Obama-Biden or McCain-Palin(Speedsolving Votes)

WHo will you vote for in 2008?

  • Obama Biden

    Votes: 120 76.9%

  • McCain Palin

    Votes: 36 23.1%
  • Total voters
    156
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm - UK gun ban

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html - Australia gun ban

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/09/chicago-murder-rate-up-18-despite-the-handgun-ban/ - Chicago gun ban

The list goes on, tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, where a total of 40 innocent people were killed were done in "gun-free zones," its obvious a crazed maniac can bring a gun on campus and reek havoc, but if one of those kids were allowed to have a gun, they may have stopped it, like it happened at Appalachian State, but no one hears about that.
 
Hang on, you're saying that anybody should be allowed to walk around on campus with a gun, on the off chance that someone is going to go on a rampage? Whereas if that person wasn't allowed to get guns in the first place he couldn't have gone on the rampage?

Here's a question: Why is it that because people aren't allowed to get access to guns, that homocide rates go up? Surely it is not because your average Joe can no longer defend himself. I mean, that just doesn't make any sense. Why would people go on rampages with guns because they know that other people don't have guns? It wouldn't make a difference! If they felt like going on a rampage, they'd do it either way! Guns or no guns! You're turning correlation into causation, but there isn't a connection. (or, at least there is only an illogical connection)
 
Well, let's look at the facts, every time gun control is enforced crime goes up, hmmm, so you're saying, "i can't think of a reason why, so lets keep doing it even if more people will die," the logic is that when you rid a place of guns, you take away law-abiding citizens' guns, not criminals guns. They can still get guns, and what worse situation is there than only criminals having guns, also, the number one deterrent for criminals is if the person they are robbing has a gun, they dont want to get shot, also, approximately 750,000 people in the US protect themselves with guns each year, where's the logic in it decreasing crime, and yes, students should be able to carry guns on campus as it can protect against a rampage, which it has in the past, and without anyone having a gun you are defenseless, as well as crime, i go to school in a city with a lot of crime, and you should be allowed to defend yourself, college campuses shouldnt be "constitution free zones." And exactly they will do the rampage either way, guns or no guns, if they want to get a gun on campus they obviously can even though its a "gun free zone" and they can buy guns illegally, which gun bans clearly do nothing to stop, so they go on their rampage, and if kids have guns on campus they may be able to limit deaths, if not, such as at Virginia tech, 32 students were murdered. When the correlation is that high, you can put one and two together.
 
Well, first off its not an immediate process, ridding everyone in the metropolis of guns, and we can stop dwelling on this if you want, but the facts remain, gun control laws clearly had an adverse effect as it did in every situation, besides being unconstitutional. Desperately arguing that it barely hurts people is pretty silly. And homicide rates rose 12% in that time in the US and 200% in DC, its logically attributed to that major legislation.
 
is it not interesting that the vast majority of people who wish to legalise guns (or completely remove gun controls), also say that drugs should be completely illegal?
The two arguments run on similar logical lines...
although the case for legalising drugs is probably stronger as it links with prostitution, organised crime and people trafficking more than guns do (not to say that there isn't a link).

anyway, i oppose guns in any hands other than in the military's or a police officers. i just dont think that most people are responsible enough, no matter how law abiding people might think themselves.


Plus its pretty difficult to blow somebody's face off with a spliff.
 
"Plus its pretty difficult to blow somebody's face off with a spliff."
This made me giggle. I have a story not appropriate for this forum that might make you think otherwise xD
 
I don't agree with most drug laws, but the debate is about gun control, and its a fact that it hurts people, maybe if there were no guns we would be safer, but thats not a reality, and if only the police and military have guns, thats called a police state, and is the most oppressive gov't possible, the founders made the constitution specifically to deter the gov't from being too powerful, and gun bans do exactly that.
 
o.O really?
If only the police and military have guns, it automatically makes it a police state? Save the rhetoric.
 
It makes it impossible for the nation of people to revolt if necessary, making it oppressive, police state is just rigid oppression from the gov't, it doesnt have to be taken literally, you just ignored all the important points and are all over me because of semantics.
 
I think you're right, ThePizzaGuy. Having only a two party system forces people to (for the most part) become narrow-minded. They either believe either one thing, or its opposite. If they're something else, their vote doesn't count. (You can bring up the few third parties that have made a big difference, like the Populists and such, but I don't think that is possible in the society of today)
 
coolest-est.jpg
 
Kyle Barry said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm - UK gun ban

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/aus.html - Australia gun ban

http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/09/chicago-murder-rate-up-18-despite-the-handgun-ban/ - Chicago gun ban

The list goes on, tragedies at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois, where a total of 40 innocent people were killed were done in "gun-free zones," its obvious a crazed maniac can bring a gun on campus and reek havoc, but if one of those kids were allowed to have a gun, they may have stopped it, like it happened at Appalachian State, but no one hears about that.
Click to expand...

AGREED! My aunt is a professor there and I live about 30 miles away from Boone and it was only on local news stations, I also have family in Raleigh and they didn't see anything about it.
 
I think parties are a good way to give people a sense of direction, such as, if we don't know much about a candidate, but we know that they are republican/democrat, we know who we probably agree with on the issues and can vote at least a little bit informed, people only agreeing with their party despite their beliefs is unfortunate, but inevitable.
 
Kyle Barry said:
Excuse me, I meant to say, from the year after it was enacted until 1991, homicide rates rose 200%

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2005/may/20/20050520-081040-3508r/
Click to expand...

Yeah, they were really bad from 1988-1996. In fact, if you look, the Sega Genesis was released in 1988 (one of the first 16-bit video game systems). In 1996, the Nintendo 64 was released, in sync with a decrease in violence.

Now, you may be looking at that and saying it makes no sense, but I'm just stating the facts. Or, perhaps, just perhaps, there might be factors outside the gun ban that could have caused an increase in violence? And all the gun ban did was to lessen the increase? No, that's crazy talk, that could never happen. The gun ban and only the gun ban is the sole variable for violence rates. Nothing else, like police funding, social situations, lax setencing for other crimes, etc could have caused it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Barack Obama
  • Locked
[Member Intro] I am Barack Obama and I approve of speedcubin
2 3
Replies
44
Views
9,651
Dene
Dene
deathbypapercutz
Cube sighting in Obama ad
2
Replies
23
Views
4,996
DAE_JA_VOO
DAE_JA_VOO
Back
Top