Gun Control

Stricter Gun Control In US

  • Yes, stricter control.

    Votes: 22 17.2%

  • No, we love our guns!

    Votes: 106 82.8%
  • Total voters
    128
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
matias2911 said:
It is obvious that you did not understand the sense of my post, now that I think of it, I dont know if I would either, so I do not blame you. I am sorry if my post was childish I was deeply frustrated, for other personal reasons...

The kids who love videogames I was referring to were the Columbine perpetrators, if you want a specific fact. Then again, tell your son to try and get a gun, he won't have much trouble doing that, at least I do not think so. See, my humble opinion is that the more you live in a culture surrounded by gun users the more it becomes ''normal'' to you and the easier it is to get away with gun ownership ...

ohh before i continue bothering you with my adverse opinion here is my results on the virginia gun law test (mind you I do not know much about gun laws in Virginia, I answered on the basis of common sense.)

Actually, when I refer to the causes of any incident I think of a more macrosociological perspective, not just looking at who did what where with what etc,, but , i do think it is more interesting to analyse what are the reasons a person in that state of mind is allowed to posses a gun. Why does this happen so often in the USA and not in other nations where gun control is mandatory?
Correct me if i am wrong, but your reasoning goes as follows:
No need for gun control because it wouldn't stop criminals from getting them and it would stop law abiding citizens from owning them to defend themselves.
I know if I applied the same type of reasoning to any other felony, some opinions may differ.
E.G: No need for prescripting drugs cus it doesnt stop the druggies from getting them and makes it harder for non-druggies to get healed. do you get my point?
Law is not only an wouldnt impediment, it is there to set an example.
Plus, law abiding citizens should be able to get guns, if there was gun control, it would be harder,yet it would be safer(e.g: the kids from columbine would have a harder time buying them off some web site). Gun control is not prohibition, it is a means of controlling gun possesion in a better way, in order to be able to (at least) set an example of the society you want to live in.
Why, and i hope you have an answer for this, why does this happen so often in the US?? Ive been wanting to know. I thought it had to do with easy gun access, maybe you have a more thorough answer?

Cheers,
MAt
Click to expand...
actually, i believe the need to "get away with gun ownership" coincides with living in a free society. my son already has guns, he saved and bought a high power rifle when he was 8. we gave him a .22 when he was 7. he's been going shooting with me since he was 3 and he's a very good shot. the more kids who take this responsibility seriously the better the world will be. the kids we need to worry about are the ones who are taken for granted by their parents who expect the government/hollywood to raise them and teach them how to live.

true, a person with serious mental problems should never be allowed to buy guns. what happened here is a judge decided not to apply the law. judges need to use the existing laws and take better care of the society they are entrusted to serve.

the fact about gun restriction laws is that they only affect people who follow the law. we already have plenty of good common sense laws that can prevent violent people, mentally disturbed people, etc. from buying guns - that's enough. laws on top of laws we don't even use now???

E.G: No need for prescripting drugs cus it doesnt stop the druggies from getting them and makes it harder for non-druggies to get healed. do you get my point?

you can't "prescribe" the tools of freedom. you're talking about doling out choices that relate to one's ability to not only defend themselves but each other and the very ideals of their society. what are you neutered countries going to do when your government taxes you too heavily? what if they mandate that your wives must kill unborn children if you already have one? what will you do when a revolt begins in your own borders and your army is caught off guard or overwhelmed? will you go ask for your human rights back then? you are castrated eunuchs in regards to liberty. you are a population, a working mass; nothing more than revenue for your government. you have no identity and no citizenship, you are property and you must serve them until you die. i like the way Switzerland does things and i'm glad our founding fathers appreciated their way also.

i do not dispute that in America we have a high number of very weak minded, pathetic people who kill each over shoes or $20 and some who go completely crazy and kill over nothing but the rest of us are still here too. there's more of us than them and as long as one life is saved by legally armed citizens there's no basis for a government usurpation of our rights.




.
 
Garden Knowm

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
The problem with this country, is, there are to many rules..

For every newlaw, they need to get rid of 2 old laws.... It is a fooking joke to call this country free....

Yes, lifestyle and comfort is great.... BUT this country wastes so much money trying to enforce, unenforceable laws...

Guns are lame.. but trying to make more laws is a step in the same direction we have been going.... lets stop the control and truly set the people free... How about legalizing ALL DRUGS.... then lets see what happens to the number of killings in the USA..

love
GK
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
Garden Knowm said:
The problem with this country, is, there are to many rules..

For every newlaw, they need to get rid of 2 old laws.... It is a fooking joke to call this country free....

Yes, lifestyle and comfort is great.... BUT this country wastes so much money trying to enforce, unenforceable laws...

Guns are lame.. but trying to make more laws is a step in the same direction we have been going.... lets stop the control and truly set the people free... How about legalizing ALL DRUGS.... then lets see what happens to the number of killings in the USA..

love
GK
Click to expand...
You make a good point GK. I have long advocated the legalisation of all drugs. not just the legalisation, but make them freely available to addicts. The addicts would not have to go out stealing for it and the crime rate would all but disappear...
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
i agree with you too, GK, except those 3 words...you know which ones. guns, having guns, wanting them, etc... these aspects of our experience do not create the friction which precedes war and strife. neither do they displace the desire not to have war and strife. as you say, too many rules.

rules are like stumbling blocks. i would even argue that the more rules a society has, the lazier and more self-loathing that society is.

it's easier to make people fall and then ostracize them for carrying out the very task we set for them, under the conditions we designed with our laws and rules.

laws, rules, it is all so infantile.

legalization of drugs would remove one of the most efficient and most commonly encountered stumbling blocks in our world. giving people back their right to "feel" however they choose...imagine the power of that!


:)




.
 
ILoveUMaryJane

ILoveUMaryJane

Well-Known Member
A list of some major violent incidents at North American schools:
April.16, 2007: Gunman opens fire in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Early reports say he killed 21 people and wounded another 21 before he was killed.
Oct. 2, 2006: A 32-year-old gunman enters an Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines, Pa., and holds 10 girls hostage before shooting them. Five girls are killed, and five more wounded. The gunman also kills himself.
Sept. 13, 2006: Kimveer Gill, 25, opens fire at Dawson College in Montreal, killing one woman and injuring 20 people.
Aug. 30, 2006: 19-year-old man in Hillsborough, N.C., kills father, then opens fire at Orange High School, wounding two students before surrendering to police.
March 14, 2006: 14-year-old boy in Reno, Nev., bring's father's revolver to Pine Middle School and wounds two classmates.
Jan. 13, 2006: 15-year-old boy at Milwee Middle School in Longwood, Fla., holds class hostage at gunpoint before being fatally shot by police. It is later learned his weapon was a pellet gun.
Nov. 8, 2005: Student at high school in Jacksboro, Tenn., shoots and kills assistant principal. Principal and another assistant principal wounded.
March 21, 2005: 16-year-old boy in Red Lake, Minn., fatally shoots grandfather and grandfather's partner at home, then goes to Red Lake High School, where he kills five students, a teacher and a security guard before committing suicide.
May 7, 2004: Two men, 18 and 24, shoot and wound four students at high school in Randallstown, Md.
March 30, 2004: Student at Wallace High School in Gary, Ind., shot to death in school parking lot by classmate.
Feb. 3, 2004: 14-year-old boy in Palmetto Bay, Fla., stabs and slits throat of 14-year-old classmate at Southwood Middle School.
Feb. 2, 2004: 19-year-old man shoots to death 17-year-old boy at Ballou Senior High School in Washington, D.C.
Sept. 24, 2003: 15-year-old boy shoots two classmates at Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minn. One dies same day, other dies two weeks later.
April 24, 2003: 14-year-old boy shoots principal to death in school cafeteria in Red Lion, Pa., before killing himself.
March 5, 2001: 15-year-old freshman opens fire with .22-calibre pistol at Santana High School in Santee, Calif., killing two students and injuring 13 others.
Jan. 10, 2001: 17-year-old gunman fires shots at Hueneme High School in Oxnard, Calif., before taking female student hostage. He is later shot and killed by police.
May 26, 2000: 13-year-old honours student shoots and kills teacher on last day of classes in Lake Worth, Fla.
April 20, 2000: Four students and one staff member wounded in knife attack at Cairine Wilson High School in Orleans, Ont. Occurs on first anniversary of Columbine massacre.
Feb. 29, 2000: Six-year-old boy shoots six-year-old girl to death in Grade 1 classroom at Buell Elementary School in Mount Morris Township, Mich. Because of his age, boy is not charged.
Dec. 6, 1999: 13-year-old student fires at least 15 shots at Fort Gibson Middle School in Fort Gibson, Okla., wounding four classmates.
Nov. 19, 1999: 12-year-old boy shoots 13-year-old girl in head at school in Deming, N.M. Girl dies next day.
May 20, 1999: 15-year-old boy opens fire at Heritage High School in Conyers, Ga., with .357-calibre Magnum and rifle, wounding six students.
April 28, 1999: 14-year-old boy shoots two students, one fatally, at W.R. Myers High School in Taber, Alta.
April 20, 1999: Two heavily armed teenagers rampage through Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 students and one teacher before committing suicide.
April 16, 1999: High school sophomore fires two shotgun blasts in school hallway in Notus, Idaho. No one injured.
Feb. 8, 1999: Man fires shot at Woodland Elementary School in Verdun, Que. No one injured.
May 21, 1998: 17-year-old boy kills parents, then goes to high school in Springfield, Ore., on shooting rampage, killing two teens and wounding more than 20 people.
May 19, 1998: 18-year-old honours student opens fire at high school in Fayetteville, Tenn., killing classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend.
April 24, 1998: 15-year-old boy opens fire at eighth-grade dance in Edinboro, Pa., killing teacher.
March 24, 1998: Four girls and teacher shot to death and 10 people wounded during false fire alarm at middle school in Jonesboro, Ark., when two boys, 11 and 13, open fire from woods.
Dec. 1, 1997: Three students die and five wounded at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., after 14-year-old boy opens fire.
October 1997: 35-year-old man fatally shoots teacher at Montreal language school for immigrants.
Oct. 1, 1997: 16-year-old boy in Pearl, Miss., shoots two students to death and wounds seven others after stabbing his mother to death.
Feb. 19, 1997: 16-year-old boy takes shotgun and bag of shells to school in Bethel, Alaska, killing principal and student and wounding two others.
October 1994: Two guidance counsellors at Brockton High School in Toronto shot and wounded by student unhappy with grades.
June 1993: Teen wounded outside Gladstone Secondary School in Vancouver in drive-by shooting.
Aug. 24, 1992: Valery Fabrikant, professor at Concordia University in Montreal, goes on shooting rampage at school, killing four colleagues and wounding one.
February 1990: Jilted teenager shoots and wounds estranged girlfriend at General Brock High School in Burlington, Ont.
December 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, shoots dead 14 women at University of Montreal's Ecole polytechnique engineering school, then kills himself.
October 1978: 17-year-old student shoots 16-year-old to death at Sturgeon Creek Regional Secondary School in Winnipeg.
Oct. 27, 1975: Robert Poulin, an 18-year-old militia sharpshooter, shoots six people at Ottawa's Saint Pius X school and then kills himself. One wounded student dies just over a month later. Poulin had killed a girl at a youth home before he went to the school.
May 1975: Michael Slobodian, 16, kills teacher and student and wounds 13 others at Centennial Secondary School in Brampton, Ont., before turning gun on himself.



Need I say that this scale of gun related murder does NOT happen in the UK?

Is it because we drink lots of tea?
I'm pretty sure it's cos guns are very hard to get hold of here. Sure, if someone gets pissed off or is psychotic, then maybe they'll get a weapon and attack some people (in fact it happened with a guy with a samurai sword), but it's a lot harder to kill someone with an alternative weapon than a gun. If someone attacks you with a knife you can take them down with bare hands - you aren't gonna stop a bullet like that.
Everyone having guns just ups the stakes so that more people die in the same kind of situations.
As for the 'if we didn't have guns then the people with guns would kill us' argument, if the majority of people didn't have guns (because they were illegal) then far fewer criminals would have guns too.
And the whole 'if I don't have a gun i'm not safe from the MAN' argument, are you a fucking survivalist? Do you have a nuclear bunker in your basement? Seriously man, maybe you should lay off the weed, it's making you paranoid.

That really makes me think of the nuclear arms race actually. Like, shit, they've got them, so we need them otherwise we're never safe! Ever hear the term M.A.D? Mutually assured distruction. Stakes are high when everyone has a gun. It's said that MAD is a good thing, because it means nobody has the guts to use the weapon as they'll be destroyed by others, but all it takes is one fucked up person, as we've seen.
Food for thought
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
i would post a big list of the MORE numerous examples of how guns help citizens here, but since you didn't even read this thread, why waste the time? :roll:

the only "new" notion you've thrown out is the "bare handed" defense scenario. so, to cut to the chase, seriously, how many women will wrestle a knife from a stronger attacker? yeah, probably none.... go look up the converse of your argument and learn some of the reasons that guns are good, see if you can handle the truth.



like i've said: i'm glad you neutered countries are happy being in compliance with your rulers and having no means to revolt. high five! not America.




.





ILoveUMaryJane said:
A list of some major violent incidents at North American schools:
April.16, 2007: Gunman opens fire in a dorm and classroom at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg, Virginia. Early reports say he killed 21 people and wounded another 21 before he was killed.
Oct. 2, 2006: A 32-year-old gunman enters an Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines, Pa., and holds 10 girls hostage before shooting them. Five girls are killed, and five more wounded. The gunman also kills himself.
Sept. 13, 2006: Kimveer Gill, 25, opens fire at Dawson College in Montreal, killing one woman and injuring 20 people.
Aug. 30, 2006: 19-year-old man in Hillsborough, N.C., kills father, then opens fire at Orange High School, wounding two students before surrendering to police.
March 14, 2006: 14-year-old boy in Reno, Nev., bring's father's revolver to Pine Middle School and wounds two classmates.
Jan. 13, 2006: 15-year-old boy at Milwee Middle School in Longwood, Fla., holds class hostage at gunpoint before being fatally shot by police. It is later learned his weapon was a pellet gun.
Nov. 8, 2005: Student at high school in Jacksboro, Tenn., shoots and kills assistant principal. Principal and another assistant principal wounded.
March 21, 2005: 16-year-old boy in Red Lake, Minn., fatally shoots grandfather and grandfather's partner at home, then goes to Red Lake High School, where he kills five students, a teacher and a security guard before committing suicide.
May 7, 2004: Two men, 18 and 24, shoot and wound four students at high school in Randallstown, Md.
March 30, 2004: Student at Wallace High School in Gary, Ind., shot to death in school parking lot by classmate.
Feb. 3, 2004: 14-year-old boy in Palmetto Bay, Fla., stabs and slits throat of 14-year-old classmate at Southwood Middle School.
Feb. 2, 2004: 19-year-old man shoots to death 17-year-old boy at Ballou Senior High School in Washington, D.C.
Sept. 24, 2003: 15-year-old boy shoots two classmates at Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minn. One dies same day, other dies two weeks later.
April 24, 2003: 14-year-old boy shoots principal to death in school cafeteria in Red Lion, Pa., before killing himself.
March 5, 2001: 15-year-old freshman opens fire with .22-calibre pistol at Santana High School in Santee, Calif., killing two students and injuring 13 others.
Jan. 10, 2001: 17-year-old gunman fires shots at Hueneme High School in Oxnard, Calif., before taking female student hostage. He is later shot and killed by police.
May 26, 2000: 13-year-old honours student shoots and kills teacher on last day of classes in Lake Worth, Fla.
April 20, 2000: Four students and one staff member wounded in knife attack at Cairine Wilson High School in Orleans, Ont. Occurs on first anniversary of Columbine massacre.
Feb. 29, 2000: Six-year-old boy shoots six-year-old girl to death in Grade 1 classroom at Buell Elementary School in Mount Morris Township, Mich. Because of his age, boy is not charged.
Dec. 6, 1999: 13-year-old student fires at least 15 shots at Fort Gibson Middle School in Fort Gibson, Okla., wounding four classmates.
Nov. 19, 1999: 12-year-old boy shoots 13-year-old girl in head at school in Deming, N.M. Girl dies next day.
May 20, 1999: 15-year-old boy opens fire at Heritage High School in Conyers, Ga., with .357-calibre Magnum and rifle, wounding six students.
April 28, 1999: 14-year-old boy shoots two students, one fatally, at W.R. Myers High School in Taber, Alta.
April 20, 1999: Two heavily armed teenagers rampage through Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., killing 12 students and one teacher before committing suicide.
April 16, 1999: High school sophomore fires two shotgun blasts in school hallway in Notus, Idaho. No one injured.
Feb. 8, 1999: Man fires shot at Woodland Elementary School in Verdun, Que. No one injured.
May 21, 1998: 17-year-old boy kills parents, then goes to high school in Springfield, Ore., on shooting rampage, killing two teens and wounding more than 20 people.
May 19, 1998: 18-year-old honours student opens fire at high school in Fayetteville, Tenn., killing classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend.
April 24, 1998: 15-year-old boy opens fire at eighth-grade dance in Edinboro, Pa., killing teacher.
March 24, 1998: Four girls and teacher shot to death and 10 people wounded during false fire alarm at middle school in Jonesboro, Ark., when two boys, 11 and 13, open fire from woods.
Dec. 1, 1997: Three students die and five wounded at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky., after 14-year-old boy opens fire.
October 1997: 35-year-old man fatally shoots teacher at Montreal language school for immigrants.
Oct. 1, 1997: 16-year-old boy in Pearl, Miss., shoots two students to death and wounds seven others after stabbing his mother to death.
Feb. 19, 1997: 16-year-old boy takes shotgun and bag of shells to school in Bethel, Alaska, killing principal and student and wounding two others.
October 1994: Two guidance counsellors at Brockton High School in Toronto shot and wounded by student unhappy with grades.
June 1993: Teen wounded outside Gladstone Secondary School in Vancouver in drive-by shooting.
Aug. 24, 1992: Valery Fabrikant, professor at Concordia University in Montreal, goes on shooting rampage at school, killing four colleagues and wounding one.
February 1990: Jilted teenager shoots and wounds estranged girlfriend at General Brock High School in Burlington, Ont.
December 1989: Marc Lepine, 25, shoots dead 14 women at University of Montreal's Ecole polytechnique engineering school, then kills himself.
October 1978: 17-year-old student shoots 16-year-old to death at Sturgeon Creek Regional Secondary School in Winnipeg.
Oct. 27, 1975: Robert Poulin, an 18-year-old militia sharpshooter, shoots six people at Ottawa's Saint Pius X school and then kills himself. One wounded student dies just over a month later. Poulin had killed a girl at a youth home before he went to the school.
May 1975: Michael Slobodian, 16, kills teacher and student and wounds 13 others at Centennial Secondary School in Brampton, Ont., before turning gun on himself.



Need I say that this scale of gun related murder does NOT happen in the UK?

Is it because we drink lots of tea?
I'm pretty sure it's cos guns are very hard to get hold of here. Sure, if someone gets pissed off or is psychotic, then maybe they'll get a weapon and attack some people (in fact it happened with a guy with a samurai sword), but it's a lot harder to kill someone with an alternative weapon than a gun. If someone attacks you with a knife you can take them down with bare hands - you aren't gonna stop a bullet like that.
Everyone having guns just ups the stakes so that more people die in the same kind of situations.
As for the 'if we didn't have guns then the people with guns would kill us' argument, if the majority of people didn't have guns (because they were illegal) then far fewer criminals would have guns too.
And the whole 'if I don't have a gun i'm not safe from the MAN' argument, are you a fucking survivalist? Do you have a nuclear bunker in your basement? Seriously man, maybe you should lay off the weed, it's making you paranoid.

That really makes me think of the nuclear arms race actually. Like, shit, they've got them, so we need them otherwise we're never safe! Ever hear the term M.A.D? Mutually assured distruction. Stakes are high when everyone has a gun. It's said that MAD is a good thing, because it means nobody has the guts to use the weapon as they'll be destroyed by others, but all it takes is one fucked up person, as we've seen.
Food for thought
Click to expand...
 
ILoveUMaryJane

ILoveUMaryJane

Well-Known Member
7xstall said:
i would post a big list of the MORE numerous examples of how guns help citizens here, but since you didn't even read this thread, why waste the time? :roll:

the only "new" notion you've thrown out is the "bare handed" defense scenario. so, to cut to the chase, seriously, how many women will wrestle a knife from a stronger attacker? yeah, probably none.... go look up the converse of your argument and learn some of the reasons that guns are good, see if you can handle the truth.

like i've said: i'm glad you neutered countries are happy being in compliance with your rulers and having no means to revolt. high five! not America.
Click to expand...
Dude, don't tell me what I have and haven't read - it ain't right, it ain't polite.
You seem to have missed my point (I shan't accuse you of not having read my post though, because that's rude). I suggested that generally having fewer guns might reduce gun realted crime, which I think is a fair suggestion. Sure, maybe if there are any muggers etc out there stupid enough to try to mug anyone with less than a gun in their hands, they're gonna get it! But overall, I propose that guns facilitate more crime than they prevent. To be fair, I have no figures, but I haven't seen any from you either, it's just a discussion, this is just an idea.
As for the bill of rights, yes, I know this is integral to your national identity, and is sacred to Americans, but are all the idea in it entirely without fault? It's definitely on a pedestal, and nobody wants to question the wisdom of one small bit of it? I'll get some shit for this, I know, but i've always believed that ideas must evolve in order to improve, and that bill was written a long time ago.
Neutered country? Call it what you will, but i'm safe. I don't want to carry a gun. I don't need to carry a gun to feel safe. A gun in unsure hands is a deadly mistake waiting to happen. So i'm happy living in my 'neutered' country if it means I don't have to carry a lethal weapon in order to feel safe :peace:
As for the knife vs person and gun vs person, I know which one i'd like to be. A person who goes on a blade killing spree ain't gonna reach 32. Just ain't gonna happen. Anyone could open up on a classroom of people and kill or wound 20
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
If we wanted to revolt we don't need guns. if it was the case where we were to begin a revolution it is proven (in history) that a vast majority of the ARMY would turn against the Government. In contrast, it is the other way round with the police.

Our psycho's can't get hold of guns, they have to use other instruments. And to use the lady being raped scenario is a load of bullshit. Where does she keep her gun? In her knickers? Handbag (where some passing snatcher might rip it from her shoulder)?

How many women actually carry a concealed gun in the US? how many women could actually get to that gun if they were physically attacked?

I'm not saying that guns should be banned just for the people but the police too. I saw some police footage today where a guy didn't want to get pulled over as he was a banned driver, he had a female passenger in the car. The police boxed the car in and as he was trying to get out they opened fire.
The passenger was innocent and the driver was only a banned driver. WTF? Luckily, none of them were injured, but did the police give a fuck? The police having guns is just as dangerous. Although, for obvious reasons, the police will need SPECIALIST gun squads. Because, as we saw in Virginia the normal police are only any good at confronting unarmed men.
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
wasn't trying to be rude to you ILUMJ, i do apologize if my judgment was in err.

SKH already brought up the mutual destruction principal and i think we all agree this (legal gun ownership) isn't the same concept.

the "balance of power" principal has come up.

and the survivalist concept has also been covered, by proxy, when you take into account the each citizen has a duty to protect and defend another citizen... we're all cooperating survivalists.

anyway, moving on.

-

here's the statement: fewer guns means less crime.

do guns "create" crime? if we can "blame" objects, tools, for the actions of people what is the purpose of the mind - is it only to serve the available means of action which the tools would best perform?

ridiculous, yes.

so, if they don't create crime then guns provide a recourse and enable or enhance the perpetuation of crime?

if guns provide a recourse or enhance the perpetuation of crime, do they not conversely enhance the perpetuation of lawfulness?

if they do in fact equally and fairly posses their "advantages" or "utilitarian gain" why is there any need to interfere with their lawful availability? wouldn't it be better to actually use the extent of the law to punish those who abuse access to firearms?

what about cars, tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands, idk) more die each year from cars than guns, should we take them all away and mandate that travel must be by foot? this is the same as telling yourself that taking guns will make the killers work harder. if you don't want to take cars, why guns? why the only tool which can be used to effectively defend from abuses? why not cars, they also pollute you know?

when the law abiding are able to bear arms the law breaking are at no advantage, in fact they have a disadvantage. they will have more factors to consider, as Vi mentioned, when it comes to choosing their victims.

i have to ask, why aren't there any successful mass killings in places where gun possession by law abiding citizens is not criminal? obviously, you don't go on these sprees when you're going to get killed right away.

i'll also just mention that having the right to bear arms isn't so you can "feel safe" it's so you can be safe. for the third time, what will you do when an uprising endangers your family? what will you do when all the faith you put in your government suddenly turns to fear as they mandate abortions, demand extreme taxes, force you to kneel to some leader you didn't choose? don't let the distance of this history fool you into thinking it won't repeat itself.. in fact, the further you think you are from it, the closer it is to repeating itself.







.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Almost every school shooting in the U.S. can be connected to the shooter's use of anti-depressant drugs.

Vi
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
LOL. I'll reply to your post a little later, as I need to digest every sentence thoroughly. I'm not laughing at your post by the way, but your reason for editing. ,.

I missed one of these the other day, and it bugged the hell out of me as the sentence didn't read the way I wanted it to. Still didn't edit it though. Just skinned up another joint and forgot all about it.
 
7xstall

7xstall

Well-Known Member
ok, it's been too long now. you've found more misplaced commas, i know you have so tell me where they are so i can fix them, damn you!



lol, jk

on this board i actually use them mostly for stylistic reasons, the pause, try to keep my maladroit sentences from caving in under their own weight. :)


4:20 came and went. :joint:




.
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
I have the utmost respect for you 7x, despite our (slightly?) differing of opinion from time to time.

I still can't read your post, coked off it at the mo'... the mrs is calling me to bed.
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
I've just realised something... when I said I missed the comma, I meant in one of my own posts. I don't judge people by their punctuation, or grammar as my own leaves a lot to be desired at times. Like using the word nothing instead of anything, I know it's wrong but it's the way I speak.
 
skunkushybrid

skunkushybrid

New Member
7xstall said:
wasn't trying to be rude to you ILUMJ, i do apologize if my judgment was in err.

SKH already brought up the mutual destruction principal and i think we all agree this (legal gun ownership) isn't the same concept.

the "balance of power" principal has come up.

and the survivalist concept has also been covered, by proxy, when you take into account the each citizen has a duty to protect and defend another citizen... we're all cooperating survivalists.

anyway, moving on.

-

here's the statement: fewer guns means less crime.

do guns "create" crime? if we can "blame" objects, tools, for the actions of people what is the purpose of the mind - is it only to serve the available means of action which the tools would best perform?

ridiculous, yes.

so, if they don't create crime then guns provide a recourse and enable or enhance the perpetuation of crime?

if guns provide a recourse or enhance the perpetuation of crime, do they not conversely enhance the perpetuation of lawfulness?

if they do in fact equally and fairly posses their "advantages" or "utilitarian gain" why is there any need to interfere with their lawful availability? wouldn't it be better to actually use the extent of the law to punish those who abuse access to firearms?

what about cars, tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands, idk) more die each year from cars than guns, should we take them all away and mandate that travel must be by foot? this is the same as telling yourself that taking guns will make the killers work harder. if you don't want to take cars, why guns? why the only tool which can be used to effectively defend from abuses? why not cars, they also pollute you know?

when the law abiding are able to bear arms the law breaking are at no advantage, in fact they have a disadvantage. they will have more factors to consider, as Vi mentioned, when it comes to choosing their victims.

i have to ask, why aren't there any successful mass killings in places where gun possession by law abiding citizens is not criminal? obviously, you don't go on these sprees when you're going to get killed right away.

i'll also just mention that having the right to bear arms isn't so you can "feel safe" it's so you can be safe. for the third time, what will you do when an uprising endangers your family? what will you do when all the faith you put in your government suddenly turns to fear as they mandate abortions, demand extreme taxes, force you to kneel to some leader you didn't choose? don't let the distance of this history fool you into thinking it won't repeat itself.. in fact, the further you think you are from it, the closer it is to repeating itself.







.
Click to expand...
Are you a survivalist 7x? Jesus (and I don't say that lightly)! The Government is us 7x, you me and everybody. John Major (the one before Tony Blair) came from a working class family, his dad was a milkman. These people are us, how can we fail ourselves? There is no us and them, only us.

History does not always repeat itself, that's bullshit and you know it. I could be pedantic about the thing right now, but it does go much deeper too. OK, some things in history are repeated but our governments work extremely hard in keeping us in the lifestyle we have become accustomed to. They work for us, because they are us.

I can't believe you called us (englanders) a neutered people just because we don't have any guns should our government suddenly decide to take away all of our rights. Which would be impossible. They take away our rights only when we agree to it, they use the media to enforce what we should be thinking and then we think it. I've even found it hard myself to step back from what I'm being told and look at the bigger picture. Unfortunately, the masses are not even aware of it, make sure they make all the right noises at work the next day. You have to agree with society to be a part of it, yet it only takes one differing voice to head society's thoughts in a different direction. What I'm saying is that the government could never control us while we don't want to be controlled. Guns don't fit into this equation. We are past the need for armed revolution, the people do have power.

The Invasion scenario: The thinktanks in our two countries hold some of the best minds in the world. It is their (obviously there are multiple departments involved within this 'thinktank') job to see into the future. I suppose in extreme cases you might liken some of them to soothsayers. I'm sure we are more than aware of any impending threats, hence I believe the war in Iraq (maybe for oil, maybe as a way of stopping the taliban rise, more than likely both) and Afghanistan. A big mistake now would be to allow the Taliban to get a greater foothold in Pakistan. If we are seen to be helping (rather than occupying) the Pakistani soldiers fight the Taliban this would send out a message to the world... British, American and Muslim forces working together to kill the taliban threat.

Sorry got off track a little. Although I believe it does make my point. I'm sure you'll disagree but I believe disarming the citizens of America (wow, what a statement) would be a big step in total world disarmament.
 
matias2911

matias2911

Well-Known Member
I really enjoy reading your posts 7X, I mean it in a good way, your arguments are valid every time, yet I do not seem to agree with them. How can you (I would say dare you, but im afraid of being taxed as childish...) say that we ''the neutered countries'' have no means to revolt?? ''we'' invented the term for christs sake.
Are you implying that guns (objects!) are the only means for free people to revolt? Are you contradicting yourself?In any case I feel very sad for you. You put your system in place without guns but with thoughts (thank god ) And yes, guns were there to defend your constitutional cause. If our countries were so ''neutered'', why all the social protest
(yes, our voice can be heard too, it can be louder than gunshots.Llook at the French (aren't they a pain lol), if you want a clear example, no one shouts more than the french, they have countless times, immobilized their country completely in order to create social conscience and change.)
Violent Civil War in Latin America didnt bring much change to these countries (needless to say most of them are still up to their necks in deep shite.) I can name hundreds of other examples were armed violence was not effective.
Neutered countries....
 
matias2911

matias2911

Well-Known Member
Also your exampole of cars (although justifiable) is flawed. The purpose of a car is not to kill, lol, it is to transport. If guns were a means of transportation (which they are, in the metaphysical sense of the word HAHa (blueberry *) ) I would differ. Cars pollute , make them cleaner! Ive been to central america, lots of people with guns (everyone, and the law abiding citizens too), do I feel safer? hell no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top