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 24 2012 08:57 StormShield24 wrote: guns don't kill people drivers with cell phones do
I suspect you're trying to be funny, but it's actually a good point. According to the U.S. government's mortality data,
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
I suspect you're trying to be funny, but it's actually a good point. According to the U.S. government's mortality data,
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
Let's ban all cars, from now on everyone use bikes instead. We can't trust that everyone is going to drive safely. Those who drive safely and don't cause accidents, doesn't matter, you lose your right to drive because a few other people don't.\
Ban all guns too, have your kitchen knives and baseballs at your bedside in case you need something for self defense. If your businesses or stores, etc, get robbed too bad, call the police and hope they get there in time before too much damage is done. Hopefully we'll find the criminals who do these acts, trust in the government to take care of you and do everything for you, do not worry.
On July 24 2012 07:18 Jockmcplop wrote: So why would you want a gun, if not to inflict cruelty on other people?
If the billions of gun owners in the world bought guns to inflict cruelty on other people, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
So why do these people want one?
Self-defense. A concept not understood in the UK as your right to bear firearms was taken away from you.
Not even the avarage cop carries a firearm in the UK, still the the people are way safer. Care to explain that?
How are they safer? If someone in the UK robs someone else with a knife or some other weapon the people they are robbing are completely helpless. Whereas in the USA, people HAVE THE RIGHT to own a firearm for self defense. Just because we have the 2nd amendment doesn't mean everyone buys and owns a gun. I don't own a gun. But I respect and believe in the right of others to own them for self defense. The fact is, most people use guns responsibly and in many many cases, have defended their own lives and the lives of their families. You are going to have the very few who abuse that right and use guns to rob and murder others. People do all sorts of things they shouldn't, break all kinds of laws they shouldn't, doesn't mean EVERYONE should lose their rights everytime this sort of thing happens. If you are against owning guns or people owning guns, keep it to yourself. No one forces you to have a gun and you don't have any right whatsoever so tell someone else they can't have one for self defense. Here's an example: http://www.dailypaul.com/112512/shotgun-preteen-vs-illegal-alien-home-invaders. You don't hear stuff like this on the news often because the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear this stuff.
People in the UK are allowed to have knives in their houses if I remember correctly.
How is a (kitchen)knife to defend yourself from a robber with a knive so much worse than a gun in a gun vs gun fight to a point that you say they are completly helpless if you encounter someone with a knife.
I'm not really an expert on those things but I consider it about equally dangerous to be shot instead of shooting the robber than being stabbed instead of stabbing the robber when trying to defend yourself just from a logics point of view, luckily without any experience in any of those. Therefore I think it's about equally likely that you're going to successfully defeat the robber in both scenarios.
Worst logic I have ever heard. I think I'd rather have a gun to defend myself than a knife if I were getting robbed. What are you going to do against 5 robbers with 5 knives? You'd be forced to get on your knees while your wife/daughters get raped in front of you. That's what could happen to you, whereas if you owned a gun you could shoot all of them. You have a better chance at survival with a gun than a knife. Most people don't have to worry about getting robbed, chances are low but you should have the right to defend yourself with something other than a fucking kitchen knife, don't be absurd. You are speaking from the viewpoint that you could never get robbed or attacked and that your family is safe %100 of the time. Keep living in fantasy land.
I'm not living in a fantasy land. Yeah that could happen. Yeah it's preeeetty unlikely but it could happen but even if it were to happen I wouldn't be able to do a thing about it either way. Shit happens. I know that's written pretty simple, maybe someone might even consider it offensive calling something like that "shit happens" when we're talking about lives being ruined but that's what it comes down to.
You're telling me a gun is better in that scenario? You're going against 5 people, each of them carrying at least a pistol all on your own with one weapon because you can win that 1v5? Dude that's not going to happen. You're going to die in that scenario like a guy with a knife (or golfclub or a bat) would die vs 5 guys having knifes / clubs / bats. What's going to happen if one of those 5 robbers has your daughter hostage pointing his gun at her head. You still think your gun is going to save the day? I doubt it. You're telling me I'm living in a fantasy land. Truth is shit happens and you can't be safe from everything, just as you said. Carrying a gun won't make it any safer though. It may give you some courage and delude you into thinking your safer than without having any firearms but you might just die when fighting robbers or not have a chance to begin with because it's a 1v5 like you mentioned or someone having your daughter hostage.
There's no difference in the knife and gun scenario except that you want to go out with a bang and want to at least believe that you can protect yourself and your loved ones from everything, no matter what happens or at least die defending yourself while taking a bunch of them with you. Your wife and daughter probably wouldn't like that either, would they?
There is a difference and it's quite simple to understand, long paragraphs of nonsense is not necessary. The fact is you have a better chance of survival with a gun than a kitchen knife or baseball bat or whatever. Yes you could be outnumbered and have a better chance with a gun than the things you've described. USA is different than Germany. Chicago is probably the most crime ridden city in the US and guns are BANNED there. It is illegal to have a gun in Chicago, yet crime rate is the highest in the country there and shootings happen all the time. Criminals are going to have guns regardless of what gun laws you pass. And the victims that get shot follow the law and can't own guns. Tell them to use their kitchen knives or baseball bats or whatever to defend themselves.
I know and I can see your points from your perspective. If I'd live in a country were everyone can own a gun I might consider getting one myself for the reasons people mentioned. I can see the logic behind that and I don't mind that.
I just don't agree with every argument in here. I disagree with people saying "it would be easy to get guns anyways" for the reasons I mentioned. I disagree with people saying it would not make a difference at all because the reason this is up to date is not because of professional criminals carrying guns, although that obviously is part of the whole thing if you're living in a gun infested system with trigger friendly criminals all over the place. And I disagreed with you saying people in the UK are completly defenseless if someone gets in your house with just a knife for the things I mentioned: I'd punch someone to the ground with a bat or a club or I'd have a 50/50 chance with a knife myself if I wanted to.
That's what I tried to say and that's all I did. I never started talking about the us and their guns, I only was talking about your scenario in the UK were people are completly defenseless according to you, which I considered to be wrong.
Or at least that's what I tried to say, might have sounded differently.
On July 24 2012 07:21 DeepElemBlues wrote: [quote]
If the billions of gun owners in the world bought guns to inflict cruelty on other people, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
So why do these people want one?
Self-defense. A concept not understood in the UK as your right to bear firearms was taken away from you.
Not even the avarage cop carries a firearm in the UK, still the the people are way safer. Care to explain that?
How are they safer? If someone in the UK robs someone else with a knife or some other weapon the people they are robbing are completely helpless. Whereas in the USA, people HAVE THE RIGHT to own a firearm for self defense. Just because we have the 2nd amendment doesn't mean everyone buys and owns a gun. I don't own a gun. But I respect and believe in the right of others to own them for self defense. The fact is, most people use guns responsibly and in many many cases, have defended their own lives and the lives of their families. You are going to have the very few who abuse that right and use guns to rob and murder others. People do all sorts of things they shouldn't, break all kinds of laws they shouldn't, doesn't mean EVERYONE should lose their rights everytime this sort of thing happens. If you are against owning guns or people owning guns, keep it to yourself. No one forces you to have a gun and you don't have any right whatsoever so tell someone else they can't have one for self defense. Here's an example: http://www.dailypaul.com/112512/shotgun-preteen-vs-illegal-alien-home-invaders. You don't hear stuff like this on the news often because the mainstream media doesn't want you to hear this stuff.
People in the UK are allowed to have knives in their houses if I remember correctly.
How is a (kitchen)knife to defend yourself from a robber with a knive so much worse than a gun in a gun vs gun fight to a point that you say they are completly helpless if you encounter someone with a knife.
I'm not really an expert on those things but I consider it about equally dangerous to be shot instead of shooting the robber than being stabbed instead of stabbing the robber when trying to defend yourself just from a logics point of view, luckily without any experience in any of those. Therefore I think it's about equally likely that you're going to successfully defeat the robber in both scenarios.
Worst logic I have ever heard. I think I'd rather have a gun to defend myself than a knife if I were getting robbed. What are you going to do against 5 robbers with 5 knives? You'd be forced to get on your knees while your wife/daughters get raped in front of you. That's what could happen to you, whereas if you owned a gun you could shoot all of them. You have a better chance at survival with a gun than a knife. Most people don't have to worry about getting robbed, chances are low but you should have the right to defend yourself with something other than a fucking kitchen knife, don't be absurd. You are speaking from the viewpoint that you could never get robbed or attacked and that your family is safe %100 of the time. Keep living in fantasy land.
I'm not living in a fantasy land. Yeah that could happen. Yeah it's preeeetty unlikely but it could happen but even if it were to happen I wouldn't be able to do a thing about it either way. Shit happens. I know that's written pretty simple, maybe someone might even consider it offensive calling something like that "shit happens" when we're talking about lives being ruined but that's what it comes down to.
You're telling me a gun is better in that scenario? You're going against 5 people, each of them carrying at least a pistol all on your own with one weapon because you can win that 1v5? Dude that's not going to happen. You're going to die in that scenario like a guy with a knife (or golfclub or a bat) would die vs 5 guys having knifes / clubs / bats. What's going to happen if one of those 5 robbers has your daughter hostage pointing his gun at her head. You still think your gun is going to save the day? I doubt it. You're telling me I'm living in a fantasy land. Truth is shit happens and you can't be safe from everything, just as you said. Carrying a gun won't make it any safer though. It may give you some courage and delude you into thinking your safer than without having any firearms but you might just die when fighting robbers or not have a chance to begin with because it's a 1v5 like you mentioned or someone having your daughter hostage.
There's no difference in the knife and gun scenario except that you want to go out with a bang and want to at least believe that you can protect yourself and your loved ones from everything, no matter what happens or at least die defending yourself while taking a bunch of them with you. Your wife and daughter probably wouldn't like that either, would they?
There is a difference and it's quite simple to understand, long paragraphs of nonsense is not necessary. The fact is you have a better chance of survival with a gun than a kitchen knife or baseball bat or whatever. Yes you could be outnumbered and have a better chance with a gun than the things you've described. USA is different than Germany. Chicago is probably the most crime ridden city in the US and guns are BANNED there. It is illegal to have a gun in Chicago, yet crime rate is the highest in the country there and shootings happen all the time. Criminals are going to have guns regardless of what gun laws you pass. And the victims that get shot follow the law and can't own guns. Tell them to use their kitchen knives or baseball bats or whatever to defend themselves.
I know and I can see your points from your perspective. If I'd live in a country were everyone can own a gun I might consider getting one myself for the reasons people mentioned. I can see the logic behind that and I don't mind that.
I just don't agree with every argument in here. I disagree with people saying "it would be easy to get guns anyways" for the reasons I mentioned. I disagree with people saying it would not make a difference at all because the reason this is up to date is not because of professional criminals carrying guns, although that obviously is part of the whole thing if you're living in a gun infested system with trigger friendly criminals all over the place. And I disagreed with you saying people in the UK are completly defenseless if someone gets in your house with just a knife for the things I mentioned: I'd punch someone to the ground with a bat or a club or I'd have a 50/50 chance with a knife myself if I wanted to.
That's what I tried to say and that's all I did. I never started talking about the us and their guns, I only was talking about your scenario in the UK were people are completly defenseless according to you, which I considered to be wrong.
Or at least that's what I tried to say, might have sounded differently.
I think everyone would agree if we lived in a perfect world, guns would not be needed. But this is a planet where you should and need to be able to defend yourself and your family. I live in a good neighborhood, I don't own a gun. I have never seen or had a family/friend get murdered by a gun or w/e I'm just saying you should have the right to have a gun for self defense, at least here in the USA. I'm not going to comment on other countries that's them to decide. Some parts of this country you are better off with that. Just something to think about though, what do old people do in the UK if they get robbed by someone with a knife? I can't imagine them being able to defend themselves as well as you could for example. It seems like they'd be helpless victims in a situation like that. Not everyone will be able to defend themselves in every situation, but at least you have a chance to and go down fighting than just losing your life to some worthless criminal who unfortunately just decided to pick you as their target. Just saying.
On July 24 2012 09:41 Esk23 wrote: I suspect you're trying to be funny, but it's actually a good point. According to the U.S. government's mortality data,
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
Let's ban all cars, from now on everyone use bikes instead. We can't trust that everyone is going to drive safely. Those who drive safely and don't cause accidents, doesn't matter, you lose your right to drive because a few other people don't.\
Ban all guns too, have your kitchen knives and baseballs at your bedside in case you need something for self defense. If your businesses or stores, etc, get robbed too bad, call the police and hope they get there in time before too much damage is done. Hopefully we'll find the criminals who do these acts, trust in the government to take care of you and do everything for you, do not worry.
Oh yes, the 'everything is a weapon' and the 'regulating guns equals denying the right to bear arms' argument.
Who in this thread is arguing to ban cars or guns? I know I'm not.
Too many posters in this thread advocating for guns are resorting to these comical, strawman arguments.
It's naive how naive some of you think we are. Frankly, it betrays your actual age.
On July 24 2012 04:42 Rassy wrote: Defacer Canada. July 24 2012 04:32. Posts 3248
He said there may be discussion of limiting the sale of the sort of protective clothing that Holmes allegedly donned. "Is that what the right to bear arms means, that you can purchase tactical gear to stop law enforcement from preventing you from perpetrating a crime?" Waller asked. "In the days and weeks to come, this is going to be a significant conversation."
Now that would be something. Keeping in the guns but banning the gear that protects against them. Its the world upside down.
None of the gear he had was able to protect him from a bullet. That "bullet proof vest" was just a mag carrying vest. The other protectors can help against blunt impacts and knife edges, but not firearms. It was all for looks and the "fear factor". Once again, the media has no idea what they are talking about.
Also, if someone calls an AR-15 an assault rifle and a magazine a clip again I will pistol whip them for their stupidity. Don't talk about something you know nothing about.
Youre a huge wise-ass, you know that right? Also, youre wrong. Which actually is easy to read up on, just take a look at the californian 89 assault weapon ban, also the 2000 assault weapon ban. Guess which rifle was classified as assault rifle? They even banned the AR-15 specifically by name in both laws. So does wikipedia, and alot of gun-sites i just looked up.
But im curious, how do you call a full auto rifle which can be equipped with drum-mags?
I don't care if the California legislator calls them evil fairy wands, it does not make them correct. The AR-15 is a semi auto sporting rifle which looks mimic the m16/m4. The ones used in the military have additional internal parts for full auto, a stronger bolt and bolt carrier, and sometimes a thicker barrel. The only people who use the word "assault rifle" are those who really don't know what they are talking about. If you really wanted a full auto "assault rifle" you would need first find one someone wants to sell. That is rare because you can not buy one manufactured after 1986. Because of this prices on m16s are about 15k plus. Then you have to fill out a class 3 form to the ATF (which included getting permission for local police chief to have the weapon), pay 200 bucks, then wait 5-6 months.
What the idiot in colorado used was a cheap smith and wesson ar. How do I know it was cheap? Because it jammed with little use. So the guy didn't know what the hell he was doing or he bought an inferior rifle. Regardless I am not complaining.
Also, who cares about drum magazines? Find me any fire arms instructor/trainer/etc that advocates using that in a non-recreational manner. 100 loaded drum is heavy as hell, and would quickly cause fatigue and accuracy would quickly diminish.
Sporting rifle, yeah, right..
Youre kinda delusional, i get the feeling. As long as the normal AR-15 which everyone can buy legally can be legally modified to full-automatic-fire, it doesnt matter in any frikkin way if the barrel is slightly thinner. I dont even dare to show you how easy you can turn your AR-15 legally to full auto (for about 400 dollar), because it seems you either dont know that, or you try to make a point hoping that no-one knows. Either way, we both know youre bullshitting.
Further, the "jam" kinda didnt stop him from killing nearly 100 people, did it? And your argument against drum-mags (which are btw called "LMG-Mags" for a reason, and guess what, its because it turns an assault rifle basically into a light machine gun - again, easy to read up on that fact, check the G36 and the germans army LMG, which is a G36 with drum mag and bipod with no mechanical modifications). We are not talking about sniper or self defense, we are talking about a freakin idiot who basically had LEGALLY a light machine gun to his disposal in a theater. The fact that it wasnt (again, legally) modified to shoot full auto was luck on "your" part, nothing more.
And dont try to get me on semantics, an AR-15 that can fire 900rpm is full auto, theres no discussion about that.
harsher punishment is what is needed. Criminals need to fear the punishment for the crime. Right now its like a strict gated community. ( I have worked with prisons both federal and state) Unfortunately I dont see this happening. Too many people with the idea of sweep it under the carpet and it will go away type mentality.
On July 24 2012 09:41 Esk23 wrote: I suspect you're trying to be funny, but it's actually a good point. According to the U.S. government's mortality data,
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among those age 5-34 in the U.S. More than 2.3 million adult drivers and passengers were treated in emergency departments as the result of being injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2009. The economic impact is also notable: the lifetime costs of crash-related deaths and injuries among drivers and passengers were $70 billion in 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/
Let's ban all cars, from now on everyone use bikes instead. We can't trust that everyone is going to drive safely. Those who drive safely and don't cause accidents, doesn't matter, you lose your right to drive because a few other people don't.\
Ban all guns too, have your kitchen knives and baseballs at your bedside in case you need something for self defense. If your businesses or stores, etc, get robbed too bad, call the police and hope they get there in time before too much damage is done. Hopefully we'll find the criminals who do these acts, trust in the government to take care of you and do everything for you, do not worry.
Oh yes, the 'everything is a weapon' and the 'regulating guns equals denying the right to bear arms' argument.
Who in this thread is arguing to ban cars or guns? I know I'm not.
Too many posters in this thread advocating for guns are resorting to these comical, strawman arguments.
It's naive how naive some of you think we are. Frankly, it betrays your actual age.
You act like my post was directed at you for some reason. I was being sarcastic as hell in my post, if you are for gun regulation and not gun ban then why respond to my post. Gun regulation is fine if it means to regulate gun control to people with criminal backgrounds. Regulating gun control to limit the different kinds of guns you have is just another bad idea though. If the government and it's agencies can have whatever gun they want, then the people should too, otherwise it's not a very free country. I'd rather have guns in the hands of the people than the government.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
this is the point where i went from being depressed when reading your posts to actually busting out laughing, if just for a bit
e: man, that new post of his would make for the cutest caricature of the ultra-free-thinking, straight-shooting kind of "real" amehruhcuhn (the one that's tired of all the government conspiracies and the biased "intellectual" media), if it were a fakepost that is :s since it isn't it ventures into the realm of macabre, but macabre can still be funny.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
this is the point where i went from being depressed when reading your posts to actually busting out laughing, if just for a bit
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
this is the point where i went from being depressed when reading your posts to actually busting out laughing, if just for a bit
Thanks for sharing, but I couldn't care less.
Hes right though. I actually think you are trolling, because i dont want to believe that "opinions" (lets call it that) like yours actually exist in the US.
If so, i at least hope youre an ignorable minority, because people like you are as dangerous as criminals. Also, how good guns work if the policework is done by people like you was shown by Zimmerman. And yeah, im pretty sure that he talks exactly the same shit as you.
THERE YOU GO. Ron Paul says it best. Probably the best and most honest policitian we have in the USA who hasn't sold himself out to corporate interests like everyone else has.
this is the point where i went from being depressed when reading your posts to actually busting out laughing, if just for a bit
Thanks for sharing, but I couldn't care less.
Hes right though. I actually think you are trolling, because i dont want to believe that "opinions" (lets call it that) like yours actually exist in the US.
If so, i at least hope youre an ignorable minority, because people like you are as dangerous as criminals. Also, how good guns work if the policework is done by people like you was shown by Zimmerman. And yeah, im pretty sure that he talks exactly the same shit as you.
People who share my views are not an ignorable minority, we like our Bill of Rights and Constitution of the US. But someone like you is definately a minority, you are the product of mainstream media, you are exactly how they want you to be and think.
On July 24 2012 08:37 Leth0 wrote: Why are people comparing drugs and firearms?
You smoke some weed it's gone.
A gun doesn't vanish after it's been used once.
that is the only difference? -___- more like for drugs the concern is doing harm to oneself whereas for firearms the concern is doing harm to others.
on topic, I really do not understand the pro-carry folks who believe that if people in the theater were carrying the shooting would have been resolved. with more people carrying guns to everyday outings there will be more accidents, poor judgment calls, theft of firearms, etc.
As a citizen of the U.S., I'm really appalled (but not surprised) at the amount of gun ownership in this country. I don't think killing is ever an answer to any situation... but I realize how controversial that view is in the modern world, and I don't pretend to think that everyone would agree with that view.
So my argument for reducing gun ownership in the U.S. is that it is an infringement of my safety and the safety of everyone in this society. The U.S. has a much, much higher rate of gun related deaths per year. In EU countries where guns are banned or heavily controlled, there are much fewer gun related deaths.
Why is your "right" to own a gun more important than the safety of everyone else? We control lots of hazardous materials and weapons because if they weren't it would be far too dangerous for society. So why are guns okay? I would answer culture, but that answer is too arbitrary to be taken seriously in debate. I don't think you can argue that it makes you more safe, because the statistics say it makes us all much more likely to die from a gun-related death.
In the end, I think the real reason people want guns is to feel safe. Being able to kill things can make a person feel safe. But the desire to have a feeling of safety hardly qualifies as a justification to endanger the rest of society.
The 2nd Amendment is a sad carryover from a violent time in our nation's history, and I feel great compassion for the lives lost and the thousands who suffer today because of it.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
On July 24 2012 08:37 Leth0 wrote: Why are people comparing drugs and firearms?
You smoke some weed it's gone.
A gun doesn't vanish after it's been used once.
that is the only difference? -___- more like for drugs the concern is doing harm to oneself whereas for firearms the concern is doing harm to others.
It's a pretty damn big difference. Guns are not going anywhere. The biggest part of the drug market is production and resupplying. They are constantly being consumed and you constantly need to aquire more to keep up with the habit. A gun can be bought, sold, used, resold, used again. It's not going anywhere.
Some drugs are illegal and yet the constant stream of resupply is never interrupted for the vast majority of people using them. Now imagine a situation where guns are illegal, buyers don't have to worry about a constantly buying a new gun. They buy a gun, get some ammo, and they are protected.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
On July 24 2012 11:02 Probulous wrote: A slightly different angle here.
Do American's think the rest of us are stupid for not wanting to carry guns? Or alternatively, why is that in the US you need to carry a weapon and not somewhere else?
"The rest of you" are free to make up your own decisions on the issue for wherever you happen to live. I don't think many of "us" care past that. It's when a persons control freak attitude goes all out and they start tell us "how shit should be" that the mud slinging starts happening.
Respect our right to make our own decisions.
it's a internet forum.
People talk here because it's interesting to talk with people from other places. At least that's the reason I'm here and I'm pretty sure noone in here really thinks he's able to change something in the US by posting in here, especially if you're not from the US yourself, lol. It's curiosity and we're letting you do whatever you want. We have different opinions on that because we're from different places and that's the reason it is interesting. To see wether someone is talking bullshit or really saying something (you'd consider to be) smart you have to explain reasoning from both point of views.
That's pretty much the principle of this forum I'd say. I really don't think someone writes in these topics to change the world but rather to have some input from other people from all over the globe. Obviously most people are convinced in what works (seems to work) in their countries the most. Like I said. Noone in germany wants to restrict the Autobahn to 130kmh although politics are talking about it. Even though most people would agree that it'd safer that way they still want the unrestricted Autobahn.
EPT
