|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
This thread is 116 pages and could go on another 116 pages.without anyone persuading the other lol.
America has a large population base and so in contrast has enough people using illegal firearms which is felt to be of a real concern to the general community. The long standing relaxed gun laws has upheld the constitution in the eyes of a lot of Americans, but it has also unfortunately I feel aided in illegal gun possession, which when you take into account demographics, cultural trends and a large pop. base, can mean a high demand and so a lot of guns.
Maybe tight gun regulation in parts of Europe, Australia etc is a viable option, though with the current rate at which firearms are obtained illegally by those searching within the US, it might not be possible just yet. Your average American citizen that is concerned of a possible home invasion etc, has the right and need to then purchase his own gun for defense which to be honest, I don't see changing anytime soon. To take the guns off the streets you need to stop them getting there.
Just to clarify I do mean just your average person who wouldn't own a gun otherwise, not someone who owns a gun for sport, hunting etc.
I will say i'm biased I guess as I have grown up an Australian citizen, used to strict gun regulations being in place. Gun crime exists still but I feel isn't a massive concern here; our population is much smaller, the police do an alright job at keeping gun crime down (and locking up the offenders to prevent further crime) and so our regulations work. If I want a gun it might be a bit of work applying but to be honest i'd be ok with that, I want applications to be stringent so guns are only in the hands of the right people.
|
|
|
What if they stood their ground, 2 criminals vs old shaky guy who seems barely able to walk. These guys are robbers, they take the money and leave. The old guy risked a gun fight, risked people lives.
If you ask me the chance for someone getting hurt would have been much lower if he had not pulled his gun.
It's maybe not heroic enough for you, but a few thousands of dollar is not worth risking someone's life imo/
|
On July 22 2012 13:05 Heweree wrote:What if they stood their ground, 2 criminals vs old shaky guy who seem barely able to walk. These guys are robbers, they take the money and leave. The old guy risked a gun fight, risked people lives. If you ask me the chance for someone getting hurt would have been much lower if he had not pulled his gun. It's maybe not heroic enough for you, but a few thousands of dollar is not worth risking someone's life imo/
Yeah, I would be fucking mad if anyone just started shooting while I'm in a public place. It's one thing to shoot in self defense. It's a whole different story to start flinging lead to defend some money at the possible expense of someone getting shot.
|
On July 22 2012 12:49 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:47 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On July 22 2012 12:28 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. It's the case in most countries in Europe. Like I said,for the US it will take more time because of the huge amount of guns in circulation, but it's the same idea. Lol, but then I wouldn't get to own a gun. That's the crux of the issue, I don't give a shit about being safe. Well, I'd still own one, but I'd have to pay premium on the black market and it might end up financing some shady people. Maybe for you but in a perfect world we wouldn't need weapons because people would not try to harm each other.
That's quite an astute observation, but I'd still want a gun in this land of rainbow shitting unicorns. You know, to kill a unicorn and then watch a massive and incredibly messy rainbow spew from its ass.
|
On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not.
This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary.
|
On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary.
Silly me, here I was thinking were discussing the reality of the situation in the USA. But what were really discussing is an alternate reality where only "big guy criminals" have firearms.
|
On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary.
How many cartels are in Antarctica, and would they jump at the opportunity to deal in banned goods?
|
On July 22 2012 13:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary. Silly me, here I was thinking were discussing the reality of the situation in the USA. But what were really discussing is an alternate reality where only "big guy criminals" have firearms.
It's not an alternate reality, it's the case in most developed countries. And could be the case in the USA after some times if the gun control policy gets stricter.
|
Heweree stated
Again, no.
I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns.
With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands.
So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens.
I really disagree with your statement because more types of issues would be created from this type of system besides just "less dangerous criminal gun danger" to "law abiding citizens". It sounds like you are saying that "law abiding citizens" are safer if gun control is enforced similar to Europe so that large organized crime would only retain these types of weapons as oppose to "law abiding citizens" and "petty criminals".
I don't see how that is a more viable option as oppose to what is enforced now. Organized crime posses just as much danger to "law abiding citizens" when compared to petty criminals with a gun, if not more (drug related deaths, sex trafficing, money laundering, etc). Drug related deaths from organized crime, sex trafficing, money laundering, and many more are also a HUGE threat to "law abiding citizens". Being able to quantify the difference would be no easy task (impossible most likely). Until that could be done, I don't see how your arguement is in any way supporting that these types of regulations (European gun regulations) would benefit a "law abiding citizen" as oppose to the current gun regulations. Without this taking into account all the variables that organized crime brings to the table it remains to be seen.
|
I try to stay out of these debates, because I tend to get a little passionate about this topic, but after reading so many pages, and seeing so many arguements being slung back and forth from both sides. I feel like I need to add my two cents as it were.
Perhaps this is just an American thing, as we are a people tolerant of violence. Maybe it has to do with having been born in rebellion, or perhaps it is the stiff and unyielding love of personal freedom, maybe it is the fact that for our 200+ years of existance, we have never actually been at peace for a solid decade...whatever the cause, the American people love their weapons, and will defend unto death the right to keep them. And not just firearms, mind you. Take my guns, I'll fight you with blades. Take the blades, and I'll attack with stones. Disarm me entirely, and I'll throw a punch with my dying breath.
American's are fighters, survivors. We don't back down, we don't give up, and we depend on one another and ourselves equally. That means never having to call for help and pray it arrives in time. As they say, when seconds matter, the police (gods bless them) are minutes away. As it is has been written in the Book of Five Rings, so it is to many Americans, though they may not know the book. If a man(warrior, citizen, person, what ever) goes to his death with a weapon undrawn, he has thrown away his life. That just isn't our way. I promise you, armed or not, the day I'm listed as a casualty in the news...look closer and see how many I took with me, because I will be trying to make my final moments count. Many, many Americans feel the same.
If you come from a county where the populace is not armed, you may not understand. If you are a believer that cities are all that exist, and hold the beleif that if guns didn't exist, people wouldn't die, you refuse to understand. But it is what it is. Those of us who believe can point back to historical tyrants who disarmed the populace (say Edward the Longshanks and the Scotts...yet Scotland won through sheer determination...or perhaps more recently with Nazi Germany and the Jewish populations there) and say "We will fight". We can point at oppressed and misused peoples who historically have thrown off the shackles of their masters (USA born in war, our own civil war primarily fought to free slaves, our battles in Vietnam and Korea trying to prevent the spread of Communist Tyranny) and we can point to the words of our enemies to know that our mindset DOES provide protection (WWII -paraphrasing- I fear we wake a sleeping dragon/giant...an invasion of mainland America would be impossible, for behind every blade of grass you will find a gunman).
Perhaps I am rambling, perhaps I am misguided. But it is my belief, and I promise you I will fight for it. In a world of tolerance, where you are a victim if you eat yourself obese, where you are to be forgiven if you drink yourself into oblivion, where the choice of drugs over reality is a disease not a crime...two types of people are still hated, feared, and misunderstood: smokers (save this for another thread) and gun owners.
And that is fine. That is your right, your opinion. you are entitled to your beliefs. But we are entitled to ours. So please, don't sling your hatred. Don't talk about how we are somehow responsbile for the evils in society. Leave us our beleifs. And who knows, one day you may thank us, for when the world we love falls apart, when war comes or hell has arrived, we will be standing on the front lines, ready to die so that you can continue beleiving that we were evil. Its what we do.
|
i bet all those people dead in CO wish they would have carried a gun
criminals and murderers will get guns regardless of the laws, gun control laws only take away a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend himself
|
On July 22 2012 13:32 YuTz wrote:Heweree stated Show nested quote +Again, no.
I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns.
With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands.
So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. I really disagree with your statement because more types of issues would be created from this type of system besides just "less dangerous criminal gun danger" to "law abiding citizens". It sounds like you are saying that "law abiding citizens" are safer if gun control is enforced similar to Europe so that large organized crime would only retain these types of weapons as oppose to "law abiding citizens" and "petty criminals". I don't see how that is a more viable option as oppose to what is enforced now. Organized crime posses just as much danger to "law abiding citizens" when compared to petty criminals with a gun, if not more (drug related deaths, sex trafficing, money laundering, etc). Drug related deaths from organized crime, sex trafficing, money laundering, and many more are also a HUGE threat to "law abiding citizens". Being able to quantify the difference would be no easy task (impossible most likely). Until that could be done, I don't see how your arguement is in any way supporting that these types of regulations (European gun regulations) would benefit a "law abiding citizen" as oppose to the current gun regulations. Without this taking into account all the variables that organized crime brings to the table it remains to be seen.
It's not an ideal situation, but for instance it decreases greatly the chances of school shootings. A highschool student would have a really really hard time to have access to a gun. The main difference beetween random thugs and big criminals is that big criminals have a goal (money) and are rational about it. Shooting law abiding citizen will attract unwanted attention on them.
The situation would still be terrible for victims of sex trafficking and this type of activities like you said. But your average citizen will have way less chances to be confronted to a gun, or get assaulted by a criminal with a gun, in a country with strict gun policy.
|
On July 22 2012 13:42 PrideNeverDie wrote:
i bet all those people dead in CO wish they would have carried a gun
criminals and murderers will get guns regardless of the laws, gun control laws only take away a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend himself
Haha 
Read a few posts above please
|
On July 22 2012 13:22 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary. Silly me, here I was thinking were discussing the reality of the situation in the USA. But what were really discussing is an alternate reality where only "big guy criminals" have firearms.
Yep that's right, this "crazy" alternate reality called outside North America. All these accounts on TL that claim to be anything other than Canada and United States are actually living in another reality that you can communicate with through Team Liquid. I know its difficult to imagine how things might be in one of these alternate realities, but all I ask is for you to try.
|
On July 22 2012 13:46 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary. Silly me, here I was thinking were discussing the reality of the situation in the USA. But what were really discussing is an alternate reality where only "big guy criminals" have firearms. Yep that's right, this "crazy" alternate reality called outside North America. All these accounts on TL that claim to be anything other than Canada and United States are actually living in another reality that you can communicate with through Team Liquid. I know its difficult to imagine how things might be in one of these alternate realities, but all I ask is for you to try.
Ever been mugged in Europe? Happened to me and a friend when we went with the People to People Student Ambassador program, and I bet I spelled that wrong since my spelling sucks. Anyway, the point is that standing on a street in Pizza, we were hustled by a group into an alley between buildings and subsequently frisked, roughed up, and robbed. I sure as hell would have loved to have been able to fight back with more than my hands.
So, even when guns aren't envolved, crime still happens. And you may say "at least no one got hurt" well that seems a cowardly beleif to me. I believe that those muggers would have deserved the bullets I'd have given them.
|
On July 22 2012 13:54 Ironsights wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:46 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 13:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary. Silly me, here I was thinking were discussing the reality of the situation in the USA. But what were really discussing is an alternate reality where only "big guy criminals" have firearms. Yep that's right, this "crazy" alternate reality called outside North America. All these accounts on TL that claim to be anything other than Canada and United States are actually living in another reality that you can communicate with through Team Liquid. I know its difficult to imagine how things might be in one of these alternate realities, but all I ask is for you to try. Ever been mugged in Europe? Happened to me and a friend when we went with the People to People Student Ambassador program, and I bet I spelled that wrong since my spelling sucks. Anyway, the point is that standing on a street in Pizza, we were hustled by a group into an alley between buildings and subsequently frisked, roughed up, and robbed. I sure as hell would have loved to have been able to fight back with more than my hands. So, even when guns aren't envolved, crime still happens. And you may say "at least no one got hurt" well that seems a cowardly beleif to me. I believe that those muggers would have deserved the bullets I'd have given them.
Yeah but the great thing is that those muggers hadn't guns. You would have prefer to have a gun and them as well than both of you having none?
If you say yes then maybe we indeed live on a totally different dimension :o
And would you be ready to kill someone to protect your 50 dollars? I wouldn't, muggers deserve a strong punishment, but death? Still human beings, and have a chance to evolve differently. (we are talking about muggers here).
When I was 14 I broke in an house with a few friends. We were drunk, young and stupid. I am happy the guy didn't shoot us on sight.
|
On July 22 2012 13:54 Ironsights wrote:
I believe that those muggers would have deserved the bullets I'd have given them.
So taking your wallet is worth killing people over? That's the exact outlook on things that drives people to want regulation at the very least. If you think your pocket change is worth ending lives you don't have the mental faculties to own and carry a gun.
|
On July 22 2012 13:56 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:54 Ironsights wrote:On July 22 2012 13:46 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 13:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary. Silly me, here I was thinking were discussing the reality of the situation in the USA. But what were really discussing is an alternate reality where only "big guy criminals" have firearms. Yep that's right, this "crazy" alternate reality called outside North America. All these accounts on TL that claim to be anything other than Canada and United States are actually living in another reality that you can communicate with through Team Liquid. I know its difficult to imagine how things might be in one of these alternate realities, but all I ask is for you to try. Ever been mugged in Europe? Happened to me and a friend when we went with the People to People Student Ambassador program, and I bet I spelled that wrong since my spelling sucks. Anyway, the point is that standing on a street in Pizza, we were hustled by a group into an alley between buildings and subsequently frisked, roughed up, and robbed. I sure as hell would have loved to have been able to fight back with more than my hands. So, even when guns aren't envolved, crime still happens. And you may say "at least no one got hurt" well that seems a cowardly beleif to me. I believe that those muggers would have deserved the bullets I'd have given them. Yeah but the great thing is that those muggers hadn't guns. You would have prefer to have a gun and them as well than both of you having none? If you say yes then maybe we indeed live on a totally different dimension :o
How am I to know they DIDN'T have a gun(s)? They didn't use them, but they didn't need to. If I had been able to fight back, they might have had guns to use, and I might have been hurt/killed, but at least I could have gone down fighting. Whcih is something I can respect. I threw a punch or two, but outnumbered by older, stronger fellows I didn't hold up long. With an equalizer, I might have.
Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:54 Ironsights wrote:
I believe that those muggers would have deserved the bullets I'd have given them. So taking your wallet is worth killing people over? That's the exact outlook on things that drives people to want regulation at the very least. If you think your pocket change is worth ending lives you don't have the mental faculties to own and carry a gun.
I might have killed them, they might have lived. It is not relevant. If they are willing to violently attack others in the hopes of taking what is not theirs to take, they deserve whatever happens to them for it. That is not a belief that shows me to be mentally inept, it is a belief that at worst shows me to be somewhat draconic in my ideals.
Exactly, if both sides have guns then the group still has the advantage, you might take down one or two but chances are you would be dead. I don't think that believing in survival is a cowardly belief, I think it is smart. Given that situation I would gladly trade whatever money I have on me and a couple of bruises for my life, to me any other belief is just fucking stupid.
I would rather be dead than a victim. If I took atleast one of them with me, it was worth it. Crime isn't stopped by soft punishments, it is deterred by a knowledge that it will cost you, adn dearly, to be caught. Hamarabi's Code might have been a touch extreme, but it was affective. As I stated above, if you are not from where I am from, you may not understand, but I would gladly die to defend what is right rather than live with the shame of knowing that I failed to stop a criminal.
|
On July 22 2012 13:56 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:54 Ironsights wrote:On July 22 2012 13:46 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 13:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 13:15 Myrddraal wrote:On July 22 2012 12:22 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 12:17 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 12:06 Joedaddy wrote:
Card carrying member of the NRA here. The only thing you're going to accomplish by outlawing guns is preventing honest citizens from owning them. Again, no. I've stated my argument countless of times, not any response from pro-guns. With gun control like in Europe, not any crack addict has a guns. Only big guys have them, and they use it to shoot other criminals, not law abiding citizens. Because all they are interested in is money. + Those high profile criminals have interest in keeping the number of guns low, and all of them in their own hands. So yes some criminals will still have access to guns, but those criminals are the less dangerous for the law-abiding citizens. Would you stop repeating this dribble? It's completely false. Petty criminals living in the dumps all have access to weapons. I don't even understand where you are getting this from. Big guys controlling guns? There are about as many guns in the USA as people. They are and will be extremely available to petty dope dealers and the mob alike gun control laws In place or not. This is not dribble, if you can't see this, then you must be blind. Petty criminals living in the dumps wouldn't have access to guns if they had already had stricter gun control in the beginning. Obviously its too late now, it would take an extreme amount of effort since guns are already everywhere in America. I agree with Heweree 100%, I am glad that in my country I don't have to worry that every random criminal carries a gun and hence I don't feel the need to have a gun to protect myself, it just isn't necessary. Silly me, here I was thinking were discussing the reality of the situation in the USA. But what were really discussing is an alternate reality where only "big guy criminals" have firearms. Yep that's right, this "crazy" alternate reality called outside North America. All these accounts on TL that claim to be anything other than Canada and United States are actually living in another reality that you can communicate with through Team Liquid. I know its difficult to imagine how things might be in one of these alternate realities, but all I ask is for you to try. Ever been mugged in Europe? Happened to me and a friend when we went with the People to People Student Ambassador program, and I bet I spelled that wrong since my spelling sucks. Anyway, the point is that standing on a street in Pizza, we were hustled by a group into an alley between buildings and subsequently frisked, roughed up, and robbed. I sure as hell would have loved to have been able to fight back with more than my hands. So, even when guns aren't envolved, crime still happens. And you may say "at least no one got hurt" well that seems a cowardly beleif to me. I believe that those muggers would have deserved the bullets I'd have given them. Yeah but the great thing is that those muggers hadn't guns. You would have prefer to have a gun and them as well than both of you having none? If you say yes then maybe we indeed live on a totally different dimension :o
Exactly, if both sides have guns then the group still has the advantage, you might take down one or two but chances are you would be dead. I don't think that believing in survival is a cowardly belief, I think it is smart. Given that situation I would gladly trade whatever money I have on me and a couple of bruises for my life, to me any other belief is just fucking stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
