preventing a few nuts from doing what they do, or living in the shadow of crime.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and prevent crime.

Who decides this? Michael Ryan was a law abiding normal citizen.

Obviously he wasn't.

 

[headvoid]

I admit, I'm at work and jumping around a little.

I don't see any case of Gun control causing a rise in crime - at best you're arguement points towards Gun Control laws having no effect on crime whatsoever. Australia and South Africa have a rising "Crime" problem. There is no direct cause and effect that I have been able to locate. None of your examples take into account any other factors such as immigration, rise in gang culture or drugs.

Your point on home invasions is at best a distraction. My gran, bless her when she was alive, would be more likely to shoot me, the cat or passing traffic than any potential robbers. Have you met an old person recently? Seriously arming the elderly scares me more than the thought of Sarek with a firearm. The point stands for me trusting the General UK population to keep guns out of the hands of their 5 year olds but within easy reach for a home invasion. I have plenty of tools to deal with a home invasion - but accessing my Gun Locker is not one of them.

I am conscious that in these various threads that I have been playing devils advocate a little. That is because I am collecting potential arguements that may come my way.

The truth of what I believe? Gun Control laws only have an affect on law abiding citizens. They are fairly useless against criminals - but we should continue to have strong laws against those carrying illegal firearms. I also believe that a large percentage of the people that I meet in the world are not fit to carry a firearm. Mass public ownership leads to idiots having guns, this leads to needless death.

Michael Ryan WAS a law abiding citizen up until the point he lost his mind, that is my point. If I was to flip my lid, then my armoury is very limited, and slow to load.