• Saudi Arabia Legalizes Guns in order to Curb Illegal Weapons Sales
    114 replies, posted
Guns also stop terrorist before they commit the crime. If you were going to go hold a building full of people hostage you know there would be almost no resistance, but if there was a chance that some of the people were carrying guns then i'm sure they would feel less inclined to take people hostage.
[QUOTE=cornndog;17991896]Guns also stop terrorist before they commit the crime. If you were going to go hold a building full of people hostage you know there would be almost no resistance, but if there was a chance that some of the people were carrying guns then i'm sure they would feel less inclined to take people hostage.[/QUOTE] Well it would certainly be a factor in their decision making but terrorist tend to have a death wish so I don't know that it would stop them.
This should make disputes over oil barrels interesting.
What would a AK 47 cost really? I've heard rumors of them costing less then bread.
[QUOTE=Clavus;17979698]I'm now picturing the perfect world where all weapons are replaced by pillows. Imagine going to war.[/QUOTE] How about the other way around? :smugdog: [editline]06:55PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Bean-O;17991556] [B]~~REALLY FUCKING HUGE WALL OF TEXT~~[/B] [/QUOTE] Holy shit Bean-O
[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;17961953]So the stores are going to try and outsell illegal gun dealers?[/QUOTE] It will be easy - legal guns are cheaper because there's a lot less risk involved in transporting.
wow, if all the arab countries did this there would be no need for bombings :dance: oh, wait...
[QUOTE=booster;17992602]What would a AK 47 cost really? I've heard rumors of them costing less then bread.[/QUOTE] $360 [url]http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct708.aspx[/url]
Why the fuck do they legalize shit like guns but legally torture women who talk in TV shows
[QUOTE=cheezey;17994315]Why the fuck do they legalize shit like guns but legally torture women who talk in TV shows[/QUOTE] So they can shoot the woman who talk in TV shows, duh. :downs:
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;17964351]don't matter what they're committed with, the fact of the matter is that the countries I listed are much safer in terms of all violent crime[/QUOTE]So's Finland, and we have the highest rate of gun ownership in Europe. There's more to it that gun availability.
[QUOTE=The Epidemic;17992746] Holy shit Bean-O[/QUOTE] Never argue with Bean-O about guns. Ever. It's like arguing with Lankist about the law.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;17993962]$360 [url]http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/storeproduct708.aspx[/url][/QUOTE] What about in countries like Somalia?
[QUOTE=booster;17994817]What about in countries like Somalia?[/QUOTE] Sorry, I can't find black market prices through google.
[QUOTE=:smug:;17993215]It will be easy - legal guns are cheaper because there's a lot less risk involved in transporting.[/QUOTE] Legal guns tend to be more expensive due to red tape/retail storefront/rent/taxes/relative lack of competition compared to illicit markets and legitimate sources of inventory (IE not stolen property) and pretty much anything related to the nature of running a legitimate business. Black markets for anything are always much cheaper. Otherwise they wouldn't exist. [QUOTE=booster;17994817]What about in countries like Somalia?[/QUOTE] A loaf of sliced bread is about 2$. An AK-47 is (reportedly) around 20$. This is of course in areas where widespread violence and conflict have proliferated the weapon so much you can find them just lying around if you look hard enough and if the weapon in question is in very rough shape. In areas like that food can be scarce and therefore far more valuable than it is in more stable places like the US. Can you get a working (albeit rough) AK for a 2$ loaf of bread? Beats me. But it is more likely than you think. Either way you can technically buy a 300$ civilian AK in the states with a loaf of bread if it was big enough. Like the size of a car or something.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;17991556]Doesn't really counter my point. I simply wasn't aware that we HAD to stick to examples within the US. Nevertheless Israel is a case where guns are frequently used by civilians for just the reason you described with significantly more benefit than harm. If they can use guns to protect themselves from hardened, suicidal terrorists, what is to say an American can't effectively use a gun to protect himself against a far less determined common thug? 90% of the time a simple show of force is enough. If you brandish a firearm, they will usually scatter because they are expecting you to be defenseless. There are millions of those cases and far less than a million fuckups. Moreover the fuckups are always reported. Very little exception there. The heroics aren't because a crime is prevented, so why go to the police about it? I still think people should report self-defense cases more often but they don't. Often times as far as record keeping goes self-defense cases are regarded as unimportant and frequently omitted from records which affects the statistics and is the reason why the exact number of those cases is shady but nevertheless likely to be very high. One could say, "How do you justify saving multiple lives with a gun at the expense of another?" I would say "How would you justify screwing those other people over for that one life which would most likely be taken either way?" That's just an argument I hear a lot. What? No way, these guys had a freaking deathwish. You don't shoot to miss if you have a freaking deathwish. In the army, maybe but even then when they shoot they usually shoot to kill. I would sooner attribute that low fatality rate to sheer incompetence. I highly doubt that. Also it's nice that you're allowed to use examples of foreign countries but when I do it effectively (Israel) then it isn't relevant to the discussion. Never mind that many gun owners have a prior military history or that many get lots of practice shooting their guns. In fact most cops only practice once a month or so, just the bare minimum as required by their department. (Which I think is a shame). Is a random civilian more qualified to deal with a dangerous situation? No, but he's there when it happens which saves ever-precious time. Like I said, first and last line of defense. That and people who have permits to carry guns (yes, you need to apply for a permit, this isn't Deadwood) do get extensive training on the subject before they are allowed to carry. Incidents where a CCW user abuses his privileges can be counted on one hand in most states. Even the ones that have issued thousands of permits over the course of several years now. Except if you fail everyone is screwed. This is where the whole "Piss him off and make him shoot everyone" thing comes into play. It isn't like any of his victims will shoot back or anything. And if you had a gun you could just blow his brains out when his back is turned. Morally questionable and messy, but perfectly legitimate as far as the law is concerned. Yeah, I'm not claiming America is better than Sweden or anything. Our crime rate is still pretty freaking high in comparison to incredibly clean places like that. But not as high as people are running around claiming it to be. If you look at our crime rates per capita and compare them to other nations that are at least halfway honest about it, we don't score that bad. And yes, some other countries blatantly lie about their crime rates to make themselves look better. It is very common. And banning guns will only affect one side of that delicate balance of power between criminal and victim. The criminals still get most of their guns by smuggling them from abroad and there is only so much we can do about that. If we banned guns they would simply get more of their supplies that way. It would inconvenience them some more, but not stop them. Heck, they could just switch to knives like in England, where the crime rate unexpectedly shot up after they banned everything. Oh wait, I'm not allowed to use that as an example am I? I appreciate how you snuck an ad-hominem attack in there. Very subtle. They're not complaining because their toys are being taken away. They are complaining because in the US, guns are provided so that we can overthrow our own government. If that same government decides to take everything away, naturally that looks like a bad sign. Yeah, our situations with freedoms is kind of lousy (Thanks Bush administration, I hope you burn in hell) but the way some people see it, when they decide to take our guns it is a turn in the wrong direction. Basically what you just said is "You don't have many rights anyway, why not give another one up?". Which isn't the worst logic ever until you consider that the right in question is supposed to be a last-chance defense against just such incursions. No one who carries "assumes" that they will be attacked. That ideology as far as I'm aware simply doesn't exist among CCW holders. It is just there in case you are attacked. Much like how some people have fire extinguishers in their cars and homes. They don't assume their car or house will catch on fire but they are ready in case it does. No it isn't. If you had a gun and they didn't, they would be running because you would have the complete advantage. If they did have a gun, there is a good possibility of scaring them off because they're not expecting you to have one. And if it turns into a shootout, there's nothing to say they weren't planning on disposing of you from the get-go. Yes, cases where someone breaks into a house, finds people unarmed and kills them anyway aren't that rare. Not very common, but they happen. Fighting fire with fire doesn't seem to make sense until you consider how well it works here. The bottom line is that it evens the odds between victim and criminal. Does it cost lives? Yes, beyond a doubt, but it saves more still.[/QUOTE] Well, if you don't think that guns are the cause of high murder rates in the US, then you should start finding something else to blame it on. All I'm hearing right now is a bunch of preteens complaining that "ther guns been taken away by liburals," not actually realizing that guns cause more problems than they solve. There's really no point in arguing with me anyways. I don't think that guns are the direct cause of high murder rates in the US, I think the problem lies in American culture and mindset itself. No politicians are trying to sort that out, because the country is in a comfortable little rut. Next best thing to do is make guns illegal, because that will significantly lower murder rates. If America wasn't such a craphole, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself from bank robbers and terrorists, end of story. I think guns should be made illegal or further restricted because they add to the problem. On top of that I personally think you have an unhealthy obsession with firearms and simply argue for your rights because you [I]want[/I] guns, not because you need them. [editline]08:32AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Deathbyfire;17994744]Never argue with Bean-O about guns. Ever. It's like arguing with Lankist about the law.[/QUOTE] Funny you say that, I argued with Lankist about the [I]morality of criminal punishments[/I], and being as arrogant as he is, he starting rambling about how I don't know anything about the justice system, even though I wasn't [I]talking about the justice system[/I]. Seems the same thing is happening here. I'm arguing about why people don't need guns, and Bean-O is arguing about how a gun could be useful if you are attacked by terrorists, crab people, zombies, or any other fictional being that you will never encounter in your lifetime.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]Well, if you don't think that guns are the cause of high murder rates in the US, then you should start finding something else to blame it on. All I'm hearing right now is a bunch of preteens complaining that [b]"ther guns been taken away by liburals,"[/b] not actually realizing that guns cause more problems than they solve. There's really no point in arguing with me anyways. I don't think that guns are the direct cause of high murder rates in the US, I think the problem lies in American culture and mindset itself. No politicians are trying to sort that out, because the country is in a comfortable little rut. Next best thing to do is make guns illegal, because that will significantly lower murder rates.[b] If America wasn't such a craphole, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself from bank robbers and terrorists, end of story.[/b] I think guns should be made illegal or further restricted because they add to the problem. On top of that I personally think you have an unhealthy obsession with firearms and simply argue for your rights because you [I]want[/I] guns, not because you need them. [editline]08:32AM[/editline][/quote] Gee thanks for calling us a craphole, then expecting us to be swayed to your side by what you say. Have a giant box. By the way I am the liberals. [quote=butthurteuropean]And you're right, I do [i]want[/i] guns. Funny you say that, I argued with Lankist about the [I]morality of criminal punishments[/I], and being as arrogant as he is, he starting rambling about how I don't know anything about the justice system, even though I wasn't [I]talking about the justice system[/I]. Seems the same thing is happening here. I'm arguing about why people don't need guns, and [b]Bean-O is arguing about how a gun could be useful if you are attacked by terrorists, crab people, zombies, or any other fictional being that you will never encounter in your lifetime.[/b][/QUOTE] But a robber is not a fictional characters and there is a very high probability that you will encounter one in your lifetime.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]Well, if you don't think that guns are the cause of high murder rates in the US, then you should start finding something else to blame it on.[/QUOTE] Even though our crime rates are about average compared to other nations that report them honestly? And in spite of the fact that they continue to fall every year. We hadn't had crime rates this low since the 1950's. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]I don't think that guns are the direct cause of high murder rates in the US, I think the problem lies in American culture and mindset itself.[/QUOTE] Specifically thug culture. Quite a lot of people aspire to be criminals from a young age and glorify that parasitic segment of society. The same people who are responsible for the vast majority of crimes, especially shootings. I think it's disgusting. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]Next best thing to do is make guns illegal, because that will significantly lower murder rates.[/QUOTE] So they aren't the cause, but they should be banned anyway? I had already made my point on this, it may [b]seem[/b] the logical course of action, but it would benefit the criminals far more than their prospective victims. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]If America wasn't such a craphole, you wouldn't need a gun to defend yourself from bank robbers and terrorists, end of story. I think guns should be made illegal or further restricted because they add to the problem.[/QUOTE] It isn't a craphole. Our per-capita crime rate is significantly lower that countries that are considered way more "civilized" such as England. Better still, if you don't join a gang your odds of being shot while living in the US fall to well below half what they currently are, since such a large amount of shootings are caused by gang-related activity. Make no mistake, gangs are the problem here, not the weapons they use. Without them our crime rate would be much lower. And even with their "contribution" to society we are safer than most other places on earth. Much of what you heard about America being a "total warzone" and "more dangerous than 3rd world countries" is complete bullshit. People are lying to you through their teeth. If you believe everything you hear pretty soon you will think the US is the ONLY place that has crime. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]On top of that I personally think you have an unhealthy obsession with firearms and simply argue for your rights because you [I]want[/I] guns, not because you need them.[/QUOTE] One, that seems an awful lot like a personal attack. Two, even if my position on self-defense came from an "unhealthy" obsession with firearms it wouldn't necessarily render all my arguments null and void. (granted I am undeniably quite the gun nut) Three, my interest in firearms and ownership thereof is derived from my political beliefs and fascination with their role in history rather than vice versa. It's a practice what you preach deal. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]I'm arguing about why people don't need guns, and Bean-O is arguing about how a gun could be useful if you are attacked by terrorists, crab people, zombies, or any other fictional being that you will never encounter in your lifetime.[/QUOTE] One, another personal attack. Two, you're implying that I drift miles off topic and that my arguments are completely irrelevant to the discussion, when they are in fact direct rebuttals of your statements. Three, I never mentioned zombies, crab people or anything like that. I mentioned terrorists because there is precedent of people using guns to minimize damage caused by rampaging madmen (Israel) and encounters with armed muggers are more or less commonplace. Not just in the US either. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;18004155]There's really no point in arguing with me anyways. [/QUOTE] No, but I still enjoy having a civil debate. In fact I enjoy it more than discussing issues with people that agree with me. Call me optimistic but at the end of this argument I would expect a hearty handshake, a pat on the back and no hard feelings. Something that I would most certainly provide regardless of if I won or lost the argument itself. It isn't as though I think you are an idiot for holding your beliefs or anything. Mislead by faulty information perhaps, but not an idiot.
[QUOTE=Bean-O;18015893]Even though our crime rates are about average compared to other nations that report them honestly?[/QUOTE] How can you possibly know if they're reporting them honestly or not? How can you possibly know yours are honest? This is a horrible argument and I hope you know how horrible it is so you can hang your head in shame. [quote]Our per-capita crime rate is significantly lower that countries that are considered way more "civilized" such as England.[/quote] Per area maybe, but not per capita.
[QUOTE=Catdaemon;18016203]How can you possibly know if they're reporting them honestly or not? How can you possibly know yours are honest? This is a horrible argument and I hope you know how horrible it is so you can hang your head in shame.[/QUOTE] -The UK's crime rate is based off convictions. If a crime happens and no one is arrested for it, it isn't counted. They're pretty good at convicting offenders, so they catch most of them, but not all. Therefore the figures they issue aren't completely accurate. There is a caveat to this. Their murder rate is still lower than that of the US, but the general crime rate is higher. -Japan counts murder/suicides as suicides. That means if someone kills themselves and takes 5 others with them all those people "killed themselves". Their crime rate is still lower, but they are still an example of a country that misreports its crime rate. -China's government either lies about or simply withholds information it doesn't like. That's what it always does. It lies about its environment, it lies about its business, it lies about its history, it is a safe bet it would lie about its crime rate too. In China's case it simply didn't publish that information. I can't find any estimates of China's crime rate. -Any given third world country will have trouble reporting all the crimes that happen because often times the authorities simply don't have the means to do so. India claims to have a lower crime rate than the US, but in fact their authorities can only deal with so much and it is only that which they deal with that gets reported. Everything else (and god knows how big that figure is) simply stays off the record and therefore doesn't contribute to the reported per capita crime rate. -There are a whole lot of shady things done by governments to make their countries look more safer. They can lie, use dodgy reporting techniques, or simply not say anything. Not all countries do this, but you would be surprised how many do. Meanwhile the US has a pretty reliable system where if you are victimized and go to the police about it, they file a report and every report is categorized into one offense or the other. Every agency then sends all of their reports to the FBI which compiles them into data. It's called the Uniform Crime Report. The only thing that would result in a crime not being reported is if the victim never goes to the authorities because they are unaware of what happened (for whatever reason) or too scared. But that happens everywhere. How do I know this shit? Because I major in Administration of Justice.
Don't argue with Bean-O. He's a respected user for a reason, and he is the FP Demigod of firearms.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;17963512]Yea sort of. I guess freedom of speech is outdated too. Haha I got ninja'd Alright, how about this: How can you tell what rights are outdated and what rights aren't?[/QUOTE] Uhh, I think the question is, how do you?
[QUOTE=DrMonumbo;17961953]So the stores are going to try and outsell illegal gun dealers?[/QUOTE] It worked in the US with Prohibition. Make something legal and regulated and people start buying things legit instead of funding seedy dealers.
[QUOTE=Negrul1;17963541]Bad idea for the Saudi government considering how oppressed the population is.[/QUOTE] Oppressed? What?
[QUOTE=Faunz;18018574]Oppressed? What?[/QUOTE] It's illegal to talk about your sex life in public. Thus, one of the most harshly oppressed nations in the world :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.