[quote name= Chris Rock]
F**k that shit.
You don't need no gun control.
You know what you need?
We need some bullet control.
Man, we need to control the bullets,
that's right.
l think all bullets should cost $5000.
$5000 for a bullet. You know why?
'Cause if a bullet costs $5000
there'd be no more innocent bystanders.
That'd be it.
Every time someone gets shot, people will
be like, ''Damn, he must have did something.[/quote]
Quote: DaButt @ August 8 2011, 1:17 AM BSTJust look to recent conflicts in Africa to see how people armed with knives, spears, machetes, shovels and hoes can murder hundreds of thousands. The human race managed to kill untold millions in the centuries before firearms were invented. Where there's a will there's a way ...
The fact that people have always killed each other and will continue to do so is not in dispute and in no way offers a credible counter-argument to what I have said.
Quote: billwill @ August 8 2011, 1:18 AM BSTafter what you first said on this particular incident, I seriously doubt your ability to decide who is a Violent Criminal.
It is not our place to decide whether or not he was a violent criminal. If he pulled a gun on the cops then they were well within their rights to shoot him. If he didn't, then they will be disciplined as required by law.
Neither of us were there so this is all conjecture and really doesn't matter because the cops on the scene were the ones who took (or were forced to take) action. My opinion has nothing more behind it than "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..."
Quote: DaButt @ August 8 2011, 1:17 AM BSTThe human race managed to kill untold millions in the centuries before firearms were invented. Where there's a will there's a way ...
And again, no argument there. But remove guns and there should be fewer deaths.
Quote: Kenneth @ August 8 2011, 1:22 AM BSTObviously you like guns and the vigilante values of America.
As I've said, I like to shoot guns for sport and I like to have the option to defend myself against an attacker with all means necessary. The term "vigilante" is inappropriate in the case of the United States because people are not allowed to take the law into their own hands. They can defend themselves and others from imminent danger but that's where it ends.
Quote: Kenneth @ August 8 2011, 1:31 AM BSTBut remove guns and there should be fewer deaths.
Fewer gun deaths.
The argument goes like this: if you make something harder to do then fewer people do it. That's just regular statistics. If there are no guns, killing becomes harder. E.g. to kill someone with a knife you need proximity. So there will be fewer deaths from distance, for example.
There's a reason why drive-by stabbings haven't caught on.
Quote: Badge @ August 8 2011, 1:59 AM BSTThe argument goes like this: if you make something harder to do then fewer people do it. That's just regular statistics. If there are no guns, killing becomes harder.
That makes no mathematical sense when there are an infinite number of ways to kill someone and you've done nothing to lessen the desire to kill.
Wanting to kill someone isn't always a permanent state. It might be a temporary rage. I'd rather take my chances with an enraged would-be killer if they were across the street and didn't have a gun. Not to mention all accidental deaths from firearms would be eliminated.
Quote: Badge @ August 8 2011, 2:20 AM BSTI'd rather take my chances with an enraged would-be killer if they were across the street and didn't have a gun.
Unfortunately, we aren't given a choice of the assailant's location and weapon when we are confronted with danger. Murderous thugs are carrying guns on the streets of your nation and your government has taken away your ability to defend yourself against them on equal terms. Like it or not, that's how things stand.
Some of them are going to be out of range though aren't they? There's got to be a Venn diagram in this somewhere.
And you seem to assume that I want to "defend myself on equal terms". The idea of having a gun terrifies me. It strikes me that someone with a gun is more likely to get shot at than someone without one.
Quote: DaButt @ August 8 2011, 2:29 AM BSTUnfortunately, we aren't given a choice of the assailant's location and weapon when we are confronted with danger. Murderous thugs are carrying guns on the streets of your nation and your government has taken away your ability to defend yourself against them on equal terms. Like it or not, that's how things stand.
Every country has some murderous thugs with guns. I have never personally encountered any in Australia or Indonesia (apart from members of the state security forces) because people can't easily obtain guns. I feel much safer in countries where civilian handgun ownership is illegal. Repeat ad infinatum.
Quote: DaButt @ August 8 2011, 2:13 AM BSTThat makes no mathematical sense when there are an infinite number of ways to kill someone and you've done nothing to lessen the desire to kill.
a + b = (c2d)∞
b - a = c/f
a = guns.
b = desire to kill.
c = murders, violent deaths and suicides.
d = innocent bystanders hit by stray bullets.
∞ = infinity
f = I never studied calculus.
Quote: Badge @ August 8 2011, 2:38 AM BSTSome of them are going to be out of range though aren't they?
Handguns are only good for a a few yards at best. Most incidents take place at less than 10 feet. If thy're close enough to shoot they're probably close enough to stab/beat you.
And you seem to assume that I want to "defend myself on equal terms".
Fine, bring a knife to the proverbial gunfight, Indiana Jones. 
The idea of having a gun terrifies me.
I'm well-trained and quite familiar with them. Don't own one if you so choose, but to me it's just an inert piece of metal and plastic that I'll never use unless I need to defend myself.
It strikes me that someone with a gun is more likely to get shot at than someone without one.
Nope, as the rules for concealed carry demand that it remains hidden until confronted by an immediate threat to your life.
Quote: Kenneth @ August 8 2011, 2:44 AM BSTa + b = (c2d)∞
b - a = c/fa = guns.
b = desire to kill.
c = murders, violent deaths and suicides.
d = innocent bystanders hit by stray bullets.
∞ = infinity
f = I never studied calculus.
Your equation fails to take into consideration the number of lives saved by defensive use of firearms and the much-lower-than-the-general-population crime rate regarding people who have passed the extensive background checks required to obtain a concealed carry license.
(I took many semesters of calculus.)
Well, there goes another night discussing guns when we could be discussing beer. Goodnight folks.
Quote: Badge @ August 8 2011, 2:53 AM BSTWell, there goes another night discussing guns when we could be discussing beer. Goodnight folks.
Jings, time for work. I hope no one tries to shoot/rob me in Sydney today.
One more mathematical fact:
There are more than 400,000 people licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas. Last year one of them was convicted of murder. That means that the murder rate for UK citizens is more than 5 times as great as that of Texans who are licensed to carry. Sit back and chew on that for a moment.
As for beer, I made what I hope will be a lovely IPA today. Tomorrow I'll keg 10 gallons of bitter that I can't wait to try.