(10-28-2013, 12:24 AM)Oni Wrote: You just said the police would be unarmed. What are they going to do, bludgeon the intruder to death with a baton? The intruder would probably be armed. Police take up to 30 minutes to arrive at my house (as I know from previous experience), which could very well be way too late. It would minimize the amount of law-abiding gun-owners, not criminals that plan to misuse them. Someone who already has the intent of murdering someone, probably doesn't care about an extra "unlawful possession of firearms" charge.

(10-28-2013, 12:38 AM)Tear Wrote: Oni is a fucking genius.

Basically saying what I was going to say:

If you take away guns, all the people who care about the law and rightfully own a gun will give up their guns, but the people who will be murderers, will have guns as they don't care about the law.

Taking away guns because of bad guys -> Bad guys don't care about the law -> Bad guys will have guns anyways

Taking away guns will have more robberies and home invasions as robbers will break into houses knowing the homeowner has no guns.

(10-28-2013, 12:24 AM)Oni Wrote: You just said the police would be unarmed. What are they going to do, bludgeon the intruder to death with a baton? The intruder would probably be armed. Police take up to 30 minutes to arrive at my house (as I know from previous experience), which could very well be way too late. It would minimize the amount of law-abiding gun-owners, not criminals that plan to misuse them. Someone who already has the intent of murdering someone, probably doesn't care about an extra "unlawful possession of firearms" charge.

(10-28-2013, 12:51 AM)BlueScreen Wrote: I said "unless absolutely needed". Which would mean that when a police-fag is out patrolling the streets of gotham city he doesn't need to be carrying around a fully automatic rifle and scaring people for no reason when he could simply be carrying around a stun gun and a baton like they do in most other countries, and I understand that in a shithole like the US this would be a very hard thing to do, but when your country is more developed and the gun laws have been in place long enough for people not to be running around with a rifle in the streets then this would be a better option as people wouldnt need to be scared of the people protecting them. And I know that if you guys were to ban guns you would all make a riot while going around shooting everything you see that is government owned because a underdeveloped people like Americans dont know that shooting stuff is a bad thing and if they were law-abiding gun owners they wouldn't have a problem getting them in the first place, but my guess is that you would probably all just use it to kill eachother as we have seen in he past couple of years. And that person that would want to murder someone wouldnt have access to a gun in the first place due to not passing all the phsycical tests they would need to take in every toher country in the world before they would get a weapon, and even though there is a black market for it I doubt most of these people would know where to find it.

And in your earlier comment where you said that if your weapons were to become illegal you would just lie about having them, well that just proves you're not the "law-abiding gun-owner" that you think you are.

(10-28-2013, 01:19 AM)Oni Wrote: Not sure what delusion you're under, but the United States isn't "underdeveloped". Search the term human development index and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. Without the means, it's impossible to protect someone. For example, when the 2011 massacre happened, the Norwegian government wasn't able to protect its citizens. Over 300 people were injured and 77 were killed. You can also read a ton of cases where cops and civilians have been shot dead because no-one was armed to defend themselves. In the United States, that wouldn't have been as big of an issue. I'll skip over your bit about Americans rioting and shooting things, because in all fairness it's garbage.

As for my earlier comment, I wasn't implying that I would do such a thing. I was, however, trying to explain that it wouldn't be hard for someone else to. With a intentional homicide rate of 4.9 out of 100,000 citizens, I feel much safer with my firearms than without.

(10-28-2013, 01:32 AM)BlueScreen Wrote: To be fair nothing like that has ever happened in Norway before this happed and that island was in a really akward place when it comes to transport, as no military base was even slightly close to it, and they had to borrow a boat from people that lived there, and everyone that was on that island were either niggers or politicians that nopony gave a shit about. And the bomb wasn't too bad since went to Oslo 2 days after this happened to visit some family members which is unrelated to the shooting, and other than a couple of broken windows all of the near by buildings were pretty much okay. Also, I'm not saying that they should ban guns in the US because then you would go all pakistan and start shooting at eachother with rocket launchers and shit, but rather make it so guns are harder to get and so that you cant just shoot someone for breaking into your house unless you or your family members are being directly treathened.

(10-28-2013, 04:03 AM)w00t Wrote: Organized crime has no incentive to traffic guns in if they don't need them to threaten people. It's an unnecessary cost. Why traffic in guns, losing on average 75% of your shipments, when a handful of men armed with knives is just as threatening, if guns were to be illegal.

The way it works literally everywhere but the US is that self-defence must be reasonable. I can only kill in self-defence if you pose a credible threat to my life or those around me.

(10-28-2013, 06:22 AM)w00t Wrote: Someone needs to bring in the illegal guns or there would be none in a very short time.