Guns

[iglak]

Lance said in post # :

Sex Ed? Your joking right? Sex Ed solves nothing. What are you going to educate people on? Guns only hurt sometimes? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people? I’m sure that’s really going to make people feel better. Educating people would only make people more scared. Look at sex Ed, As soon as they started doing that what do you think everybody started doing? It just gave people ideas. If you started educating people on how dangerous guns are do you really think that’s going to make people less afraid?

sorry, i meant the good kind of sex ed, not the kind that say "umm... sex is bayd, m'kay?". i actually was never given sex ed. i was sorta referring to biology, i should have said that instead. biology teaches us about WHY we (and other organisms) mate. from what it sounds like, sex ed teaches knowlege and ignorance, but not understanding... the perfect formula for fear and misuse.

 

well... what i was trying to says is that we need to be educated about the who, what, where, when , why, and how of guns. once people understand them, instead of thinking of guns as sticks that make things go boom, and instead of always being taught that guns are the tools of the devil and will kill everyone that touchs them, they should't have as much reason to be afraid of them. it would have to be a gradual process, because the parents will still be afraid and pass that fear on to their kids, but if guns are understood as much as sex is understood in biology, i doubt many people would be afraid.

 

also, even if you completely ignore me ever mentioning sex ed, my point and argument remains the same.

 

 

P.S. on second thought, just teach everyone martial arts and change the dominant religion to buddhism (the way i say this so often you'd think i'd be kidding, but i'm not... sort of).

 

<edit> oh, and about what we would educate people on about guns:

whatever education YT got to be able to use guns without fear (except for the safety kind of fear, that's good)

basically how to use them properly, how to misuse them, why they shouldn't be misused, and why and how people often misuse them. (i assume police are getting the right kind of education on this, or at least better than the general public)

[-Demosthenes-]

First: "

Reply #243 quote:

 

isn`t it also true that in some states the owning of a gun is required?

(I think that sux!) where`s the "freedom in that? "

 

I read it! What does it mean if it doesn't what it says, huh?

 

Second: Education, the answer(it seems) to all of our problems.

 

Third: For everyone who hates the US they can probably start a "US sucks" thread or something, but I think it might make a little boy cry (me)

 

Fourth: What are you talking about, that the US goverment is a copy of Britain's?? That doesn't make sense. :shrug: The British Goverment evolved (see I do beleive in evolution) from a monarchy. You still have a queen! To me that seems kinda...weird. We have a completely different goverment. A complete democracy, and republic. The people do have the power in the US.

 

Fifth: There are more important problems, the truth is I think that the people who already have guns banned just kind of want everyone else to be that way, and maybe a little visa versa. I started undecided, but you made me mad so I change to be on the side of my country. It's weird how these things turn out

 

Sixth: I'm just rambling now. I can't remember all the things I was going to say. :scratch:

[atinymonkey]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #251 :

Have you checked with all 253 countries on that? A lot allow guns.

 

I said the right to bear arms, not to own guns. Name one western country that give's the general population the right to bear arms. Back up what you say, tell me one country other than US/Canada.

 

I can actually name one other country that has that right. Go find out which one it is.

 

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #251 : I thank the Baron Montesqieu for the system of government, but SORRY, they are NOT the same. There's the Queen, parliament, and stuff, and the US is different. We don't have silly "changing of the guard" ceremonies.

 

You mean Baron de Montesquieu, who after living in the England for two years used his observations as the basis for his philosophies. He died trying to formulize and extol the English model in 1755 (540 years after the English instigated the system he championed). Try not to undermine the principles and ideologys of the long dead, it's not good karma.

 

Drinking tea does not alter the system of government. You are quoting assumptions and irrelevancies. The Magna Carta (1215) was signed to create the first parliamentary system. The system of government and law in American is the British model, that is indisputable. Trial by jury predates even that, and the judicial system is a result of the feudal system of law in the UK.

 

Go read a history book. You obviously have not been taught history, economics or politics to an adequate degree to hold discussions on them. I'm trying hard to keep it simple, but there is only so much I can explain without lecturing you. I'm sorry if it appears patronizing, but you need to know the subject and not just have random opinions.

 

-Demosthenes- said in post #253 :

First: "

Reply #243 quote:

 

Third: For everyone who hates the US they can probably start a "US sucks" thread or something, but I think it might make a little boy cry (me)

 

Fourth: What are you talking about, that the US goverment is a copy of Britain's?? That doesn't make sense. :shrug: The British Goverment evolved (see I do beleive in evolution) from a monarchy. You still have a queen! To me that seems kinda...weird. We have a completely different goverment. A complete democracy, and republic. The people do have the power in the US.

 

Nobody's having a go at America, honestly. We are just commenting on what we see as faulty logic. We don't agree with the one ammendment to the constitution of America, that's all.

 

Yup, most democratic countries are copied from the English model. America more so than others (see my privious reply and the one above). It's one of the reasons we are allies, the countries work in the same way at the same speed with the same pressure from the public and so on. When it comes to bureaucracy, we rule the world.

 

We do still have a queen, but the monarchy is a figurehead that has held no power for centuries. Think of the Queen being the public relations person for Britain. It' a bit more established and impressive than a government bureaucrat who's only in power for 3 or so years. We quite a traditional country you see, and can't drop tradtions like the monarchy. It would be like sending in an auditor to Camalot to get rid of King Arthur and the round table, it's just not going to be supported.

[Sayonara]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post # :

I say, good for you!

Why?

 

You're not me. You don't know what's offensive. Have you checked with all 253 countries on that? A lot allow guns.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to the right to bear arms, which is a different matter.

Also consider that the other countries that allow ownership of handguns either do so under strict regulations, or don't have the resources to be universally intolerant of civilian gun use.

 

I thank the Baron Montesqieu for the system of government, but SORRY, they are NOT the same.

We're interested in the manifestation of democracy. The actual mechanism is irrelevant.

 

There's the Queen, parliament, and stuff, and the US is different. We don't have silly "changing of the guard" ceremonies.

The queen has virtually no power in this country. She doesn't sit at the top, telling everyone what to do. Parliament can be likened to your Senate as far as the democratic process is concerned in this discussion. The changing of the guard has nothing to do with politics, governance or this discussion.

 

Not me, but the chances of that are so small I'd probably be hit by lightning, or win the lottery, or have a car crash, before that.

(a) That question wasn't for you,

(b) You didn't answer the question anyway - RTFQ!

© Even if I had asked the question you tried to answer, your answer would still be stupid. "Some things might kill me, so it doesn't matter if I invite more risk!"

 

Also, I'm pretty sure you're more likely to be shot in the USA than you are to win the lottery, get hit by lightning, or involved in a fatal car accident.

[Sayonara]

-Demosthenes- said in post # :

I read it! What does it mean if it doesn't what it says, huh?

Why would I tell you to read the thread as a response to you reading something? Don't you think maybe I just might be talking about something you didn't read?

 

The fact that several towns in the USA require all residents to own a firearm has been established several times in this thread. Additionally, the argument "this random object X kills too so it should be banned" has been debunked already as being utter tripe. Again, several times.

 

Hence "read the thread".

 

Third: For everyone who hates the US they can probably start a "US sucks" thread or something, but I think it might make a little boy cry (me)

It's not up to you to police the threads. That's what mods (hi!) are for.

If you think a post is country-bashing, report it to a mod. We WILL warn people who we agree are trolling or inciting flame wars. Otherwise posts like this one^ could even get you a warning for trolling, because whether you intend to or not you're stirring up animosity.

 

Fourth: What are you talking about, that the US goverment is a copy of Britain's?? That doesn't make sense. :shrug: The British Goverment evolved (see I do beleive in evolution) from a monarchy. You still have a queen! To me that seems kinda...weird. We have a completely different goverment. A complete democracy, and republic. The people do have the power in the US.

In Britain we wander around waiting for the queen to tell us what to do, because she runs the country

 

See above posts.

 

I started undecided, but you made me mad so I change to be on the side of my country.

Worst. Reasoning. Ever.

 

Maybe you should turn your attention to why it got you mad, instead of having random knee-jerk reactions.

 

And you still didn't answer my question, damn your socks

[YT2095]

ROFLOL "damn your socks" now there`s one I aint heard in a long time

 

sorry, off topic I know, but it was Funny

I think what makes it funnier in my warped imagination, is HOW one goes about accomplishing this

 

[blike]

if you feel you need to have a gun in order to defend yourself from the people around you, you cannot possibly seriously think you are more free than people who require no such assurance?

 

I'm not sure if your argument was directed at him only, or the general gun-owning US population, but the right to own a gun is assurance that I am free to protect my own life with deadly force. I do not have to rely on the government or others around me to defend my right to live in the most dire time. Of course, you may argue that you have the same right to defend yourself, but you are not allowed to do it with such efficiency that I am. A gun levels the playing ground. Your government does not trust you with guns. +1 Freedom for me.

[Sayonara]

Maybe if everyone else around you didn't have the right to bear arms, you wouldn't be in perpetual fear of needing to defend yourself with the kind of lethal force that only a gun provides.

[blike]

Maybe if everyone else around you didn't have the right to bear arms, you wouldn't be in perpetual fear of needing to defend yourself with the kind of lethal force that only a gun provides.

 

Well then, that furthers my point that owning a gun is, in fact, more freedom than not being allowed to own one.

 

Safety does not equal freedom.

 

That aside, I do not own a gun to use just in case someone else happens to threaten me with a gun. I own a gun so that if a man steps inside my house and threatens my family, be it with a gun, a butcher kinfe, or his own hands, I can defend my family and property with lethal force. Thus it is moot whether or not the rest of the population owns guns. I own them to protect myself from whatever may threaten me.

[Sayonara]

blike said in post # :

Safety does not equal freedom.

I'm not saying that safety equals freedom. I'm saying that someone who feels strongly compelled to undertake a certain action for reasons beyond their control is less free than someone who is not so compelled.

 

I own them to protect myself from whatever may threaten me.

No, as you said, you own them to protect yourself from whatever may threaten you with lethal force, which is by no means an ever-necessary measure (and incidentally not only achievable with a gun).

 

The fact that your laws effectively give a civilian the right to suddenly and summarily become judge, jury and executioner in a matter of seconds surely qualifies as a restriction of freedom, even if the freedoms being restricted are those of a homicidal intruder.

 

If you shoot such a person, your own freedoms may also be restricted later on depending on the outcome of any investigation into the matter, so you might say that the use of this freedom to bear arms can lead directly to the confinement of that and other freedoms.

 

Anyhoo, off to bed. Catch you tomorrow ppl :zzz:

[blike]

Night honey bun

[mooeypoo]

I have so much to say about this matter, but I think the more relevant issue here is DEMOCRACY against NATIONAL SECURITY.

 

Welcome to the discussion of my life

 

The limit is thin and sometimes you need to try VERY VERY hard to make sure that it STILL exists. If a scientist would now go and tell national security secrets to a foreign country (SPECIALLY enemy country) I assume we all agree that this is a threat to national securty, and should deal with it regardless of his rights to free speech, because his actions would end in the death of hundreds of people - if not more.

 

I think about guns the same.

 

IN GENERAL:

1) The average person SHOULDN'T own a gun. The police should do their jobs right. If that's not the case, correct the POLICE don't take law to your own hands.

2) The average person DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO USE a gun. Even if he went to a shooting range. You need to know about a gun, the ways of safe keeping, the ways of engagement, the rules of openning fire and so on, so you won't have "mistakes". "WHOOPS, I thought he was a theif!!" Huge huge nono.

3) You do NOT correct a problem by creating another one. YOU JUST DON'T!!

Doing that is like saying "Oh, we have lots of traffic accidents, lets just destroy the roads and illigalize cars". It doesn't work like that. You need education, and a better police force. Not raving maniacs in the streets.

 

Now. Democracy is beautiful, but like EVERY type of ruling, it's not 100% perfect. It's not DONE this way because LIFE is not perfect. Even the democratic US has many many non-democratic rules. Religious rules, too. So don't get all hypocripts. Democracy should be kept - but not at all costs.

 

Which brings me, actually, to my last point.

 

If you know that someone's right is causing immediate and massive DANGER to others, it's no longer valid.

 

The statement about "cars kills you too" is stupid to this discussion, Sorry. Cars can kill you, so can lightnings, drowining in your bath tub, walking on the street and being hit by a meteor. It's not the POINT. The piont is that a CAR has a specific target.

People that MISUSE the car - can get killed. But the POINT of cars is not killing.

 

UNLIKE GUNS.

 

Guns. and it doesnt matter how well you'll try to put it "self defense" / "protection" and all this crap - GUNS ARE MEANT TO KILL.

 

If you want to hurt someone, curse him. Or throw a can of Tear gas on him. DONT USE A GUN.

 

Believe it or not - that's what you learn in the military. GUNS are not to arrest a suspect. THE WARNING CALL is to arrest him. The gun is used when there's an imminent danger. Hence - when you know you can (and probably will) kill him.

And SOLDIERS are trained with guns.

 

GUNS are made for killing.

 

Claiming they're for "Self Defense" and "Protection" IS BULLSHIT.

 

Let the police do its job. If they don't do it right, TRAIN THEM. MAKE MORE RULES AGAINST CRIMINALS.

Make sure your lives are CALM enough to not NEED guns.

 

but allowing citizens to carry guns just create MORE PROBLEMS than it actually solves.

 

~moo

[iglak]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

Maybe if everyone else around you didn't have the right to bear arms, you wouldn't be in perpetual fear of needing to defend yourself with the kind of lethal force that only a gun provides.

and swords. actually, i want to adress swords. they were also designed to kill, and have no other purpose besides the same purposes guns have. why aren't we afraid of swords? why haven't swords been banned? (today, not early japan or anything...)

my answer: we used to understand swords, so over time we have become ignorant of them, and they have become as common as any object that can kill without such intent.

 

swords are NOT some random object, and they are NOT very defferent than guns. in today's time, you don't need any more skill than you do with a gun to use a sword to kill someone (especially a katana or something), yet no one cares.

 

 

also, not having the right to own something doesn't make that thing impossible to own. often, said thing can be smuggled in relatively easily (with skill). this would make ME a lot more frightened, because then the enemy would fave a gun and i wouldn't.

 

 

P.S. on a highly related note, des anyone know how many people are killed in the U.S. each year from a knife designed for killing?

 

P.P.S. i did not mean to imply that we understand swords in today's time. i'd bet all of the money my family has that if i took a claymore to a public place and just started hacking away, at least a million people would sign a petition to ban swords (thus causing the same predicament we have with guns).

 

P.P.P.S. if i had a tear gas bomb and used it in a mall, i wonder how many people would want to ban tear gas... probably a lot.

(i also wonder about liquid stun guns...)

... they banned everything pointy from airplanes, and amusement parks and things... i wonder what would happen if i were to go up in an airplane and hijack it with my bare hands. i'm guessing people would want to ban video games

 

 

<edit>

but allowing citizens to carry guns just create MORE PROBLEMS than it actually solves.

on a similar but opposite note, you can't solve a problem by shoving it under a rug.

[iglak]

here is my response to the human race:

:rolleyes::bs::lame::spam: . . . . . :haha:

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

your completely correct response!

[Sayonara]

iglak said in post # :

and swords. actually, i want to adress swords. they were also designed to kill, and have no other purpose besides the same purposes guns have. why aren't we afraid of swords? why haven't swords been banned? (today, not early japan or anything...)

my answer: we used to understand swords, so over time we have become ignorant of them, and they have become as common as any object that can kill without such intent.

 

swords are NOT some random object, and they are NOT very defferent than guns. in today's time, you don't need any more skill than you do with a gun to use a sword to kill someone (especially a katana or something), yet no one cares.

I'm not sure if this is a general reply to the thread, or to me, but here are some thoughts anyway:

 

Swords are usually bought with display or ceremonial purposes in mind. While this is true of a lot of guns, very few people are observed buying swords for the purposes of self defence, or for training every day at the range so that they can defend their families "come the revolution".

 

In short, there is no sword crisis. There's very little kudos or street cred afforded to people who drive around with a rapier in the glove-box.

 

I'm not sure this discussion is really about fear, but if you don't fear someone who has the point of a broadsword pressed against your chest you may have issues (less pressing than the one near your heart, admittedly)

 

Overall, I'd say that the issue of swords is not an argument for preventing the banning of guns. It's more an argument for banning swords as well.

 

Unskilled people attacking with katana tend to cut their own ears off by the way

[atinymonkey]

Just to clarify the law in the UK at least, you require a licence to carry a sword (and in must be in a carry case) in any pubic area. The licence is provided for practitioners of a sport that requires a sword (Fencing or Martial Arts). Private ownership is allowed, but it must be kept on the property. The only exception is for parades or religious occasions, and the weapon must be sheathed at all times.

 

Much to everybody’s delight after my anti gun stance, I do have a licence to own and carry swords and other related paraphernalia for the purposes of training and instructing in sport. However I’ve never bought a sword with a live blade, as short of a display piece I really have no use for one. I do have a wooden sword for practice and, in all honesty, home defence.

[JaKiri]

Sayonara³ said in post # :

There's very little kudos or street cred afforded to people who drive around with a rapier in the glove-box.

 

Why didn't you tell me this before?

[-Demosthenes-]

Back to topic: It's too drastic to ban guns.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

atinymonkey said in post # :

Just to clarify the law in the UK at least, you require a licence to carry a sword (and in must be in a carry case) in any pubic area. The licence is provided for practitioners of a sport that requires a sword (Fencing or Martial Arts). Private ownership is allowed, but it must be kept on the property. The only exception is for parades or religious occasions, and the weapon must be sheathed at all times.

 

Much to everybody’s delight after my anti gun stance, I do have a licence to own and carry swords and other related paraphernalia for the purposes of training and instructing in sport. However I’ve never bought a sword with a live blade, as short of a display piece I really have no use for one. I do have a wooden sword for practice and, in all honesty, home defence.

Wooden? Bah!

I have a saber... if one 137 years old counts. I could easily kill someone, and I do take it out of the sheath. No license. Do you think that we should ban them? ITS 137 YEARS OLD! I mean, it's not sharp. Do you think that I am dangerous with something like that?

[fafalone]

Do you honestly think most people can use a sword to protect themselves from the bad guys who WILL have guns no matter how much you try to use the law to ban them?

[atinymonkey]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #271 :

Wooden? Bah!

I have a saber... if one 137 years old counts. I could easily kill someone, and I do take it out of the sheath. No license. Do you think that we should ban them? ITS 137 YEARS OLD! I mean, it's not sharp. Do you think that I am dangerous with something like that?

 

It's not want I think, it's what the UK law is. That fact I train and taught sword work would point towards me not being adverse to sword ownership. Please read the full post before replying.

 

FYI Miyamoto Musashi defeted one of the greatest swordsman in Japan with just a wooden sword. People are dangerous enough without a live blade, or a firearm. Hence my position with guns.

 

fafalone said in post #273 :

Do you honestly think most people can use a sword to protect themselves from the bad guys who WILL have guns no matter how much you try to use the law to ban them?

 

I think that if I came toe to toe with an assailant armed with a gun, it's going to be messy however I'm armed. I trust the police to protect me from such severe threats. I suppose that's a personal decision. Perhaps that's the root of the differing opinions.

[JaKiri]

fafalone said in post # :

Do you honestly think most people can use a sword to protect themselves from the bad guys who WILL have guns no matter how much you try to use the law to ban them?

 

Most criminals won't have guns duder. Most criminals don't have guns. They're not all that useful for breaking and entering, or the like.

[mooeypoo]

I think the main issue about guns is not "how much power should be allowed to obtain" with each gun, but more "How far is one man to take law into his own hands"

 

You want to defend yourselves, put better alarms, use pepperspray and make sure the police is doing its jobs.

 

If you carry a gun, you are going to kill.

 

If you fired and you DIDNT kill, it was an accident. Guns are for KILLING.

Even the most trained in gun usage will have troubles ONLY WOUNDING a person by firing a gun.

 

so the "drastic" part in my opinion is not to ban guns, it's to ALLOW guns.

 

~moo

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not all guns are for killing. Some are designed to only wound, with special bullets. Like non-lethal weapons. Designed to hurt.