|
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 27 2012 05:33 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 04:24 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 27 2012 04:19 Bojas wrote:
Wrong quote somewhere in here and I have no idea where Knife fights are horrible. Want to know the number one rule of a knife fight? Everyone gets cut. In a city that has the 2nd highest rate of HIV per person, no thank you. If you pull out a knife within 21 feet of me, well, that is your mistake. Sure knife fights are horrible, the point that it's easier to kill with a gun if we're talking about the mental issues of killing someone still holds true. And I'm pretty sure that's what he was referring to. It's "harder" to kill someone with a spoon than trying a knife as well, although that's not the point. You've got to be pretty damn sure you know what you're doing if you're trying to kill someone with a spoon because that probably takes some time and doing the same thing over and over again, aka stabbing someone with a spoon. If you want to kill someone with a knife that still takes more "action" from your part than simply pressing a button. In close combat knifes are easily more dangerous than guns so obviously they're not a bad choice to kill someone either but you're more involved mentally that way and it's harder to accidently pull the trigger with a knife. Not to mention that knives have a purpose other than killing so it's clearly judging wether the advantages of a knife are bigger than the downsides, while a gun has no purpose other than culture.
I just want to remind everyone that there are many kinds of knives such as concealable folding knives and large bowie knives that are flat-out illegal/prohibited in most states in the US. Many of these same states don't require permits or licences for purchasing guns such as the AR-15. Some even allow open-carry.
You can reasonably argue that knives are more tightly regulated than guns in the US right now.
|
why would u need a gun oO
|
On July 27 2012 07:24 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 05:33 Toadesstern wrote:On July 27 2012 04:24 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 27 2012 04:19 Bojas wrote:
Wrong quote somewhere in here and I have no idea where Knife fights are horrible. Want to know the number one rule of a knife fight? Everyone gets cut. In a city that has the 2nd highest rate of HIV per person, no thank you. If you pull out a knife within 21 feet of me, well, that is your mistake. Sure knife fights are horrible, the point that it's easier to kill with a gun if we're talking about the mental issues of killing someone still holds true. And I'm pretty sure that's what he was referring to. It's "harder" to kill someone with a spoon than trying a knife as well, although that's not the point. You've got to be pretty damn sure you know what you're doing if you're trying to kill someone with a spoon because that probably takes some time and doing the same thing over and over again, aka stabbing someone with a spoon. If you want to kill someone with a knife that still takes more "action" from your part than simply pressing a button. In close combat knifes are easily more dangerous than guns so obviously they're not a bad choice to kill someone either but you're more involved mentally that way and it's harder to accidently pull the trigger with a knife. Not to mention that knives have a purpose other than killing so it's clearly judging wether the advantages of a knife are bigger than the downsides, while a gun has no purpose other than culture. I just want to remind everyone that there are many kinds of knives such as concealable folding knives and large bowie knives that are flat-out illegal/prohibited in most states in the US. Many of these same states don't require permits or licences for purchasing guns such as the AR-15. Some even allow open-carry. That's right -- knives are more tightly regulated than guns in the US right now.
As ironic as that is, you'd have to be a nutjob to want to use a knife as a self-defense weapon when you can use a gun for protection.
|
On July 27 2012 07:26 KalWarkov wrote:
why would u need a gun oO
To protect yourself from the other people with guns.
|
On July 27 2012 07:26 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:24 Defacer wrote:On July 27 2012 05:33 Toadesstern wrote:On July 27 2012 04:24 ImAbstracT wrote:On July 27 2012 04:19 Bojas wrote:
Wrong quote somewhere in here and I have no idea where Knife fights are horrible. Want to know the number one rule of a knife fight? Everyone gets cut. In a city that has the 2nd highest rate of HIV per person, no thank you. If you pull out a knife within 21 feet of me, well, that is your mistake. Sure knife fights are horrible, the point that it's easier to kill with a gun if we're talking about the mental issues of killing someone still holds true. And I'm pretty sure that's what he was referring to. It's "harder" to kill someone with a spoon than trying a knife as well, although that's not the point. You've got to be pretty damn sure you know what you're doing if you're trying to kill someone with a spoon because that probably takes some time and doing the same thing over and over again, aka stabbing someone with a spoon. If you want to kill someone with a knife that still takes more "action" from your part than simply pressing a button. In close combat knifes are easily more dangerous than guns so obviously they're not a bad choice to kill someone either but you're more involved mentally that way and it's harder to accidently pull the trigger with a knife. Not to mention that knives have a purpose other than killing so it's clearly judging wether the advantages of a knife are bigger than the downsides, while a gun has no purpose other than culture. I just want to remind everyone that there are many kinds of knives such as concealable folding knives and large bowie knives that are flat-out illegal/prohibited in most states in the US. Many of these same states don't require permits or licences for purchasing guns such as the AR-15. Some even allow open-carry. That's right -- knives are more tightly regulated than guns in the US right now. As ironic as that is, you'd have to be a nutjob to want to use a knife as a self-defense weapon when you can use a gun for protection.
Well yeah. There's no National Knife Association.
Just kidding. There actually is. They've just been less successful.
National Knife Association attacks school violence
Oh, America!
|
On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability.
Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people.
|
On July 27 2012 07:40 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhACAETu3o&feature=g-all-u This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people.
But having easily accessible guns has it's drawbacks, for example the recent shootings in Colorado. That nutjob got those guns waaaay too easily. There needs to be restrictions so that its harder for any random psychopath to go and buy afew guns.
Plus when was the last gun-wielding uprising against the government in the USA? The American government has been oppressing it's people with all those Homeland security and internet privacy acts and we haven't seen any sort of popluar uprising led by gun toting civilians
|
On July 27 2012 07:49 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:40 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhACAETu3o&feature=g-all-u This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people. But having easily accessible guns has it's drawbacks, for example the recent shootings in Colorado. That nutjob got those guns waaaay too easily. There needs to be restrictions so that its harder for any random psychopath to go and buy afew guns. Plus when was the last gun-wielding uprising against the government in the USA? The American government has been oppressing it's people with all those Homeland security and internet privacy acts and we haven't seen any sort of popluar uprising led by gun toting civilians
It's fine to have stronger criminal background checks when people try to buy guns, but passing laws that restrict guns for everyone that includes people who follow the law and don't abuse it is wrong.
|
On July 27 2012 07:53 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:49 oldgregg wrote:On July 27 2012 07:40 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhACAETu3o&feature=g-all-u This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people. But having easily accessible guns has it's drawbacks, for example the recent shootings in Colorado. That nutjob got those guns waaaay too easily. There needs to be restrictions so that its harder for any random psychopath to go and buy afew guns. Plus when was the last gun-wielding uprising against the government in the USA? The American government has been oppressing it's people with all those Homeland security and internet privacy acts and we haven't seen any sort of popluar uprising led by gun toting civilians It's fine to have stronger criminal background checks when people try to buy guns, but passing laws that restrict guns for everyone that includes people who follow the law and don't abuse it is wrong.
Why? After your last arguments got destroyed, all you come up with is this? That guy in colorado was following the laws till he shot all those people...
|
On July 27 2012 07:53 Esk23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:49 oldgregg wrote:On July 27 2012 07:40 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhACAETu3o&feature=g-all-u This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people. But having easily accessible guns has it's drawbacks, for example the recent shootings in Colorado. That nutjob got those guns waaaay too easily. There needs to be restrictions so that its harder for any random psychopath to go and buy afew guns. Plus when was the last gun-wielding uprising against the government in the USA? The American government has been oppressing it's people with all those Homeland security and internet privacy acts and we haven't seen any sort of popluar uprising led by gun toting civilians It's fine to have stronger criminal background checks when people try to buy guns, but passing laws that restrict guns for everyone that includes people who follow the law and don't abuse it is wrong.
That psycho hadn't broken any laws until he went awol. A background criminal check wouldnt have stopped him. less easily available firearms would have
|
On July 27 2012 07:32 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote:To protect yourself from the other people with guns.
Yeah but shooting a guy for trying to shoot you makes you just as bad as the guy who tried to shoot you because you're doing exactly what he was intending to do. Now you can say "yeah but he was intending to shoot me!" but if you used your gun to shoot him instead, then you would also have intended to shoot him. So to not be as bad as him, you should just be the bigger man and get shot while not trying to shoot.
|
On July 27 2012 08:01 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:53 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 07:49 oldgregg wrote:On July 27 2012 07:40 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:58 RenSC2 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:19 Esk23 wrote:On July 27 2012 06:10 Tarot wrote:On July 27 2012 06:06 Esk23 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFhACAETu3o&feature=g-all-u This is why the 2nd Amendment exists, oppressive, abusive government. To protect the people. Unless you're suggesting that we should pull a gun and cap the TSA, how does this have anything to do with the topic "should people be allowed to own and carry guns" in any way? It has everything to do with it. It's very easy for governments to oppress and control the people if they are disarmed. One of the reasons the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment was to protect against that very type of government, that the people had a means to overthrow an oppressive, abusive and criminal government if it ever came to that. That's what Americans did during the American Revolution against the British King. The people took up arms and defeated them and won their freedom. A whole population of people should not come under the control of a few corrupt people in government, it's a very simple concept. History repeats itself with abusive govnerments that get overthrown by the people who eventually become sick of it. If you disarm a population they could never win any sort of revolution against a corrupt government. Besides that, you shouldn't let a few psychos dictate the laws that are put in place to protect GOOD people. If you create new laws that punish good people because bad people break the law, it's simply a dwindling spiral where more and more laws are put in place and good people lose more and more rights and freedom. Ahh hah. You've figured it out! If everyone has guns, then the government with their apcs, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, warships, drones, bombs, missiles, satellite networks, and spy networks will never dare to oppress you. War today is just like the American Revolution. The US soldiers stand in lines, fire off a single shot, and then go in for the bayonette charge. As long as our citizens have their own guns and are willing to put their lives at risk to form their own combat lines, we can overthrow a corrupt government. Yeah! I'm going to give you a very important link. It is a link to all the US soldiers who have been killed in Iraq: http://icasualties.org/iraq/Nationality.aspx?hndQry=USI give you that link because I'd love for someone to go through and calculate how many US soldiers have died from "small arms fire" (guns) versus how many have died in IED attacks or rocket attacks. It's a time consuming task, so if you don't want to do that, just page through a few pages and take note of how the majority of them died. Note how few (comparatively) die from gunfire. How effective are guns against the US military? So you might say, "well people in Iraq don't really have very many guns," which allows me to pull out this link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iraq Iraq ranks 8th in the world in the number of privately owned guns per person (out of 179 countries). They aren't as high on the list as the US (we're #1 baby!) according to that site's data, but they're still pretty high. I know that a large portion of those guns are AK47s, so it's not exactly a bunch of weakass handguns either. When it comes to defending yourself against government oppression, your gun only gives you a false sense of security. If a government actually tries to oppress you, your gun would only make you a target. In the current era of warfare, it does nothing to actually prevent a government from abusing you. If you really want to defeat a technologically powerful enemy through combat, you'll have to learn how to build IEDs or rockets. Your gun isn't just worthless, it's actually a liability. Wow you discovered that the US military could take us out very easily. Let's give up our rights and hope the government plays nice and follows the rules. Point is, it's better to have guns than none at all. It's some protection, of course you could not defeat the US military with just basic guns but it is better than nothing. The 2nd amendment is very clear, whether the US military is more powerful the than people does not matter in whether the amendment should exist or not. You really just made a good arguement for having guns, since the US military is so powerful and out of control. Anyways, say there was a full scale revolution, it's hard to imagine the entire US military banding together and annihilating their own citizens. There'd be plenty of military who would do the right thing and side with the people. But having easily accessible guns has it's drawbacks, for example the recent shootings in Colorado. That nutjob got those guns waaaay too easily. There needs to be restrictions so that its harder for any random psychopath to go and buy afew guns. Plus when was the last gun-wielding uprising against the government in the USA? The American government has been oppressing it's people with all those Homeland security and internet privacy acts and we haven't seen any sort of popluar uprising led by gun toting civilians It's fine to have stronger criminal background checks when people try to buy guns, but passing laws that restrict guns for everyone that includes people who follow the law and don't abuse it is wrong. till he shot all those people...
Which makes him a criminal. Laws would not prevent him from causing harm to others. If someone wants something done, they will improvise. For every asshole who goes on a shooting spree with firearms he purchased legally(assuming they were as I don't really care about this news story), there is an exorbitant amount of owners who DO NOT do this same act. If you make firearms less available, it will just make criminals go towards firearms that are more easily attained. For this man to cause as much harm as he did, an AR-15 is overkill. He could easily have replicated his results with a far inferior weapon. If you want to be a zealot against firearm ownership by people who won't go out and do this shit, at least acknowledge that criminals will inflict harm upon others despite your attempts to control certain firearms or attempt to ban them entirely.
The post above this post is the dumbest fucking thing I've read in this entire thread so far.
|
United States2968 Posts
On July 27 2012 14:34 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 07:32 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote:On July 27 2012 07:26 KalWarkov wrote:
why would u need a gun oO To protect yourself from the other people with guns. Yeah but shooting a guy for trying to shoot you makes you just as bad as the guy who tried to shoot you because you're doing exactly what he was intending to do. Now you can say "yeah but he was intending to shoot me!" but if you used your gun to shoot him instead, then you would also have intended to shoot him. So to not be as bad as him, you should just be the bigger man and get shot while not trying to shoot.
While I am anti-gun, this makes no sense.
You're forgetting all about the INTENT of both sides. He has the intent of ending your life, you have the intent of protecting yours through taking his.
|
On July 27 2012 15:00 Cloud9157 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 14:34 reincremate wrote:On July 27 2012 07:32 CrazyF1r3f0x wrote:On July 27 2012 07:26 KalWarkov wrote:
why would u need a gun oO To protect yourself from the other people with guns. Yeah but shooting a guy for trying to shoot you makes you just as bad as the guy who tried to shoot you because you're doing exactly what he was intending to do. Now you can say "yeah but he was intending to shoot me!" but if you used your gun to shoot him instead, then you would also have intended to shoot him. So to not be as bad as him, you should just be the bigger man and get shot while not trying to shoot. You're forgetting all about the INTENT of both sides. He has the intent of ending your life, you have the intent of protecting yours through taking his.
i.e., you have the intent of ending his life.
|
United States2968 Posts
Because they're trying to end yours.
I guess we shouldn't be allowed to have fists, since if someone threatens to kill me with them, I can kill them with mine.
|
On July 27 2012 15:06 Cloud9157 wrote:
Because they're trying to end yours.
I guess we shouldn't be allowed to have fists, since if someone threatens to kill me with them, I can kill them with mine.
Oh shit, we should ban fists.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
United States2968 Posts
On July 27 2012 15:09 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 15:06 Cloud9157 wrote:
Because they're trying to end yours.
I guess we shouldn't be allowed to have fists, since if someone threatens to kill me with them, I can kill them with mine. Oh shit, we should ban fists.
Troll confirmed.
In an attempt to add even a bit of thoughtful discussion, I feel there needs to be a ban on certain weapons. No one should have access to automatic weapons that isn't law enforcement of some sort.
|
On July 27 2012 15:06 Cloud9157 wrote:
Because they're trying to end yours.
I guess we shouldn't be allowed to have fists, since if someone threatens to kill me with them, I can kill them with mine.
Yes, thats totally comparable! Really, no difference at all between fists and guns... . If there was a fight between two groups of people, the casualities would absolutly be the same, no matter if they used fists or guns.
|
United States2968 Posts
On July 27 2012 15:17 Usul wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 15:06 Cloud9157 wrote:
Because they're trying to end yours.
I guess we shouldn't be allowed to have fists, since if someone threatens to kill me with them, I can kill them with mine. Yes, thats totally comparable! Really, no difference at all between fists and guns... . If there was a fight between two groups of people, the casualities would absolutly be the same, no matter if they used fists or guns.
You're talking about something along the lines of a war I'm guessing? Sorry to tell you, but wars=/= 1v1.
Feel free to replace fists with anything: screwdrivers, knives, scissors, the list is endless. It doesn't change the fact that his logic was flawed by claiming that having a gun to kill a person trying to kill you with one is wrong.
|
I think it was winston churchill who said, "The best argument against democracy is a 5 min conversation with the average voter." You may not see that as having relevance to this, but basically people are stupid and i believe should not be aloud to own guns
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
