|
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. |
People in countries with strict gun laws don't have this insane craving for recreation through guns.
That's nice, "insane." Really persuasive there.
I find this highly irrelevant
Because it is or because it's convenient for you to say so? Oh well, you've already determined that we're insane, anything else is just chump change. You'll be sending a sternly-worded letter to the psychiatrists and psychologists of the world regarding their need to update the definition of insanity, right? I'm sure they'll be very interested in it.
The difference between guns and cars are that guns are designed to kill living things, cars aren't.
Guns are not designed to be aimed and fired at people. What gave you the idea that they were? Shooting them at people except in certain limited, defined circumstances wouldn't be a crime if what you're saying was true. You don't get in trouble for using something as it is designed.
|
On February 20 2012 05:58 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote + People in countries with strict gun laws don't have this insane craving for recreation through guns. That's nice, "insane." Really persuasive there. Because it is or because it's convenient for you to say so? Oh well, you've already determined that we're insane, anything else is just chump change. You'll be sending a sternly-worded letter to the psychiatrists and psychologists of the world regarding their need to update the definition of insanity, right? I'm sure they'll be very interested in it.
Eh, shit. Bad choice of words, I meant huge craving. Nothing to do with sanity.
|
Eh, shit. Bad choice of words, I meant huge craving. Nothing to do with sanity.
It's not a craving, it's just fun for some people. Well for some people I bet it would be a craving.
Small numbers of people go out to the shooting range for recreation or go hunting, compared to the number of people who own a gun. Even smaller numbers go to the shooting range to practice "in case they need to use it someday," or whatever.
Recreational shooting is a lot, lot less popular in America than it was 40, 50 years ago. It's gone up a little bit in the last decade, but it isn't close to what it was.
|
On February 20 2012 06:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Eh, shit. Bad choice of words, I meant huge craving. Nothing to do with sanity. It's not a craving, it's just fun for some people. Small numbers of people go out to the shooting range for recreation or go hunting, compared to the number of people who own a gun. Even smaller numbers go to the shooting range to practice. Recreational shooting is a lot, lot less popular in America than it was 40, 50 years ago.
In that case it's even less of a real argument to make if it isn't a significant amount of people practicing it.
|
The big thing I don't understand, is that anti-gun proponents always bring up how many fire-arms accidents there are, and that this shows they're bad. Us pro-gun people point out that they're only dangerous if you aren't responsible (protip: you don't even have to be all that responsible, its not hard to keep your gun unloaded, or with a trigger-lock). Then the anti-gun people bring up that even if you're the most responsible person ever, accidents happen, and then to prevent the accidents you should get rid of guns, even admitting that responsible people having firearms accidents is extremely rare.
But then when we bring up that guns can be used for self-defense, you say that violent home invasions are rare, and so we don't need guns to prevent them. Which is it? Are we, or aren't we allowed to protect against rare events?
|
On February 20 2012 05:57 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:42 Focuspants wrote:On February 20 2012 05:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military. Tell it to the large number of successful revolutions and resistances against foes with vastly superior armament around the world over the last 250 years. You're just making shit up that sounds good. The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. No, your argument is the foolish one not backed up by anything but your own preconceived notions. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. That's right, you should just allow someone to enter your home and do whatever the fuck they feel like because if you fight back it's far more likely you or they will get hurt or killed. When did morality get stood on its head, that the initiator of violence shouldn't be challenged because someone might get hurt? It's not a peaceful act to break into someone's home, it's a violent one. Since when did initiating violence = free pass, because resistance might get people hurt? In far more cases guns have prevented violence, they are not just an illusion of safety. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063Maybe in mass murder of other country's residents, but few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people. Plus, your handgun isn't going to defend you against your government's stealth bomber, the point is moot, if your government wants to kill you, all you can do is run away/hide/obey, and fight back from the shadows. You contradict yourself. Why would you fight back from anywhere if you are so overmatched that victory is impossible? Few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people? There are dozens of governments in existence today that have perpetrated mass murder their own citizens within the last 20 years or are doing so right now. Where do you come up with your non-factual facts? It has been shown again and again that this stupid "you can't fight back against a stealth bomber" argument is not true. Uprisings would never work if it was solely decided by who had the bigger guns. I'm sure the US military would be a lot happier if what you're saying turned out to be true in Iraq and Afghanistan. AK-47s and homemade bombs can't compare to autocannons on helicopters and planes and artillery shells or rockets, those wars sure were cakewalks since our weapons were so much better. That's what you're saying should have happened, so why didn't it? Fighting back from the shadows with a gun is more effective than fighting back with a knife. So, what's your point? Don't fight back because you can't, unless you do from the shadows, but don't do it with a gun because your little gun isn't effective, so do it with something less effective? You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. You are also presuming, as I previously mentioned, that all of the military will stay on the government's side. If it goes to civil war, you can either leave the army to fight it out, at which point the ones who got the bulk of the army win, or you can start arming the populace. At this point you have either the option of taking green recruits and starting them up from "this end toward the bad guys", or you can have people who are already experienced shooters and at least half-decent shots. For that matter, there would be a lot of people who served in the military among the rebels.
wow. thats a insane argument.
1. you get armed for the case of fighting your gov in case of a civil war? seriously how paranoid are you?
2. its pointless. there is one thing that keeps the military from crushing all kinds of revolts : morals and the rest of the world. do you really think a few rifles will change ANYTHING against a military that can make your whole city a flat surface within 30 minutes?
On February 20 2012 06:05 Millitron wrote:
The big thing I don't understand, is that anti-gun proponents always bring up how many fire-arms accidents there are, and that this shows they're bad. Us pro-gun people point out that they're only dangerous if you aren't responsible (protip: you don't even have to be all that responsible, its not hard to keep your gun unloaded, or with a trigger-lock). Then the anti-gun people bring up that even if you're the most responsible person ever, accidents happen, and then to prevent the accidents you should get rid of guns, even admitting that responsible people having firearms accidents is extremely rare.
But then when we bring up that guns can be used for self-defense, you say that violent home invasions are rare, and so we don't need guns to prevent them. Which is it? Are we, or aren't we allowed to protect against rare events?
depends. what would you say if your neighbor plants down a nice minefield in his garden? does this sound reasonable to you? also in most cases confronting intruders is the easiest way to get hurt. what do you think is the safer choice for you and your family:
1. stumbling down the stairs after you just waked up and provoking a gunfight with a unknown amount of unknown people
or
2. locking the door, hiding/leaving and calling the police.
and thats just IF you actually hear them.
|
ive been living in the suburbs of paris for 26 years.its FAR from being the safest place in western world,quite the opposite
i hear of stabbing/beating up/kidnapping(yes)/mugging every week and have been beaten up/mugged my fair share of time.
In 26 years,ive heard(never knew if that was true) of ONE murder,the only one i know of in my city(quite big one),and it was by firearm.
the crime rate where i live is no doubt as high if not higher as the worst part of the us you can think of,but theres been ONE murder in 26 years(that ive heard of anyway,theres probably been a bit more than that),and that was with a firearm.
You can say anything you want,that just proves a point to me.Do not give me the people in the us are harder/more dangerous bullshit,come hang out with eastern eu mafia where i live.
No really easy way of killing someone=no really easy murder.
anyway the best post was a few pages ago,i think the us is in a loop where bad guys have guns,so to feel safe you need a gun,nobody wants to give up their weapon first.bad guys over here have a knife/fists,good thing ive got cuttlery and two arms.
|
On February 20 2012 05:57 Hertzy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:42 Focuspants wrote:On February 20 2012 05:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military. Tell it to the large number of successful revolutions and resistances against foes with vastly superior armament around the world over the last 250 years. You're just making shit up that sounds good. The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. No, your argument is the foolish one not backed up by anything but your own preconceived notions. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. That's right, you should just allow someone to enter your home and do whatever the fuck they feel like because if you fight back it's far more likely you or they will get hurt or killed. When did morality get stood on its head, that the initiator of violence shouldn't be challenged because someone might get hurt? It's not a peaceful act to break into someone's home, it's a violent one. Since when did initiating violence = free pass, because resistance might get people hurt? In far more cases guns have prevented violence, they are not just an illusion of safety. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063Maybe in mass murder of other country's residents, but few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people. Plus, your handgun isn't going to defend you against your government's stealth bomber, the point is moot, if your government wants to kill you, all you can do is run away/hide/obey, and fight back from the shadows. You contradict yourself. Why would you fight back from anywhere if you are so overmatched that victory is impossible? Few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people? There are dozens of governments in existence today that have perpetrated mass murder their own citizens within the last 20 years or are doing so right now. Where do you come up with your non-factual facts? It has been shown again and again that this stupid "you can't fight back against a stealth bomber" argument is not true. Uprisings would never work if it was solely decided by who had the bigger guns. I'm sure the US military would be a lot happier if what you're saying turned out to be true in Iraq and Afghanistan. AK-47s and homemade bombs can't compare to autocannons on helicopters and planes and artillery shells or rockets, those wars sure were cakewalks since our weapons were so much better. That's what you're saying should have happened, so why didn't it? Fighting back from the shadows with a gun is more effective than fighting back with a knife. So, what's your point? Don't fight back because you can't, unless you do from the shadows, but don't do it with a gun because your little gun isn't effective, so do it with something less effective? You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. You are also presuming, as I previously mentioned, that all of the military will stay on the government's side. If it goes to civil war, you can either leave the army to fight it out, at which point the ones who got the bulk of the army win, or you can start arming the populace. At this point you have either the option of taking green recruits and starting them up from "this end toward the bad guys", or you can have people who are already experienced shooters and at least half-decent shots. For that matter, there would be a lot of people who served in the military among the rebels.
You are also presuming, you don't know if the government wants to "mass murder" their people, your presuming it.
that all of the military will stay on the government's side
How do you know that? Have you seen the future? You are discussing a very weird point here. Sure in places like libia / Syria the people get killed, but you are basing all your assumptions on weak OLD information, 250 years ago is a long time, blacks were slaves, women were in the kitchen. Stop basing your assumptions on history. If the human race is good in one thing, its evolving and expanding our vision to other situations, if the mighty America wants to kill its own people, again put down your tinfoil hat.
GL HF.
|
Medry
Canada166 Posts
It really saddens me to see this discussed. I honestly cannot believe this needs discussing.
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
Your second amendment is your only way to revolt against any tyrannical goverment.
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually. . . . " -George Mason
Cmon guys, we dont live in a perfect age. We see flaws in the goverment already and when we speak out about them publicly we downplay the situation on TV and use uneeded force upon the protesters. Dont be fooled, you will need the second amendment one day.
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." -Ben Franklin
Have a nice day!
|
On February 20 2012 06:03 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 06:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Eh, shit. Bad choice of words, I meant huge craving. Nothing to do with sanity. It's not a craving, it's just fun for some people. Small numbers of people go out to the shooting range for recreation or go hunting, compared to the number of people who own a gun. Even smaller numbers go to the shooting range to practice. Recreational shooting is a lot, lot less popular in America than it was 40, 50 years ago. In that case it's even less of a real argument to make if it isn't a significant amount of people practicing it.
pretty straightforward to me. handguns are designed for shooting people on the street. long guns are designed for hunting or military use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
|
Even if gun ownership was made completely illegal those who wanted to posses and do criminal actions would still find a way to acquire them. It is a measure of security, even if very small, to know that I would be able to defend myself/possessions if pressed. Ever hear of the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? It would be much easier for criminals to exact their desires if the general populace had no way to defend themselves. Law enforcement can only go so far unless people are completely comfortable with making lives run by martial law.
With that said there has to be some regulation. It is completely unnecessary for automatic weapons/military grade weapons to be made available to the public. Furthermore, laws should do more to prevent persons found to not have the mental responsibility needed to carry firearms. Remember Virginia Tech? That is a clear example where if the proper measures were taken beforehand many lives could have been saved.
This opinion is coming from one who does not own a gun and currently has no plans to own one.
|
On February 20 2012 06:05 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:57 Hertzy wrote:On February 20 2012 05:42 Focuspants wrote:On February 20 2012 05:28 DeepElemBlues wrote:Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military. Tell it to the large number of successful revolutions and resistances against foes with vastly superior armament around the world over the last 250 years. You're just making shit up that sounds good. The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. No, your argument is the foolish one not backed up by anything but your own preconceived notions. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed. That's right, you should just allow someone to enter your home and do whatever the fuck they feel like because if you fight back it's far more likely you or they will get hurt or killed. When did morality get stood on its head, that the initiator of violence shouldn't be challenged because someone might get hurt? It's not a peaceful act to break into someone's home, it's a violent one. Since when did initiating violence = free pass, because resistance might get people hurt? In far more cases guns have prevented violence, they are not just an illusion of safety. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063Maybe in mass murder of other country's residents, but few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people. Plus, your handgun isn't going to defend you against your government's stealth bomber, the point is moot, if your government wants to kill you, all you can do is run away/hide/obey, and fight back from the shadows. You contradict yourself. Why would you fight back from anywhere if you are so overmatched that victory is impossible? Few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people? There are dozens of governments in existence today that have perpetrated mass murder their own citizens within the last 20 years or are doing so right now. Where do you come up with your non-factual facts? It has been shown again and again that this stupid "you can't fight back against a stealth bomber" argument is not true. Uprisings would never work if it was solely decided by who had the bigger guns. I'm sure the US military would be a lot happier if what you're saying turned out to be true in Iraq and Afghanistan. AK-47s and homemade bombs can't compare to autocannons on helicopters and planes and artillery shells or rockets, those wars sure were cakewalks since our weapons were so much better. That's what you're saying should have happened, so why didn't it? Fighting back from the shadows with a gun is more effective than fighting back with a knife. So, what's your point? Don't fight back because you can't, unless you do from the shadows, but don't do it with a gun because your little gun isn't effective, so do it with something less effective? You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. You are also presuming, as I previously mentioned, that all of the military will stay on the government's side. If it goes to civil war, you can either leave the army to fight it out, at which point the ones who got the bulk of the army win, or you can start arming the populace. At this point you have either the option of taking green recruits and starting them up from "this end toward the bad guys", or you can have people who are already experienced shooters and at least half-decent shots. For that matter, there would be a lot of people who served in the military among the rebels. wow. thats a insane argument. 1. you get armed for the case of fighting your gov in case of a civil war? seriously how paranoid are you? 2. its pointless. there is one thing that keeps the military from crushing all kinds of revolts : morals and the rest of the world. do you really think a few rifles will change ANYTHING against a military that can make your whole city a flat surface within 30 minutes?
It's their city too. They wouldn't bother with the oppression if they didn't want that city or its populace. They won't flatten it because owning it is their whole goal.
Again, let me bring up Vietnam, where US forces were pretty much OK with civilian casualties, and we STILL suffered insane losses to the guerrilla forces.
|
On February 20 2012 03:11 Yongwang wrote:
Hello everyone in this other thread! As to answer the OP's question, as I'm sure you already know my stance on this from the other thread, I fully support the right to bear arms and the right to carry. At the end of the day, there is no legitimate reason for the government to take away either of those fundamental rights. Remember kids, fear is not a reason to take away people's freedom.
If people weren't allowed to have weapons, there would have been no American revolution.++
|
Why would Americans be wary or fearful of their government? Well let's see what's happened in the last 12 years:
You had one major political party and faction (Democrats, liberals) raging for eight years that an election was "stolen," that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were running roughshod over the Constitution, they were called crypto-fascists and wannabe dictators, some people implied or outright said that they were going to institute a police state, some people said they deliberately withheld help from Katrina to try to get black people killed, some people said the government was going to bring the draft back and suck people into fighting wars with no choice, lots of people in the media and political circles in Europe were saying this as well, it got repeated ad nauseum for eight years.
And then Barack Obama was elected and the other major political party and faction (Republicans, conservatives) started doing the same thing, he's running roughshod over the Constitution, he's forcing people to do things the government shouldn't be able to force people to do, yadda yadda yadda.
When all that is going on, with no reprieve, for 12 years now, and some (the less crazy ones) of the criticisms from both sides being very much justified, did people think that wouldn't have an effect? That people wouldn't become more fearful of government? You have the parties trashing each other, each one saying the other side hates freedom, and the media happily throwing fuel on to the fire either to grab attention (higher ratings, sell papers, etc.) or out of the conviction of people in the media themselves.
You can't do what has been done in the political discourse of America for the last 12 years without it having an effect. And that effect is, people don't trust government and are afraid of it. They've been told they shouldn't trust government and should be afraid of it, by both sides, for a long time.
|
On February 20 2012 06:09 setzer wrote:
Even if gun ownership was made completely illegal those who wanted to posses and do criminal actions would still find a way to acquire them. It is a measure of security, even if very small, to know that I would be able to defend myself/possessions if pressed. Ever hear of the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? It would be much easier for criminals to exact their desires if the general populace had no way to defend themselves. Law enforcement can only go so far unless people are completely comfortable with making lives run by martial law.
With that said there has to be some regulation. It is completely unnecessary for automatic weapons/military grade weapons to be made available to the public. Furthermore, laws should do more to prevent persons found to not have the mental responsibility needed to carry firearms. Remember Virginia Tech? That is a clear example where if the proper measures were taken beforehand many lives could have been saved.
This opinion is coming from one who does not own a gun and currently has no plans to own one.
You think crazy students would have guns if they were restricted in the US?
There's A LOT of crazy people in my country's schools, but there hasn't been a single student murder by gunfire in my country, ever. That's probably because there's no guns.
|
I bet the people who defend gun rights also support Iran in its cause to obtain nuclear weapons, which I don't see as desirable progress. I think most of the arguments for and against guns also apply in global scale (one could argue nuclear power is same as using guns for hunting & other recreational purposes) and isn't the common goal to try and dismantle as many weapons of mass destruction as possible?
|
On February 20 2012 06:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Why would Americans be wary or fearful of their government? Well let's see what's happened in the last 12 years:
You had one major political party and faction (Democrats, liberals) raging for eight years that an election was "stolen," that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were running roughshod over the Constitution, they were called crypto-fascists and wannabe dictators, some people implied or outright said that they were going to institute a police state, some people said they deliberately withheld help from Katrina to try to get black people killed, some people said the government was going to bring the draft back and suck people into fighting wars with no choice, lots of people in the media and political circles in Europe were saying this as well, it got repeated ad nauseum for eight years.
And then Barack Obama was elected and the other major political party and faction (Republicans, conservatives) started doing the same thing, he's running roughshod over the Constitution, he's forcing people to do things the government shouldn't be able to force people to do, yadda yadda yadda.
When all that is going on, with no reprieve, for 12 years now, and some (the less crazy ones) of the criticisms from both sides being very much justified, did people think that wouldn't have an effect? That people wouldn't become more fearful of government? You have the parties trashing each other, each one saying the other side hates freedom, and the media happily throwing fuel on to the fire either to grab attention (higher ratings, sell papers, etc.) or out of the conviction of people in the media themselves.
You can't do what has been done in the political discourse of America for the last 12 years without it having an effect. And that effect is, people don't trust government and are afraid of it. They've been told they shouldn't trust government and should be afraid of it, by both sides, for a long time.
this is getting insane. so now you guys arent just afraid of eachother (like always) but also are so afraid of your gov that you arm yourself for a potential civil war? am i getting this right? i mean WTF.
ever thought about maybe, just maybe trying to change things by protesting,voting, pointing out the lies and propaganda in the media etc? but apparently instead of doing something that makes sense in this educated time and age you rather wait and then slaughter your own countrymen like we europeans did 500 years ago.
dont even know what to say at this point. this has to be the most insane reasoning for guns ive seen.
On February 20 2012 06:09 setzer wrote:
Even if gun ownership was made completely illegal those who wanted to posses and do criminal actions would still find a way to acquire them. It is a measure of security, even if very small, to know that I would be able to defend myself/possessions if pressed. Ever hear of the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"? It would be much easier for criminals to exact their desires if the general populace had no way to defend themselves. Law enforcement can only go so far unless people are completely comfortable with making lives run by martial law.
With that said there has to be some regulation. It is completely unnecessary for automatic weapons/military grade weapons to be made available to the public. Furthermore, laws should do more to prevent persons found to not have the mental responsibility needed to carry firearms. Remember Virginia Tech? That is a clear example where if the proper measures were taken beforehand many lives could have been saved.
This opinion is coming from one who does not own a gun and currently has no plans to own one.
proper law enforcement makes sure that now one other then real criminals (you know the kind of people that murder people for money) own guns. there are no 15 year old ghetto kids with guns. there are no depressed drunk guys with guns. there are no furious cheated wifes with guns. and thanks to that barely anyone gets killed by a gun.
also i dont quite get the the big difference between normal guns and allout military guns. couldnt you argue there that the evil psycho crew that invades your home might have illegal autorifles and thus you need one too?
|
While the rest of the world has moved on, Americans still glorify the cowboy with the white hat.
|
this is getting insane. so now you guys arent just afraid of eachother (like always) but also are so afraid of your gov that you arm yourself for a potential civil war? am i getting this right? i mean WTF.
Lots of people keep heaping on scorn on the idea of being wary of your government, I was just explaining what has happened in America to show why some Americans might be. We've been told, by people in positions of authority and trust, that we should be, and those people told us that to get us to vote for them, not necessarily because it was true.
ever thought about maybe, just maybe trying to change things by protesting,voting, pointing out the lies and propaganda in the media etc? but apparently instead of doing something that makes sense in this educated time and age you rather wait and then slaughter your own countrymen like we europeans did 500 years ago.
This is what we are doing, ever thought about living in reality and not in some fantasy world where Americans haven't protested, voted, pointed out lies, etc.? Apparently instead of doing something that makes sense, like realizing that we had an election not even two years ago, that we have elections and voting and protesting and debating all the time here in America, you invent some fantasy America that doesn't exist in order to say something really, really stupid. We might live in an educated time and age, but you certainly aren't acting as if you took part in any of that education.
Like you did 60 years ago, not 500, you mean.
dont even know what to say at this point. this has to be the most insane reasoning for guns ive seen.
It wasn't reasoning for guns, it was reasoning for why Americans would be wary of their government, and how about you don't say anything, you've made yourself look ignorant and hysterical enough.
While the rest of the world has moved on, Americans still glorify the cowboy with the white hat.
rofl
Do you realize how insular and ignorant you make yourself look when you say things like that? America is a lot more like Canada and Western Europe (and Japan and Australia and South Korea and other developed countries) than the rest of the world is like any of us.
|
On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed.
no. the military has 4 million guns.
the american population has 270 million guns. well over 100 million of them are rifles.
i don't care how good the military is. our militia did it to the british military 200 years ago. we'll do it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
