|
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 February 22 2012 00:36 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2012 23:47 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:Please don't go down this road...Taxes are good if well used, used for the welfare of the citizen and reducing inequalities. But you must be one of this jackass thinking that if you're poor it must be your fault , you being lazy or whatever.
It is impossible to do evil for good purposes; ultimately the harm done in the process will out weigh any good. Taxes aren't good. They're a scam. They are robbery. If the whole institution wasn't rotten you wouldn't need to force it on people. Do you believe in forcing people to do things they don't want to do? Because for me, I believe in voluntarism. I think it's wrong to use violence or coercion to get your way. And yes, I absolutely am one of those jackasses who think that poor people tend to make worse financial decisions on average than rich people. My mother raised me on a welfare cheque, but because she was frugal with her money and industrious besides she ended up owning a farm. So if you think that some random schmuck who is whining about the inequality of the system has it worse than a single mother raising three kids on a welfare cheque then go on, I'd like to hear his hard luck story, but I'd wager dollars to donuts that he spent too much money on booze or smokes, didn't buy second hand clothes, spent too much money on broads, too lazy to work, whatever. Of course this only goes for people in affluent western socities, for those in the third world obviously there are no opportunities and they are relegated to poverty no matter what they do. This is of course shameful but the solution to it is not what you think. And who paid for your mother's welfare cheque? Was that perhaps... taxes? :O The rest of your post makes you out to be a prejudiced bigot: while there are of course people who squander money on stuff they shouldn't, and are too lazy to work besides, these are the minority, not the majority of poor people. Not even in affluent western socieities. Or are you trying to claim that now that unemployment is up to 25% in Spain, that 25% of the population are a bunch of lazy drunks who just want to mooch off the state?
It's quite funny to see that. It's like old vets living on disability and other social services and whining about "socialism" when we make them live.
Hey "TheGeneralTheoryOf", you're welcome.
|
Okay, I don't understand people that say the right to bear arms (not just talking US here, just using US lingo) would prevent the 'evil oppressive government' from evilly oppressing everyone.
First off, the government, especially the part that would go out and fight, is made up of people. A lot of people. The kind of people that live next door... CITIZENS! That is what I am looking for. Citizens. So this means that they too are being oppressed by this so-called evil government. And they too would usually have the same objections you would have of going out killing civilians. So thinking that the army is going to go out and inhabit cities full of people is rather far-fetched, and a tad bit naive.
Second, do you people really think that owning a gun, like a freaking handgun, is going to stop the tanks and armoured vehicles and super advanced ultra ninja guns illegal to the general public that the fucking ARMY has? Come on.
Third, about the guerilla warfare. Okay, so I am no expert on this, but I think if you have a pistol and you sneak up on a tank, and shoot it, two to three times... NOTHING HAPPENS. In the slim chance that your rebellion would work against the advanced technology of the government, I don't think owning a gun is what is going to sway the battles in your favor.
So, my own personal opinion. Fuck guns. If no one had guns, no one would need guns. I mean, this really would only work on a global scale, but still, I can be idealistic, can't I?
I shall now finish my post with a quote from George Carlin: "And now they are thinking about banning toy guns, AND THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THE FUCKING REAL ONES!"
(Not completely on topic, but I love that quote).
|
Guns are too dangerous. I want the control to be strong about them.
|
I'm just glad guns are extremely rare in the Netherlands. You can only own a gun for hunting or firing ranges but not carry it anywhere else.
You also can't own many types of knives and tazers, catapults, pepperspray, brass knuckles etc
This makes me a happy camper and I'll never support any politician who tries to change it. Because weapons of any kind are so rare I don't have to worry about them or get one myself.
|
What it comes down to is, if you are attacked, you can either close your eyes and hope it goes away, or you can be a man and fight back.
|
On February 22 2012 01:06 CyDe wrote:
Okay, I don't understand people that say the right to bear arms (not just talking US here, just using US lingo) would prevent the 'evil oppressive government' from evilly oppressing everyone.
First off, the government, especially the part that would go out and fight, is made up of people. A lot of people. The kind of people that live next door... CITIZENS! That is what I am looking for. Citizens. So this means that they too are being oppressed by this so-called evil government. And they too would usually have the same objections you would have of going out killing civilians. So thinking that the army is going to go out and inhabit cities full of people is rather far-fetched, and a tad bit naive.
Second, do you people really think that owning a gun, like a freaking handgun, is going to stop the tanks and armoured vehicles and super advanced ultra ninja guns illegal to the general public that the fucking ARMY has? Come on.
Third, about the guerilla warfare. Okay, so I am no expert on this, but I think if you have a pistol and you sneak up on a tank, and shoot it, two to three times... NOTHING HAPPENS. In the slim chance that your rebellion would work against the advanced technology of the government, I don't think owning a gun is what is going to sway the battles in your favor.
So, my own personal opinion. Fuck guns. If no one had guns, no one would need guns. I mean, this really would only work on a global scale, but still, I can be idealistic, can't I?
I shall now finish my post with a quote from George Carlin: "And now they are thinking about banning toy guns, AND THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THE FUCKING REAL ONES!"
(Not completely on topic, but I love that quote).
Your points could just as easily be brought forth to support the notion that citizens of a country should be allowed to own tanks.
|
On February 22 2012 01:24 Fan322 wrote:
Guns are too dangerous. I want the control to be strong about them.
Contrary to popular belief guns aren't magical death machines that murder babies and women whenever they want to. A gun is a paperweight until it's in someone's hand.
They are no more dangerous than kitchen knives, straight razors, cricket bats and scissors.
|
On February 22 2012 04:09 Brethern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 01:24 Fan322 wrote:
Guns are too dangerous. I want the control to be strong about them. Contrary to popular belief guns aren't magical death machines that murder babies and women whenever they want to. A gun is a paperweight until it's in someone's hand. They are no more dangerous than kitchen knives, straight razors, cricket bats and scissors.
But guns also have fewer useful, non-violent, alternative uses as compared to those objects, too. And the magnification of killing power is greater with a gun than a scissors, for example. With great power comes great responsibility and all that, I suppose.
|
On February 22 2012 04:09 Brethern wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 01:24 Fan322 wrote:
Guns are too dangerous. I want the control to be strong about them. Contrary to popular belief guns aren't magical death machines that murder babies and women whenever they want to. A gun is a paperweight until it's in someone's hand. They are no more dangerous than kitchen knives, straight razors, cricket bats and scissors.
That's a pretty big exaggeration. It is much easier to accidentally murder with a gun. Oh sure you can hurt yourself with things but it takes a considerable amount of force or Final Destination Style luck to kill someone with a straight razor.
Of course you can purposefully kill with them, but you don't need a weapon for that anyway.
|
|
|
On February 22 2012 04:19 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 04:09 Brethern wrote:On February 22 2012 01:24 Fan322 wrote:
Guns are too dangerous. I want the control to be strong about them. Contrary to popular belief guns aren't magical death machines that murder babies and women whenever they want to. A gun is a paperweight until it's in someone's hand. They are no more dangerous than kitchen knives, straight razors, cricket bats and scissors. But guns also have fewer useful, non-violent, alternative uses as compared to those objects, too. And the magnification of killing power is greater with a gun than a scissors, for example. With great power comes great responsibility and all that, I suppose.
Please, please don't make me get back into how alcohol causes way more deaths, also has few legitimate uses, and yet you don't see a public outcry for its banishment. I'm sure Djzapz is tired of reading it  .
Guns kill 30,000 people in the US every year. Alcohol kills 100,000 people in the US every year. The only non-violent legitimate use of guns is entertainment, i.e. at a range or for collecting. The only benefit alcohol provides is entertainment. Why ban one and not the other?
|
On February 22 2012 04:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 04:19 Takkara wrote:On February 22 2012 04:09 Brethern wrote:On February 22 2012 01:24 Fan322 wrote:
Guns are too dangerous. I want the control to be strong about them. Contrary to popular belief guns aren't magical death machines that murder babies and women whenever they want to. A gun is a paperweight until it's in someone's hand. They are no more dangerous than kitchen knives, straight razors, cricket bats and scissors. But guns also have fewer useful, non-violent, alternative uses as compared to those objects, too. And the magnification of killing power is greater with a gun than a scissors, for example. With great power comes great responsibility and all that, I suppose. Please, please don't make me get back into how alcohol causes way more deaths, also has few legitimate uses, and yet you don't see a public outcry for its banishment. I'm sure Djzapz is tired of reading it . Guns kill 30,000 people in the US every year. Alcohol kills 100,000 people in the US every year. The only non-violent legitimate use of guns is entertainment, i.e. at a range or for collecting. The only benefit alcohol provides is entertainment. Why ban one and not the other?
Like someone already said: you can ban general gun ownership at home but allow them on shooting ranges or derivations of that (restricting ammunition, allowing hunting weapons etc.) like all over Europe to keep most of the entertainment. You cannot do the same with alcohol. (and of course like already argued, it kind of makes a difference that other people kill you with a gun and you more or less kill only yourself with alcohol, unless you are driving which for that reason is banned...)
|
In the hands of the right person my penis is just as powerful as a gun. It will shoot projectile salvos forcefully. But mostly it's just lying around flaccid, harmless as a cricket bat for example. Or scissors.
After all, balls don't make girls pregnant. Men do.
|
On February 22 2012 04:43 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 04:19 Takkara wrote:On February 22 2012 04:09 Brethern wrote:On February 22 2012 01:24 Fan322 wrote:
Guns are too dangerous. I want the control to be strong about them. Contrary to popular belief guns aren't magical death machines that murder babies and women whenever they want to. A gun is a paperweight until it's in someone's hand. They are no more dangerous than kitchen knives, straight razors, cricket bats and scissors. But guns also have fewer useful, non-violent, alternative uses as compared to those objects, too. And the magnification of killing power is greater with a gun than a scissors, for example. With great power comes great responsibility and all that, I suppose. Please, please don't make me get back into how alcohol causes way more deaths, also has few legitimate uses, and yet you don't see a public outcry for its banishment. I'm sure Djzapz is tired of reading it . Guns kill 30,000 people in the US every year. Alcohol kills 100,000 people in the US every year. The only non-violent legitimate use of guns is entertainment, i.e. at a range or for collecting. The only benefit alcohol provides is entertainment. Why ban one and not the other?
It's too hard. The US tried already and failed, as did Finland, I don't think it's necessary to repeat that.
|
On February 22 2012 03:47 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 01:06 CyDe wrote:
Okay, I don't understand people that say the right to bear arms (not just talking US here, just using US lingo) would prevent the 'evil oppressive government' from evilly oppressing everyone.
First off, the government, especially the part that would go out and fight, is made up of people. A lot of people. The kind of people that live next door... CITIZENS! That is what I am looking for. Citizens. So this means that they too are being oppressed by this so-called evil government. And they too would usually have the same objections you would have of going out killing civilians. So thinking that the army is going to go out and inhabit cities full of people is rather far-fetched, and a tad bit naive.
Second, do you people really think that owning a gun, like a freaking handgun, is going to stop the tanks and armoured vehicles and super advanced ultra ninja guns illegal to the general public that the fucking ARMY has? Come on.
Third, about the guerilla warfare. Okay, so I am no expert on this, but I think if you have a pistol and you sneak up on a tank, and shoot it, two to three times... NOTHING HAPPENS. In the slim chance that your rebellion would work against the advanced technology of the government, I don't think owning a gun is what is going to sway the battles in your favor.
So, my own personal opinion. Fuck guns. If no one had guns, no one would need guns. I mean, this really would only work on a global scale, but still, I can be idealistic, can't I?
I shall now finish my post with a quote from George Carlin: "And now they are thinking about banning toy guns, AND THEY'RE GONNA KEEP THE FUCKING REAL ONES!"
(Not completely on topic, but I love that quote). Your points could just as easily be brought forth to support the notion that citizens of a country should be allowed to own tanks.
But that's not what I am saying, by any stretch.
"If no one had guns, no one would need guns."
|
statistics from wikipedia:
civil weapons (in mio) in germany: 20 - 30
civil weapons (in mio) in the USA: 243 - 281
murder per year with guns in germany: 155
murder per year with guns in the USA: 10310
german link to the statistics : http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffenmissbrauch#.C3.9Cberblick
a state needs to guaranty safety for its society so to answer your question
"Should people be allowed to own and carry Guns?" ANSWER: no BECAUSE: give a monkey a gun and he will kill someone with it, every dead human is one dead human to much
|
You would think the Germans would know most of all that you can't trust the government. Think how things might have been different for the Jews if instead of trusting in the government they armed themselves and fought back.
|
It's hardly a coincidence that one of the first things Hitler, Stlain and other dictators have done as soon as they seize control is disarm the population so they can not be overthrown.
|
TheGeneralTheoryOf
your comments would hold more credulity if you didn't post every second message and had some sort of real posting history prior to this thread, you also seem to think that by having an armed populace you reduce the chance of dictatorship, rather than just increase the chance of absolute chaos in a shit hits the fan situation.
My personal opinion is that guns are not necessary and should never be introduced in a country with currently strict gun laws, however, as the US has had gun so freely availible for so long it would be foolish to both public safety and political lifespan if anyone tried to change that status quo.
|
On February 22 2012 05:52 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote:
You would think the Germans would know most of all that you can't trust the government. Think how things might have been different for the Jews if instead of trusting in the government they armed themselves and fought back.
More people would've died, and the genocide would've been more appropriate since the Nazis would've had a reason to exterminate them.
Your argument doesn't work because there were too many factors in the shoa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
