|
On September 02 2009 16:09 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 16:07 psion0011 wrote:On September 02 2009 13:16 eMbrace wrote:On September 02 2009 13:09 Valentine wrote:On September 02 2009 08:47 eMbrace wrote:On September 02 2009 08:29 Valentine wrote:On September 02 2009 08:04 eMbrace wrote:On September 02 2009 08:01 theron[wdt] wrote:
nothing says "GTFO" or "stay away from my family" like a 12 gauge.
and i quote "I prayed that the police to show up but nobody answered." id hate to be a person who lives in fear of being murdered when they go to sleep if you buy a fuckin shotgun for self-defense purposes you are loony. I know my Criminal Justice teacher owns a pump-action for "self-defence". The sound of the CHCK CHCK is probably enough to make somebody run the fuck out if they aren't prepared to fight, no need to fire it. If it comes down to it, though, he is probably the kind of person to still shoot if needed = ] I think your statement is pretty wrong, in the fact that a shotgun is pretty good on a purely psychological level. I'm not saying the sound of a shotgun wouldn't scare people away, I'm saying that the fact that you feel the need to own a firearm to feel safe in your own house is laughable. I mean, if people are getting murdered in your neighborhood on a monthly basis then perhaps there's a bigger problem at hand, but assuming you live in a relatively OK neighborhood, owning a shotgun is ridiculous. I find it funny that people worry so much about bullshit that never happens that they spend money on things like firearms. Buy a fucking dog, they detect everything, wake you up, and alert the burglar that "oh these people know I'm trying to get in." -- they also make great companions for you and your family. of course, most petty thieves look for houses that have no signs of people being home, and even then a dog may scare them away. but you guys are thinking of situations where someone busts into your house with the intent of ripping you to shreds and raping your daughters, where a dog wouldn't be much help. in which case I'd recommend (if you are so worried), that you send your kids to school equipped with kevlar vests and guns in their backpacks, because a gunman might open fire in their classroom. that's my view on this, and I'm assuming you don't live in a fucking warzone of a neighborhood, and if you do -- i don't have the right to judge you. but other than that, if you live in the typical area, then you must be a pussy to think you need a gun by your side when you sleep. My dad bought a gun when my parents were dating, and my mom was being stalked by one of her ex-boyfriends and felt very threatened, even at home. Their house was very shitty, and although living in a quiet place, there was not much force needed to get inside. Does it seem unreasonable here? Just wondering your opinion, not trying to fight back or anything. If the threat was real enough to consider buying a firearm, I'd have to ask you if they called the police first and got this sorted out with a restraining order or something similar. Hahahahahahah did everyone just skip over this post or what? Seriously? Did you even think before you wrote this? So somebody who is planning on breaking into someone's house, which is a crime, in order to commit many more crimes, will be deterred by a piece of paper telling him not to do it? did you read my follow up post or do you honestly think that criminals are that dumb?
Sorry bro i don't do slippery slopes, try again.
|
On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote:
Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger
2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death
3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands
4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill.
Yea but maybe if burglars knew they could be shot and killed, and that it'd be a perfectly legal thing to do, it might deter them. I mean, I think guns should be outright banned and I don't have one, but I wouldn't want to let someone rob me because I was afraid it'd be going to far to shoot him, assuming that's the only sure way for me to stop him that would be safe for me (cops likely won't catch him and he may have a knife or even a gun if you confront him.
|
On September 02 2009 16:14 Jonoman92 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote:
Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger
2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death
3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands
4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill. Yea but maybe if burglars knew they could be shot and killed, and that it'd be a perfectly legal thing to do, it might deter them. I mean, I think guns should be outright banned and I don't have one, but I wouldn't want to let someone rob me because I was afraid it'd be going to far to shoot him, assuming that's the only sure way for me to stop him that would be safe for me (cops likely won't catch him and he may have a knife or even a gun if you confront him.
if they may be armed why would you even think of confronting them with a gun over a DVD player and some jewelry?
|
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote:
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up.
My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it.
Also,
My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it?
Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario.
Fuck your law.
|
On September 02 2009 12:46 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:
I'm happy i lived my teenage years in germany and not in the USA. All you psycho cowboys in this thread would have probably killed me 5 times while I was in some other people's gardens at night playing a prank....
Well if you crush my plants, my only way of obtaining food, then you are threatening my very way of life so yes, you'd be getting shot.
|
On September 02 2009 16:16 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 16:14 Jonoman92 wrote:On September 01 2009 20:29 Fen wrote:
Oh yay, another one of these threads where a stereotypical american (sorry to everyone from the states who hates the way the rest of the world sees you) defends his right to be a complete lunatic.
To the OP: You are a pyschopath. Stop playing soo many violent video games. If someone comes into your house and threatens your or your family's safety, then yes you have the right to use force to defend yourself. If an intruder breaks into your house but poses no threat, you should NOT have the right to blow his head off.
1. You are in no danger
2. The punishment for breaking and entering is not death
3. You are not an officer of the law and therefore you should not take the law into your own hands
4. This is how innocent people get killed
To the story about the girlfriend getting killed in the car: I think the guy should have been charged with manslaughter. Shooting at the car when they were running away is complete bullshit. He wasnt trying to defend himself, he was going for revenge, and as such, a poor girl died.
To the story about the pharmacist: He had the right to shoot the guys who were holding up his store. He has the right to defend himself (guy is a fucking nutcase for not just handing the money over however). He does NOT have the right to execute someone.
I think everyone here is failing to see that this is someone's life. There are only very few circumstances where any person should have the right to take another person's life.
Finally, I agree with the law. It makes perfect sense. You have the right to defend yourself with as much force as needed to appropriately deal with the threat. Someone entering your house however doesnt grant you a license to kill. Yea but maybe if burglars knew they could be shot and killed, and that it'd be a perfectly legal thing to do, it might deter them. I mean, I think guns should be outright banned and I don't have one, but I wouldn't want to let someone rob me because I was afraid it'd be going to far to shoot him, assuming that's the only sure way for me to stop him that would be safe for me (cops likely won't catch him and he may have a knife or even a gun if you confront him. if they may be armed why would you even think of confronting them with a gun over a DVD player and some jewelry?
Because I have principle, and if everyone did then this crap wouldn't happen. If I was a father with children to support or if I had a true soul mate I might change this stance but currently I don't see what's so important about living/dying on a day to day basis.
|
On September 02 2009 16:19 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote:
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy. I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up. My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it. Also, My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it? Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario. Fuck your law.
I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them.
On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute.
Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however.
|
On September 02 2009 16:40 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 16:19 PanN wrote:On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote:
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy. I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up. My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it. Also, My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it? Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario. Fuck your law. I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them. On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute. Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however.
1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting.
2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm.
3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants.
4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns.
5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute.
6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal"
You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be.
|
On September 02 2009 16:48 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 16:40 illu wrote:On September 02 2009 16:19 PanN wrote:On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote:
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy. I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up. My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it. Also, My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it? Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario. Fuck your law. I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them. On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute. Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however. 1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting. 2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm. 3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants. 4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns. 5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute. 6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal" You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be.
1) Irrevalent; I don't see how a long period of ownership has to do with this.
2) Irrevalent; it's an instrument to kill.
3) The issue of legality is subject to change, which is why there are rooms for debates. A priori argument is not welcomed.
4) First of all, I will acknowledge that pretty much anything can be used to kill. Even water can be used to suffocate someone. However, what makes water legal in all countries but guns illegal in most countries, is that the main purpose of water is consumption, cleaning, etc. but not killing. Guns, however, from its design to its purpose, are solely to kill. This is why guns should be illegal. Now you also said it's a so-called hunting gun, because it's primary purpose is to kill animals. But this property is too easily translated into killing humans as well (through its design), which makes it not safe.
5) Refer to 1). Experience means absolutely nothing; what is unsafe will always be unsafe, regardless of the owner. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot practice using non-bladed weapons: as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp. This is much different from why a police offer can carry a gun, which serves the purpose of law reinforcement.
6) Thanks for getting something right for once.
|
On September 02 2009 17:05 illu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 16:48 PanN wrote:On September 02 2009 16:40 illu wrote:On September 02 2009 16:19 PanN wrote:On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote:
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy. I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up. My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it. Also, My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it? Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario. Fuck your law. I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them. On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute. Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however. 1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting. 2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm. 3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants. 4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns. 5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute. 6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal" You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be. 1) Irrevalent; I don't see how a long period of ownership has to do with this. 2) Irrevalent; it's an instrument to kill. 3) The issue of legality is subject to change, which is why there are rooms for debates. A priori argument is not welcomed. 4) First of all, I will acknowledge that pretty much anything can be used to kill. Even water can be used to suffocate someone. However, what makes water legal in all countries but guns illegal in most countries, is that the main purpose of water is consumption, cleaning, etc. but not killing. Guns, however, from its design to its purpose, are solely to kill. This is why guns should be illegal. Now you also said it's a so-called hunting gun, because it's primary purpose is to kill animals. But this property is too easily translated into killing humans as well (through its design), which makes it not safe. 5) Refer to 1). Experience means absolutely nothing; what is unsafe will always be unsafe, regardless of the owner. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot practice using non-bladed weapons: as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp. This is much different from why a police offer can carry a gun, which serves the purpose of law reinforcement. 6) Thanks for getting something right for once.
Look, all I know, is you're trying to take things that my loved ones love, and I don't respect that. Mainly the bit where you would want my gf to throw away her lifes training just so you would feel a bit safer at night. This just saddens me a lot....
My dad uses his guns only for hunting and practice for hunting. My father is not a cold blooded murderer, hes an honest hard-working man that likes to hunt every now and then.
Also your argument about legality of guns, the bad guys will get them no matter what, and only the good people (like my dad and gf for example) will suffer.
"as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp."
Her's does.
Please don't start to get rude, I have no problems debating with you, but I'd like this to not turn into a flame fest.
Also, penn says it best
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws, thats insane"
|
How the
He wasn't being rude, what are you talking about :/
|
On September 02 2009 17:30 Tracil wrote:
How the
He wasn't being rude, what are you talking about :/
PanN is being rude, and being passive aggressive, so he's also projecting.
Yes of course you can practice bladed martial arts with blunted/padded/not-for-killing weapons... you're rarely supposed to practice with the real weapons at all, unless her goal is specifically to improve at killing people with a large bladed weapon. (You said she uses her training for stress relief.)
No, you can't hunt large mammals without a murder-capable weapon, though there are alternatives to a hunting (~sniper) rifle. If society decides to restrict such weapons, your father must accept the restrictions or depart. That's what it means to exist in a society.
|
On September 02 2009 17:25 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2009 17:05 illu wrote:On September 02 2009 16:48 PanN wrote:On September 02 2009 16:40 illu wrote:On September 02 2009 16:19 PanN wrote:On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote:
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy. I was writing a lot against you, but pc crashed and I'll just sum it up. My dad likes rifles, he loves to go shooting, and he works progamer hours just to support a family. Doesn't he fucking deserve to own and use a rifle or two? Taking guns from my dad would be like taking starcraft from someone on here, you just don't fucking do it. Also, My gf has a black belt in four different things, two with long bladed weapons. This is her way of relaxing after a long stressful day, she's been training for many many years, and you want to get rid of it? Prohibition doesn't work, and definitely shouldn't be implemented in this scenario. Fuck your law. I laugh at your logic. You are saying your dad works hard therefore he deserves a rifle? If he "likes" rifles he can keep them? By what you are saying, then anyone can keep an instrument that is designed to kill other humans just by "working hard" (which is a subjective term) and "likes things that is designed to kill other humans" (even more surjective). Frankly, I think the shooter at Virginia Tech was a very hardworking student that loved guns. He should totally be able to have them. On the other hand, I am pretty sure your girlfriend can enjoy martial arts just as much by practicing with a non-bladed substitute. Furthermore, I never said the prohibition should be established. I am not that naive to think it can work out now - it's already too late. Life would be so much safer and better if we did not have them, however. 1.) The kid at virginia tech got the guns very recently to the shooting. 2.) He used handguns, not anything larger than 30cm. 3.) I too laugh at your logic good gent, as I was saying my dad works his ass off, therefor he does deserve something currently legal if he wants. 4.) The guns he uses aren't designed to kill other humans, my dad shoots hunting guns. 5.) My gf currently enjoys what she is doing, and has been since she was a child, she doesn't need a "non-bladed" substitute. 6.) "So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal" You may have not said you wanted it established, but you did say you'd like it to be. 1) Irrevalent; I don't see how a long period of ownership has to do with this. 2) Irrevalent; it's an instrument to kill. 3) The issue of legality is subject to change, which is why there are rooms for debates. A priori argument is not welcomed. 4) First of all, I will acknowledge that pretty much anything can be used to kill. Even water can be used to suffocate someone. However, what makes water legal in all countries but guns illegal in most countries, is that the main purpose of water is consumption, cleaning, etc. but not killing. Guns, however, from its design to its purpose, are solely to kill. This is why guns should be illegal. Now you also said it's a so-called hunting gun, because it's primary purpose is to kill animals. But this property is too easily translated into killing humans as well (through its design), which makes it not safe. 5) Refer to 1). Experience means absolutely nothing; what is unsafe will always be unsafe, regardless of the owner. Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason why she cannot practice using non-bladed weapons: as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp. This is much different from why a police offer can carry a gun, which serves the purpose of law reinforcement. 6) Thanks for getting something right for once. Look, all I know, is you're trying to take things that my loved ones love, and I don't respect that. Mainly the bit where you would want my gf to throw away her lifes training just so you would feel a bit safer at night. This just saddens me a lot.... My dad uses his guns only for hunting and practice for hunting. My father is not a cold blooded murderer, hes an honest hard-working man that likes to hunt every now and then. Also your argument about legality of guns, the bad guys will get them no matter what, and only the good people (like my dad and gf for example) will suffer. "as far as I know, in terms of practicing martial arts you do not need anything that is sharp." Her's does. Please don't start to get rude, I have no problems debating with you, but I'd like this to not turn into a flame fest. Also, penn says it best "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws, thats insane"
Except you keep giving priori arguments about the personality of your dad and your girlfriend being "good" persons that would "never do such a thing". Now you are claiming that somehow they would be victimized if such laws passed (and somehow I am to blame, too). It's hard to not flame at such ignorance.
Anyways, either you trolled me really well, or it is really impossible for us to debate intelligently.
|
On September 01 2009 16:14 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2009 16:10 nttea wrote:
well if they attack you and you have a gun the minimum force necessary is a gunshot to the head, im pretty sure of that, so it seems fair to me. it's not like they would charge you if you hold a gun pointed towards them though, so shooting seems like something you should go to jail for. Two wrongs don't make it right! So you are honestly saying, if multiple armed people forced entry into your home, and you were armed with a handgun, but they only had knives and a bat, and they were not charging you you wouldn't shoot them? IMO if they have forced their way into my home I should have the right to kill them. Law in Alberta is that you must use the minimum force necessary. I do not agree with this. If the guy has a switchblade and I have a handgun I am sure as hell going to shoot him if hes not running his ass out that door. I think that the law should protect those who defend their homes and property, and while I am not aware of any cases in Alberta in which homeowners have been charged for killing intruders, I am also not aware of any situations in which the homeowner was armed. There was a case where a man defended himself with a knife and killed an intruder and hospitalized another, and he was not charged. If he shot them should it be any different? I don't think so.
+ Show Spoiler +No wonder Santa never drops by my house these days.
I agree with minimum force necessary. That means if you are able, physically overcome them and keep them in custody. No real need to remove them from the face of the earth just because they stepped into your house with the intent of robbing you.
Everyone has a different "minimum" depending on the situation, are you saying you cannot overcome a man with a knife desperate for money?
|
You only live once. Make sure it counts. I don't know about some other people here, but I would prefer not be in the AP news as another death statistics.
There has been some sick execution style around here. NOT ALL of them make the news. It is easy to judge when you're living in your safe little haven. I know enough people that has someone they know or witness a murder. It's more than anyone should ever have to know.
|
Please fill out the following questionnaire before you undertake criminal activities that will threaten my life or property so I will be able to respond with the appropriate level of force:
1. Do you intend on merely taking my property or my life?
Property [ ]
Life [ ]
2. If the answer to number 1 was "Life," please indicate which method of threatening or attempting to take my life you will use so I can respond with the minimum amount of force necessary:
Bare hands [ ]
Improvised weapon [ ]
Knife [ ]
Gun [ ]
3. If the answer to number 2 was "Bare hands," please indicate whether you have martial arts training so I will know whether or not resisting you without resorting to a firearm is possible:
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
Thank you for your time!Last edit: 2009-09-01 19:51:47
ROFL
|
On September 02 2009 15:39 illu wrote:
In the heart of the argument, in my opinion, is that people are arming themselves because others are armed: for example, home-owners are getting guns because burglers have guns, and by having the firearm they somehow think they are safer. In reality it is fighting fire with fire, which becomes a vicious cycle that makes the nation less secure overall.
So yes, I strongly believe in an extremely tight weapon law that makes any kinds of guns and metal blades longer than 30cm illegal (unless you are a police officer or other extremely specialized personel). I believe this makes the society much safer, and law-inforcement much easier and safer.
Of course, with the given situation in North America such weapon law is nothing but fantasy.
This just shows your ignorance. You're trying to shove an idealistic view infront of everyone's faces without knowing reality. Look at gun confiscation lists from criminals. The overwhelming majority of guns confiscated are .22's and .380's. Now to break that down for a gun fearing individual such as yourself that means they're realistic low end of guns. They're often pocket pistols and small framed guns in general, so fighting fire with fire...well they're gonna lose.
You guys are just so out of touch with reality, why is it that states and local areas that institute conceal carry permit programs have crime go DOWN? Why is it that criminals interviewed admit that they're more fearful and less likely to commit crimes in areas they know there is a real probability of that person being armed? 2,000,000 homes are burglarized a year and with some rough ass math saying half the population(150,000,00 people) all have a household, so you get about a 1.5% chance of being robbed every year.
There was a case recently that got no main stream media attention, but long story short in Knoxville, TN a guy and a girl got car jacked, but they ended up actually getting raped and then murdered, really gross story. My point is that with anything many criminals are completely ok with the fact of having to harm or kill someone to get their job done that's just one reason they carry guns.
I also already explained that the good guys are law abiding citizens, we follow the laws to get our weapons, we do what we're supposed to do. The only thing passing gun laws does is harm the people who follow the laws. Criminals can't be stopped by something on paper. Remember Washington D.C.? Despite the fact no one could defend themselves, there were a lot of gun crimes, in fact its a fairly violent area...but how! They couldn't own guns...simply because criminals can always get weapons. Its just reality, sure in an ideal world we all live peacefully, sipping on lemonade, but too many things realistically show that that just can't be the case in this day in age. Remember laws only affect law abiding citizens, criminals can still get away with things.
Its the thinking in general, the 17 year old girl recently who got forced into the car and then later killed. This doesn't deal with so much guns as it does the fact that you have to be have some preparedness for situations, because unfortunately for that young girl, it only took that one time and she's gone because she didn't know what to do in that situation and didn't know to just run no matter what. Even in England, you take away the guns...and stabbings a gogo. Criminals are criminals are criminals and that's the way it is.
|
Alizee- Please ignore all facts about gun control laws and their effects. I'm sure they are all fabricated by rich gun manufacturers and so we should accept the theories presented in this forum instead.
|
If someone breaks into your home and you have to use a lot of force to bring them down, then make sure you kill them and make sure the body stays in your home until the cops arrive. If the criminal is carrying a weapon and his body is lying on the floor of your home, you can argue self-defense and get off scott-free. If you wound him and he escapes alive, he can sue you and rob you "legally."
|
Ok, let's think in general. America has a higher death per capita rate due to guns than most countries. Coincidentally, its gun ownership laws are more relaxed than most countries.
Despite what you may say, I am glad I live in a country where the average standard citizen will never touch a gun in their life.
Then you might say, America is not a Utopia, we need guns there in order to protect ourselves. Maybe. If magicaly one day there was the option for all of American private firearms (except for military/police weaponry) to disappear into thin air, as well as gun restriction laws being introduced in order to prevent a resurgence in ownership of firearms, would you take this option?
If you reject it, I can only assume one of two things:
a) you still believe one should carry guns in order to protect themselves by 'one-upping' people with melee weapons such as machetes. Ultimately, this increases crime rate by the common citizen being able to carry guns. Not a good outcome.
b) you believe it is a core principle of the United States that one has the right to "bear arms". In this case, your priorities are obvious. You believe that people's right to carry weaponry comes before the overall safety of society. It is ironic that you would then be a proponent of private gun ownership for the sake of societal safety (ie. people in general can protect themselves using guns).
The support of guns in America has always seemed to me as part of the 'me first' attitude to life. In general I see that this is a bit more expressed in Americans, with regards to other things like your health care system. That isn't to say it's just the United States that exhibits this behaviour. Global warming in particular has lately exposed this mentality in a lot of other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
