|
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. |
On July 22 2012 14:06 Ironsights wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:56 Heweree wrote: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.
It's not really an equalizer if there's 4 guns to 1 (or whatever there would have been). Respect doesn't do you much good if you don't have a life with which to use it.
|
On July 22 2012 12:01 Sjokola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 11:36 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:01 stevarius wrote:
[quote]
The more likely scenario would be to defend ourselves from an invading entity. Nothing fucks your shit up like having to deal with rebels in invaded territory that they're familiar with. But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm  That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken. Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm. Honestly, based on some posters' rampant insistence that gun regulation would actually make their country LESS safe, I can only assume that America is a terrifying place to live. You realize Canada has [by some stats] more guns per capita than the states? If your assuming the amount of guns has a correlation with violence [demonstrably false, in fact the more guns you have typically the more prosperous and free the country is] than Canada should basically be on par. In REALITY, you know the thing outside your liberal delusions, guns are self evidently a means of self defense for the physically weak and innocent, and so yes, a terrifying location or a tranquil one, an armed population is safer. Do you perhaps have a scource for this? Because Yemen doesn't seem safe and has the most guns per capita. And by that logic most European countries should be less safe than the US or thrird world countries. Edit: it seems like a weird thing to say that Germany effectively doesn't have free speech http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Note: Canada's official gun figures are taken from the Government which specifically takes the low target in estimations, the high target has as having more guns per capita than the states, middle of the ground basically identical.
|
On July 22 2012 14:06 Ironsights wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 13:56 Heweree wrote: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.
Die for your wallet. You must be really young to think this way. Are you really ready to die (the end of everything) to protect your wallet? Do you think people will sing your prowess? Please do a favor to your family, don't die for your wallet.
And if you're worried about your honor, don't worry it's preserved. You were outnumbered.
|
On July 22 2012 14:10 whatevername wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 12:01 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 11:36 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:09 Sjokola wrote:
[quote]
But do you believe there is such an entity the would wage open war with the US on its soil and that the US militairy (the most powerfull one ever) would need armee citizens to thwart such an atempt? Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are. Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken. Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm. Honestly, based on some posters' rampant insistence that gun regulation would actually make their country LESS safe, I can only assume that America is a terrifying place to live. You realize Canada has [by some stats] more guns per capita than the states? If your assuming the amount of guns has a correlation with violence [demonstrably false, in fact the more guns you have typically the more prosperous and free the country is] than Canada should basically be on par. In REALITY, you know the thing outside your liberal delusions, guns are self evidently a means of self defense for the physically weak and innocent, and so yes, a terrifying location or a tranquil one, an armed population is safer. Do you perhaps have a scource for this? Because Yemen doesn't seem safe and has the most guns per capita. And by that logic most European countries should be less safe than the US or thrird world countries. Edit: it seems like a weird thing to say that Germany effectively doesn't have free speech http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryNote: Canada's official gun figures are taken from the Government which specifically takes the low target in estimations, the high target has as having more guns per capita than the states, middle of the ground basically identical.
I never understood these stats, I lived most of my life in France and don't know anyone who owns a gun. I'm pretty sure the 31% comes from the 5% of farmers who own multiple hunting firearms. But it's far from 31% of the population owning gun, very very far.
|
that shit is malicious.. absolutely ridiculous
one difference i see between being able to fight back with your hands, and being able to draw a firearm to threaten their lives:
you are always at risk of taking somebody's life whether theirs, your own, or your friend's---firearm or not---but i can't imagine that bringing a gun to the equation suddenly puts everything at ease. and yes, i have been mugged, LOL
how do you even see yourself as an 'ambassador' when you're weilding a death-dealing weapon in another part of the world?
|
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.
This is false. Organized crime is not a threat to normal people, they are more a threat to the government and the communities as a whole, most importantly, they never kill anyone for reasons other than business.
In Sweden if someone gets shot the police assumes that he was involved in a criminal gang, and they are pretty much always right. Normal people don't get shot down in Sweden, period. Many americans seems to have this idea about hunters that kills humans as a sport. Of course these ppl exist, and the guy from Colorado was one of them, but these kinds of ppl never have a criminal record, because they are not driven by greed. If that guy lived in Sweden he wouldn't have even been able to get a hold of a simple handgun. If you're a seemingly normal guy, with no criminal background and you're looking for a gun, you're more likely to end up meeting the police rather than a black market arms dealer. The swedish police takes these things very seriously, so if you're looking for a weapon, you can't trust anyone, and if you're selling weapons you need to be even more careful, the dealer would shit his pants if some stranger approached him without first getting referenced from someone he trusts. Guys like him and most people on TL just don't have access to guns (if they live in Sweden or countries with similar gun policies), because our hands are not dirty enough, and emotionally unstable ppl like the guy from Colorado is the exact type that the criminal gangs don't want to be involved with.
By making it illegal to sell guns, you prevent guys like him from obtaining them. Yes, criminal gangs can obtain guns, even in Sweden, but gang people don't shoot strangers at cinemas. Criminals are greedy bastards, not lunatics.
Basically the only ones that have access to guns in Sweden are criminal gangs and the police. This makes us as safe as can be. Organized crime is no threat to normal ppl. They might target them for money or material things, but if you for instance get robbed on the streets, they're not doing it for personal reasons, ie they have nothing against you, so the chance of you getting shot is non-existent. If you assume however that you're being robbed and you're carrying a gun, then there's a great chance that one of you gets shot. This is exactly why in Sweden, all killers as well as victims from gunshot are organized criminals. If only one person have a gun, there is no tension, since the oppressor is much stronger. But if two parts are equal it turns into a battle.
The question is, does your gun really make you safe, if everybody else own a gun aswell? The answer is obviously no.
The thought of all the random strangers in my neighbourhood having the right to buy a gun, that sends chills down my spine. Now that makes me want to buy a gun myself, for protection. If I moved to USA I would definately not feel as safe as I do in Sweden, not because of the criminal gangs, but because of all the normal (potentially crazy) people having access to guns.
|
Numbers don't really matter.
You never start a fight, and you damn well don't lose it.
And four guns to one might be jsut fine if I know how to use mine better.
I am young, but that doesn't mean I am a fool. I wouldn't be dying for the wallet...I would be fighting for a pronciple. Those who seek to do harm to others for personal gain deserve to be punished. It is the duty of those able to resist, to resist, and for those able to shut such behaviors down to do so. If I had been armed, if I had managed to take them down, they would NEVER have been able to hurt anyone else.
AS it is, they can still rob and pillage to their vile hearts content.
|
On July 22 2012 14:15 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 14:10 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 12:01 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 11:36 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:17 heliusx wrote:
[quote]
Stop beating a dead horse Jesus... Only crazies think we need guns to defend from invasion or tyranny. We use them for self defense in our homes mostly. I know is hard for Europeans to imagine the majority of criminals having firearms but that doesn't change the fact that they are.
Should we figure out a way to keep them out of crazies hands? Yes. Will it happen anytime soon? No. Should people be allowed to carry in public? Yes, only after extensive training and upkeep though. Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken. Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm. Honestly, based on some posters' rampant insistence that gun regulation would actually make their country LESS safe, I can only assume that America is a terrifying place to live. You realize Canada has [by some stats] more guns per capita than the states? If your assuming the amount of guns has a correlation with violence [demonstrably false, in fact the more guns you have typically the more prosperous and free the country is] than Canada should basically be on par. In REALITY, you know the thing outside your liberal delusions, guns are self evidently a means of self defense for the physically weak and innocent, and so yes, a terrifying location or a tranquil one, an armed population is safer. Do you perhaps have a scource for this? Because Yemen doesn't seem safe and has the most guns per capita. And by that logic most European countries should be less safe than the US or thrird world countries. Edit: it seems like a weird thing to say that Germany effectively doesn't have free speech http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryNote: Canada's official gun figures are taken from the Government which specifically takes the low target in estimations, the high target has as having more guns per capita than the states, middle of the ground basically identical. I never understood these stats, I lived most of my life in France and don't know anyone who owns a gun. I'm pretty sure the 31% comes from the 5% of farmers who own multiple hunting firearms. But it's far from 31% of the population owning gun, very very far.
It clearly states guns per capita. As in there are 31 guns per 100 persons. It's not 31% of people have guns.
|
On July 22 2012 14:18 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 14:15 Heweree wrote:On July 22 2012 14:10 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 12:01 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:50 whatevername wrote:On July 22 2012 11:39 Defacer wrote:On July 22 2012 11:36 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:34 Sjokola wrote:On July 22 2012 11:28 heliusx wrote:On July 22 2012 11:27 Sjokola wrote:
[quote]
Well there's your problem. Gun control could have prevented criminals from being so well armed. But now you've got a situation where you perhaps need to defend yourselves. Gun control also prevents the mass manufactering of so much weaponary and ammo. Most guns criminals have are stolen right? Stolen from people who got the legally. Well since you've gotten it all figured out all we need is a time machine. Hmmm That seems like a good way to end this for me tonight. Me admitting I don't know how life is in the US and that it might have been different, but the status quo (spiral) probably can't be broken. Im not saying that it can't. I'm saying I personally don't know how. And until someone solves it I'm protecting my life with a firearm. Honestly, based on some posters' rampant insistence that gun regulation would actually make their country LESS safe, I can only assume that America is a terrifying place to live. You realize Canada has [by some stats] more guns per capita than the states? If your assuming the amount of guns has a correlation with violence [demonstrably false, in fact the more guns you have typically the more prosperous and free the country is] than Canada should basically be on par. In REALITY, you know the thing outside your liberal delusions, guns are self evidently a means of self defense for the physically weak and innocent, and so yes, a terrifying location or a tranquil one, an armed population is safer. Do you perhaps have a scource for this? Because Yemen doesn't seem safe and has the most guns per capita. And by that logic most European countries should be less safe than the US or thrird world countries. Edit: it seems like a weird thing to say that Germany effectively doesn't have free speech http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1090441 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryNote: Canada's official gun figures are taken from the Government which specifically takes the low target in estimations, the high target has as having more guns per capita than the states, middle of the ground basically identical. I never understood these stats, I lived most of my life in France and don't know anyone who owns a gun. I'm pretty sure the 31% comes from the 5% of farmers who own multiple hunting firearms. But it's far from 31% of the population owning gun, very very far. It clearly states guns per capita. As in there are 31 guns per 100 persons. It's not 31% of people have guns.
Yeah, that's why i dont understand the relevance of those stats. If a hunter has 20 hunting guns in his hut and if 20 different people have an assault weapon it's not the same threat for society but still counted the same way in these stats.
|
On July 22 2012 14:06 Ironsights wrote:
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.
It shows quite a lot about your mental stability if in your mind the balance of justice equates a wallet to a life. Whether you kills or wounded them doesn't matter. Whats the first thing they tell you in gun class? Don't aim at anything you're not WILLING TO DESTROY.
No shrink on the planet is going to tell you that what you're saying is a mature, logical, well thought idea. You're not Cobra from the 80's. Someone wants your wallet, that sucks ass man, it does. But nowhere in the realm of sanity does discharging your weapon into them come into the picture.
So, by your definition what about the kid in school who takes the fat kids lunch money? Better hope the fat kid doesn't blast him? It's all cool.
|
|
|
I think it's both funny and ironic that the majority of people in these types of threads clamoring for "no more guns" are European. People of some of the most historically savage and violent countries on this planet. People who have decended from ancestors who were oppressed, yet rose up, and threw off those shackles. Almost singuraly through violent means (save from the Russians being destroy by their own system).
People who, for an America, can be termed nothing short of liberal, which where I come from has been given to mean people of "tolerance" and "diversity" are so wholely Intolerant of something they don't like.
Its troubling to me really that people exist in such numbers, and are so vocal, about the rights of everyone. Except that one...oh and that one too, we don't like that one either. Wait a second, you don't really need that, or this over here... thats not needed either.
People who rage over how American armed forces don't give our prisoners of war rights granted under our Constitution. Only garunteed to American citizens might I add.
It amazes me how two faced these people are, that you deserve your rights until we don't think there right, or until they don't suit us anymore. Why don't you just climb back into that shit hole called Europe and leave us to take care of ourselves. We've been doing it just fine for over 200 years, fine enough in fact to clean up all of your messes as well. A commonly dismissed fact.
The day will come when you will wish for your gun, for the ability to defend the place you call home, the people you love, and your own life. And we'll be there to clean up the mess.
Speaking of which, aren't yall about 20 years overdue for all out war in Europe?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Lets say banning firearms from the U.S. removed guns almost entirely from the country, including from criminals and myself, and lowered gun crimes as well as crime in general. The fundamental problem is still there. I DON'T HAVE A FREAKING GUN!
|
On July 22 2012 14:17 Ironsights wrote:
Numbers don't really matter.
You never start a fight, and you damn well don't lose it.
And four guns to one might be jsut fine if I know how to use mine better.
I am young, but that doesn't mean I am a fool. I wouldn't be dying for the wallet...I would be fighting for a pronciple. Those who seek to do harm to others for personal gain deserve to be punished. It is the duty of those able to resist, to resist, and for those able to shut such behaviors down to do so. If I had been armed, if I had managed to take them down, they would NEVER have been able to hurt anyone else.
AS it is, they can still rob and pillage to their vile hearts content.
your principle: fine and 'good'
but your life and well-being is more than just you or your ideals. i know that by the fact that you (most certainly) have a family of your own and that the people who wanted to steal from you had family and friends as well.
by what you can read here already, there are many more people who think that fighting for your life in a dangerous position (which can otherwise be avoided) is more foolish than cowardly. It is a gamble with your life where i'd argue that one of the only things gained out of it is a sense of justice
|
On July 22 2012 14:30 Little Rage Box wrote:
I think it's both funny and ironic that the majority of people in these types of threads clamoring for "no more guns" are European. People of some of the most historically savage and violent countries on this planet. People who have decended from ancestors who were oppressed, yet rose up, and threw off those shackles. Almost singuraly through violent means (save from the Russians being destroy by their own system).
People who, for an America, can be termed nothing short of liberal, which where I come from has been given to mean people of "tolerance" and "diversity" are so wholely Intolerant of something they don't like.
Its troubling to me really that people exist in such numbers, and are so vocal, about the rights of everyone. Except that one...oh and that one too, we don't like that one either. Wait a second, you don't really need that, or this over here... thats not needed either.
People who rage over how American armed forces don't give our prisoners of war rights granted under our Constitution. Only garunteed to American citizens might I add.
It amazes me how two faced these people are, that you deserve your rights until we don't think there right, or until they don't suit us anymore. Why don't you just climb back into that shit hole called Europe and leave us to take care of ourselves. We've been doing it just fine for over 200 years, fine enough in fact to clean up all of your messes as well. A commonly dismissed fact.
The day will come when you will wish for your gun, for the ability to defend the place you call home, the people you love, and your own life. And we'll be there to clean up the mess.
Speaking of which, aren't yall about 20 years overdue for all out war in Europe?
We are debating whether strict or lax gun control policy benefits a society. It's every society's debate. It turns a lot around the US because it's an hot subject there and it's one of the only (the only one?) developed country with such policy but that's it.
I wouldn't have dared to call the US a shithole, neither insult Americans.
And for the random historical bullshit you threw in your post I forgive you.
|
[/QUOTE] by what you can read here already, there are many more people who think that fighting for your life in a dangerous position (which can otherwise be avoided) is more foolish than cowardly. It is a gamble with your life where i'd argue that one of the only things gained out of it is a sense of justice [/QUOTE]
What place is it of your to determine whether or not a man can place his life in danger? If someone wants to place themselves in harms way to make a stand agianst a tyranical government you would say that person is a hero. But if they chose to take a stand a common theif its foolish?
Tyranny comes in many forms, it is not the place of any man to tell another where he should take his stand.
|
On July 22 2012 14:36 Heweree wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2012 14:30 Little Rage Box wrote:
I think it's both funny and ironic that the majority of people in these types of threads clamoring for "no more guns" are European. People of some of the most historically savage and violent countries on this planet. People who have decended from ancestors who were oppressed, yet rose up, and threw off those shackles. Almost singuraly through violent means (save from the Russians being destroy by their own system).
People who, for an America, can be termed nothing short of liberal, which where I come from has been given to mean people of "tolerance" and "diversity" are so wholely Intolerant of something they don't like.
Its troubling to me really that people exist in such numbers, and are so vocal, about the rights of everyone. Except that one...oh and that one too, we don't like that one either. Wait a second, you don't really need that, or this over here... thats not needed either.
People who rage over how American armed forces don't give our prisoners of war rights granted under our Constitution. Only garunteed to American citizens might I add.
It amazes me how two faced these people are, that you deserve your rights until we don't think there right, or until they don't suit us anymore. Why don't you just climb back into that shit hole called Europe and leave us to take care of ourselves. We've been doing it just fine for over 200 years, fine enough in fact to clean up all of your messes as well. A commonly dismissed fact.
The day will come when you will wish for your gun, for the ability to defend the place you call home, the people you love, and your own life. And we'll be there to clean up the mess.
Speaking of which, aren't yall about 20 years overdue for all out war in Europe? We are debating whether strict or lax gun control policy benefits a society. It's every society's debate. It turns a lot around the US because it's an hot subject there and it's one of the only (the only one?) developed country with such policy but that's it. I wouldn't have dared to call the US a shithole, neither insult Americans. And for the random historical bullshit you threw in your post I forgive you.
seriously, whatever your stance... totally unnecessary/overboard
|
On July 22 2012 14:30 Little Rage Box wrote:
I think it's both funny and ironic that the majority of people in these types of threads clamoring for "no more guns" are European. People of some of the most historically savage and violent countries on this planet. People who have decended from ancestors who were oppressed, yet rose up, and threw off those shackles. Almost singuraly through violent means (save from the Russians being destroy by their own system).
People who, for an America, can be termed nothing short of liberal, which where I come from has been given to mean people of "tolerance" and "diversity" are so wholely Intolerant of something they don't like.
Its troubling to me really that people exist in such numbers, and are so vocal, about the rights of everyone. Except that one...oh and that one too, we don't like that one either. Wait a second, you don't really need that, or this over here... thats not needed either.
People who rage over how American armed forces don't give our prisoners of war rights granted under our Constitution. Only garunteed to American citizens might I add.
It amazes me how two faced these people are, that you deserve your rights until we don't think there right, or until they don't suit us anymore. Why don't you just climb back into that shit hole called Europe and leave us to take care of ourselves. We've been doing it just fine for over 200 years, fine enough in fact to clean up all of your messes as well. A commonly dismissed fact.
The day will come when you will wish for your gun, for the ability to defend the place you call home, the people you love, and your own life. And we'll be there to clean up the mess.
Speaking of which, aren't yall about 20 years overdue for all out war in Europe?
Just what this thread needed! Some anti-European, over-patriotic spewed post because somehow you think people from other countries, whom have the opinions that guns should be regulated and such, are trying to somehow take away your rights. I also wouldn't say our country isn't in any state to call Europe a "shit hole", which regardless is just pointless hate. At least you warned Europe of its impending doom, though of course good ol' America will save them. Good work Nostradomus.
|
On July 22 2012 14:39 Little Rage Box wrote: by what you can read here already, there are many more people who think that fighting for your life in a dangerous position (which can otherwise be avoided) is more foolish than cowardly. It is a gamble with your life where i'd argue that one of the only things gained out of it is a sense of justice
What place is it of your to determine whether or not a man can place his life in danger? If someone wants to place themselves in harms way to make a stand agianst a tyranical government you would say that person is a hero. But if they chose to take a stand a common theif its foolish?
Tyranny comes in many forms, it is not the place of any man to tell another where he should take his stand.
Not entirely sure why I'm even answering this.
You can place your life in all the danger you want. Just don't expect anyone else to come to your rescue or care when you die. You put yourself in a stupid spot to make a stand, awesome job, good luck with that.
Equating a tyrannical government (is this the newest catch phrase btw?) to petty crimes is a nice stretch. No one is going to see you standing up against some mugger as homeboy standing up to a tank in Tiananmen Square, it's not even in the same universe.
Lastly, its anyone's place to tell any man where he should take his stand, or anything else for that matter. Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing. If I think you took a stupid stand and died for it you'd be a dead idiot, that's all. Not a hero.
|
The world is not perfect. If you expect grandma to be free of threat (no she can't learn martial arts) then she has to be able to carry a weapon. If you take guns away from those law abiding citizens who are of no material threat, then all you succeed in doing is leaving the criminals armed and the general population unarmed. Furthermore, countries with greater gun integration (Switzerland comes to mind) where people are taught how to use and maintain their firearms and are given a weapon for home security are the safest in the world. Also, wtf ever happened to the 2nd amendment and since when did it become okay to ignore it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
