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.
About the teachers having guns I really don't agree with that. There are lots of shit teachers out there but I think school security guards should be a thing at schools and have a weapon and be heavily trained with lots of background checks. My old highschool had/has a police officer who does security at the school. So I don't see why it would be unreasonable to have a person of authority like a cop or a highly trained security guard at schools to lessen the chances of a shooting. If you trust a cop to have a weapon on him when driving around in his cruiser with a shotgun in the trunk why can't he be armed at a school?
Regarding the difficulty of banning of assault weapons I think a good analogy for the difficulty with semantics is trying to ban sports cars. Lets say a nation wanted to ban sports cars. Where do they start? With the horsepower, the body style, the wheel base, a spoiler? Trying to limit by looks doesn't work and that's how most gun legislation is done sadly. People modify their cars to look faster than they are just like people make guns look "cooler". You can throw a big ugly useless spoiler on your 99 Civic and you can put a M16 look alike stock on your single shot .22. It would be really easy to mistake my brothers .22 with a big scope/Bi-pod/military looking stock as way scarier/deadlier than an SKS even though it was at one point a military rifle.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
teachers with guns, i'm for this, it does make sense but only if the willing teacher is properly trained and checked, making sure its a trust worthy person.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
I don't believe that and never even implied that, don't twist my words please. Denying that guns kill innocent people wouldn't make much sense as well though, I'm not saying that everybody would be happy and alive then, but saving 30.000 per year or even just 3.000 would make it worth it to me.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
I don't believe that and never even implied that, don't twist my words please. Denying that guns kill innocent people wouldn't make much sense as well though, I'm not saying that everybody would be happy and alive then, but saving 30.000 per year or even just 3.000 would make it worth it to me.
and like i said, i think there are more important issues that can save more lives than a gun ban. not twisting your words, rather replying to the arrogant tone "how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account?", to paraphrase, that sounds like "how do you justify the loss of innocent life just so you can have a gun?"
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
I don't believe that and never even implied that, don't twist my words please. Denying that guns kill innocent people wouldn't make much sense as well though, I'm not saying that everybody would be happy and alive then, but saving 30.000 per year or even just 3.000 would make it worth it to me.
and like i said, i think there are more important issues that can save more lives than a gun ban.
But would it be as easy? The brits succesfully made that step and just because there are other, bigger issues, doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of this one as well. And I'd actually say that the aviability of weapons in the US is one of the major issues the country has.
On December 20 2012 07:34 heliusx wrote: [quote] Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
[quote] Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
I don't believe that and never even implied that, don't twist my words please. Denying that guns kill innocent people wouldn't make much sense as well though, I'm not saying that everybody would be happy and alive then, but saving 30.000 per year or even just 3.000 would make it worth it to me.
and like i said, i think there are more important issues that can save more lives than a gun ban.
But would it be as easy? The brits succesfully made that step and just because there are other, bigger issues, doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of this one as well. And I'd actually say that the aviability of weapons in the US is one of the major issues the country has.
i think it'll be easier than implementing gun ban in USA, not UK. guns are a problem and require better regulation, no denying this, but to blindly push for gun ban doesnt do good either.
On December 20 2012 07:57 RedFury wrote: [quote] No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
I don't believe that and never even implied that, don't twist my words please. Denying that guns kill innocent people wouldn't make much sense as well though, I'm not saying that everybody would be happy and alive then, but saving 30.000 per year or even just 3.000 would make it worth it to me.
and like i said, i think there are more important issues that can save more lives than a gun ban.
But would it be as easy? The brits succesfully made that step and just because there are other, bigger issues, doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of this one as well. And I'd actually say that the aviability of weapons in the US is one of the major issues the country has.
i think it'll be easier than implementing gun ban in USA, not UK.
I didn't mean politically easy, but easy in the sense of making new laws and so on. And if people wouldn't do the right thing because it's hard to convince people of it the moralic state of every country could only go down.
EDIT: I'll hit the bed, didn't get the answers I hoped for here and didn't want a discussion with you or about this part of the topic (to be honest, it doesn't seem like you or I will reach anything here) so I'm not really enough interested in the outcome of this to stay up. So good night, it's 2 in the morning and I'm tired, sorry if my sudden leaving seems rude.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
I don't believe that and never even implied that, don't twist my words please. Denying that guns kill innocent people wouldn't make much sense as well though, I'm not saying that everybody would be happy and alive then, but saving 30.000 per year or even just 3.000 would make it worth it to me.
and like i said, i think there are more important issues that can save more lives than a gun ban.
But would it be as easy? The brits succesfully made that step and just because there are other, bigger issues, doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of this one as well. And I'd actually say that the aviability of weapons in the US is one of the major issues the country has.
i think it'll be easier than implementing gun ban in USA, not UK.
I didn't mean politically easy, but easy in the sense of making new laws and so on. And if people wouldn't do the right thing because it's hard to convince people of it the moralic state of every country could only go down.
obviously there is a difference in defining that part from different perspectives.
i do believe its better to have no guns, there is no need to introduce guns in south korea and i would be against it, however we're talking about USA and i'm trying to see this realistically, not a theoretical gun ban because that is obvious, its better world without guns. but almost impossible to implement gun ban in USA, so, lets see what we can do realistically. just saying "ban guns" dont help the issue.
On December 20 2012 08:03 SilentchiLL wrote: [quote]
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
I don't believe that and never even implied that, don't twist my words please. Denying that guns kill innocent people wouldn't make much sense as well though, I'm not saying that everybody would be happy and alive then, but saving 30.000 per year or even just 3.000 would make it worth it to me.
and like i said, i think there are more important issues that can save more lives than a gun ban.
But would it be as easy? The brits succesfully made that step and just because there are other, bigger issues, doesn't mean that you shouldn't take care of this one as well. And I'd actually say that the aviability of weapons in the US is one of the major issues the country has.
i think it'll be easier than implementing gun ban in USA, not UK.
I didn't mean politically easy, but easy in the sense of making new laws and so on. And if people wouldn't do the right thing because it's hard to convince people of it the moralic state of every country could only go down.
obviously there is a difference in defining that part from different perspectives.
i do believe its better to have no guns, there is no need to introduce guns in south korea and i would be against it, however we're talking about USA and i'm trying to see this realistically, not a theoretical gun ban because that is obvious, its better world without guns.
Last post, and sorry, but I can't accept the fact that guns are so deeply rooted in their culture that banning them would be hard alone as a reason not to do so. Sigh... I guess I gotta react to your edited post to make this fair for you. The first post you replied to was a moralic question: "The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account?" Morals man, I asked him about his personal opinion about that. And I think banning guns might be a lot easier than you'd think, google the american journalist Daniel Gross (hope I remember his name correctly), he did some research on how much power the NRA really has, trust me, you'll be suprised. Nearly all of their power comes from politicians believing that they have power, what they actually fear, the NRA's influence on voters, is actually pretty damn low.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
teachers with guns, i'm for this, it does make sense but only if the willing teacher is properly trained and checked, making sure its a trust worthy person.
israel
For what it's worth - from my own experience touring Israel, that's not a teacher, it's a mandatory security guard that accompanies most groups that tour around.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
teachers with guns, i'm for this, it does make sense but only if the willing teacher is properly trained and checked, making sure its a trust worthy person.
israel
For what it's worth - from my own experience touring Israel, that's not a teacher, it's a mandatory security guard that accompanies most groups that tour around.
ah, good to know, thank you. it was referred to me by a friend and he told me it was a teacher (looks like it XD)
the fact that your comparing Israel... A country which is often under from "random" rocket fire and in general is not exactly what i would call "save" to the USA... Which is the... shining light of freedom, peace and general awesomeness... tells tons about how far away from a real argument your are.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
teachers with guns, i'm for this, it does make sense but only if the willing teacher is properly trained and checked, making sure its a trust worthy person.
israel
Great example Let's look at some reason's why the U.S. and Israel are different. 1. The vast majority of Israeli citizens have been through IDF training. This means that the majority of Israeli citizens are more qualified to handle a weapon in a combat situation than our average police officer. 2. Israel is basically war zone. The United states is not.
On December 20 2012 08:48 SilentchiLL wrote: I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
The problem here is that the "price" of gun ownership is a figment of your deluded and paranoid imagination. You are coming to wrong conclusions based on your irrational fear of firearms, and then asking people questions based on a false premise you fabricated.
The real question is: why should innocent victims pay the price of being disarmed, just to relieve your phobia of guns?
Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.
The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: For many things like?
Really? There are plenty of recreational and legitimate uses for firearms and you have a really uninformed and ignorant view if you believe they are only for killing humans.. Hunting, target practice, protection from animals, shooting competitions just to name a few.
On December 20 2012 07:24 RedFury wrote: And no you shouldn't be able to stab.
Yeah, you're right nothing completely and utterly retarded about requiring people to just die when they are attacked because Mr. RedFury in all his infinite wisdom and knowledge thinks it should be illegal to defend yourself with any weapons.
You have to be trolling because I doubt the existence of any human being as ignorant as you presented yourself with that post.
No troll at all.
Basically you're justyfing all the violence that guns can cause (and don't throw shit stats that shows the opposite because they're just manipulated) with recreative uses? That's a poor argument.
And about the aggression thing, yes you shouldn't make use of any weapon. It's easy to switch from the defender position to the aggressor's one.
Anyway, that's purely in theory. On a more realistic note I would just say to put more restrictions on the access to guns, since it's a fact that shooting (not just mass killings) are more frequent on USA than most of other civilized countries.
Wow it's like you don't even remember what you just posted. You asked me what use does a gun have besides shooting humans and I gave you one. Next you're straw manning me about justifying gun violence with recreation? What a poor argument as you say.
Care to awnser my post as well? And I mean an actual awnser, not just telling me that I have no idea, because the topic interests me and I want to know how you justify it.
No, I'm not going to type my opinions out to people who use straw man arguments against me. I've typed my opinions on the issue at least 30 times in the last 100 pages and have no intention of doing it again because someone is too lazy to read my stance before posting and accusing me of justifying firearms with recreational shooting.
I didn't, it was an example. The question is, how DO you justify it if you take the price you have to pay for it into account? Because it doesn't matter how many nice guys with guns exists, that price (lifes of innocent people) still exists.
what a loaded question lol do you really believe guns are the fault for life of innocent people? as if no guns = no innocent lifes? i think there are other, more significant issues that attributes to the loss of innocent lifes
teachers with guns, i'm for this, it does make sense but only if the willing teacher is properly trained and checked, making sure its a trust worthy person.
israel
Great example Let's look at some reason's why the U.S. and Israel are different. 1. The vast majority of Israeli citizens have been through IDF training. This means that the majority of Israeli citizens are more qualified to handle a weapon in a combat situation than our average police officer. 2. Israel is basically war zone. The United states is not.
still, I would feel more comfortable if my children were in a school with a teacher that looked like that than if they were in schools how they are now (looking like huge targets where no one has guns and no one can defend themselves).
no one is suggesting that any old Random Joe teacher should be able to have a gun in class. they should have specific teachers and admins who conceal-carry and those specific individuals should be trained in using them and in emergency situations.
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
Police in the US are not as well trained and certainly not as educated as you seem to think.
On December 20 2012 08:24 sc2superfan101 wrote: I full on support this idea, and think that it would be one of the biggest solutions to problems like this Conn. fucker:
Perry, who has a handgun permit and is a frequent recreational target shooter, ramped up the debate Monday by advocating for teachers and school administrators to be allowed to carry properly licensed handguns.
“You should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state,” Perry said at a tea party event in North Richland Hills. He qualified that statement by saying the decision should be local and that private property should continue to be allowed to impose their own restrictions.
In recent weeks, before the Connecticut shooting, House and Senate members were discussing a variety of gun bills — including the campus-carry measure, allowing handgun licensees to carry their guns into private parking lots at plants and job sites, even a proposal to allow the open-carrying of firearms. Most are still in the discussion stage, though legislation is expected to be filed soon on all those measures.
tbh, I don't think I would put my kids in public school (or private) if they don't have some armed teachers and administrators. if you're not willing to kill to protect my child than why would I ever put my child in your control?
Arming teachers is absurd. Putting armed police in all schools just like most high schools recently have been doing will serve the same purpose without the insanity of having guns in a class room.
why is it absurd, and how is having a gun in a classroom insanity?
(and why is a cop more legitimate than a teacher as a protector of children? especially when cops aren't even there to protect you)
You honestly don't see any argument as to why a policeman.. trained and educated.. is more legitimate than a teacher, as a protector of children? What sort of bad experience with police have you had?
Police in the US are not as well trained and certainly not as educated as you seem to think.
In fact, American police have thrown out any sort of testing which tests intelligence or can be used as a proxy for intelligence due to "disparate impact" law in the USA.
A teacher is most likely more intelligent and trustworthy than an average police officer. People have an unfounded faith in authority figures.
So does anyone who wants to shit on cops with categorical stupidity have anything substantive behind their claims, or do they purely consist of blurry youtube videos and slanderous opinion? And no, please don't throw out cherry picked cases of police brutality or negligence, for that would display a stunning ignorance of the sheer number of police and law enforcement officers in the United States.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/israeli-schoolchildren-and-teacher-001x.jpg)
