Copying what Inferno said, "People who give up freedom in exchange for Security, deserve neither and lose both."- Benjamin Franklin"'. I love this. Look at Obama walking on the street, he has people surrounding him with weaponry because it makes him more safe from people around him. They want to erase the second amendment to protect the people, when the president is solely relying on weapons to protect him. You take away a gun, you're taking away a citizens safety. When a robber gets a hold of a gun (they will even if they are banned, marijuana is illegal in many states and is still being sold) and breaks into a home, whats the father of that home going to do? Hope for some kind of ninja strike in the head? This isn't the movies, that doesn't happen in real life. He needs a GUN to PROTECT his family.
that is why we have the right to bear arms, they are to defend us. And also, the day the government comes to the point of a dictatorship or is no longer a democracy, we use guns to take it back! our founders wanted to make sure it would stay democracy
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
@ODST Do you think they're used for defence more than they're used for offence? Do you think that when used in defence they don't cause more problems than they solve?
Just go to any country that's a democracy and where guns aren't openly available. Believe it or not, Britain is not a dictatorship.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
they may, but if you ban all guns, even then, a person who wants one, can get it with enogh money and influence. A normal person would not. A bad person can always aquire guns, so a normal person, who wants a gun, cant get it without alot of wasted money. So in the end, the only people you hurt, are those who use it for defense. and also, i was using the offence as another point, they are a tool to preserve democracy. And i know briten is not a dictatorship. but the point is, you dont have guns, what if your government,decides to dismember parliment cause they dont like the desisions they make, would that be outrageous? what if they took away all rights, like freedom of speech and stuff, would you protest? heck yeah, but would you be able to do anything? no, cause you dont own firearms, you dont have the means to enforce democracy. You dont trust the government to know best for you. you dont mindlessly follow the gov, because you the citizen, are the real enforcer of democracy. Guns are a way of preserving it. Now you may say, but guns could cause deaths and all. well, if everyone is allowed to have guns, some might die yes, but if everyone carried it, are you goin to shoot someone in a crowd, of about 25 armed folk? rpollly not, if you want to kill or murder someone on a street, you prolly will die in the process. some might die, but hey, it worked fine for america for a long time, if you take away guns, then the government can do whatever it wants. guns, are a waay of giving a voice to citizens.
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
I live in Miami... I seen guns that are not suppose to be anywhere near the US, but they are here. They are everywhere. Everything is everywhere if you guys haven't noticed lol
Hat, trust me, not having guns is a very bad thing. The world right now would be in WWIII every man for themselves if guns were outlawed. Then the people that can get guns have a HUGE ADVANTAGE, not over 1 person, but MANY PEOPLE. Which leads to dictatorship. Which happens when the people give too much to the government.
Carnage has multiple guns for crying out loud...and I bet he is a harmless person, but when it comes to defend for your rights, WE EMPTY OUR CLIPS!
Edit: Use this example guys!
Understand where I'm coming from Hat? =)
Edited by ZA BrickSquad on 01/02/2013 13:55:22
I don't see why you'd make it easy for people to get killing machines. Freedom is great and all that, but I wouldn't agree that we should have the freedom to harm others.
Okay, maybe you're not planning to kill anybody ... but then why have a gun? Guns are made for killing. If you've just got one because everyone else does, why not end the arms race and just remove them all together? Otherwise, you might as well progress onto personal atom bombs ...
I, like most people in the UK, don't have a gun. My life isn't dire as a result.
There is nothing wrong owning an AK-47, that's like saying that owning a Ferrari is bad.
Freedom is great, but killing/harming others is taking away freedom from the victim. Guns are to protect from danger, not to injure others for fun.
Guns are not made just for killing, guns have millions of uses, even starting up a match, just because it's fun to light a match with a bullet (hey that sounds crazy, but that's your freedom, to be happy, but not to take away another person's freedom).
You only buy a gun if you're responsible.
Ninja, do you know the costs of just making 1 nuclear bomb? First you need to find the uranium, which for a lot of COUNTRIES it's already almost to impossible to get their hands on it. Then you need to have at least $500 MILLION to $3 BILLION just for the testing and doing all the technical stuff just for 1 bomb... Also don't forget you need a lo of SPACE and LAND for all your stuff. IMPOSSIBLE.
And Ninja, if you owned/opened a jewelry store one day, I think you'll need a pistol just in case... Get me? It's just part of everyday life, you never know which person is gonna have a really bad day...
Also I'll like to add that here in Miami we go by this:
"I rather spend LIMITED time in prison than UNLIMITED time in a coffin."
@ODST So you're saying that because some people will get guns no matter how legal they are we should make them legal? Why would you make it easy? By the same logic, some people will murder so we should make murder legal. Some people will set fire to buildings so we should make that legal. Obviously, these are ridiculous things to say; my point is that 'it'll happen anyway' is not a reason to make something legal. If we reduce the number of guns, the amount of gun crime will be reduced. I'd have though that's fairly intuitive.
@Brick
Carnage has multiple guns for crying out loud...and I bet he is a harmless person, but when it comes to defend for your rights, WE EMPTY OUR CLIPS!
The problem is not the harmless people but the harmful people for whom it is so easy to get guns. And what rights have you had to defend recently? Why do you need a gun?
Hat, trust me, not having guns is a very bad thing. The world right now would be in WWIII every man for themselves if guns were outlawed. Then the people that can get guns have a HUGE ADVANTAGE, not over 1 person, but MANY PEOPLE. Which leads to dictatorship. Which happens when the people give too much to the government.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. In what possible way would that happen, Brick? Why would saying 'you're not allowed guns' suddenly spark a world war? Explain why this has not happened in the UK, Australia, India, Japan and most of Europe. What makes you think that suddenly there would be a great uproar and everyone would start shooting if guns were banned? And then you've jumped to the conclusion that there would be a dictatorship. This has no basis in fact. Let me remind you that as of 1972 Germany has very strict gun control. Before 1972 they did not.
Dictatorships sometimes enforce gun legislation as way to stop the masses rising up; the dictatorship causes the gun control, not the other way round. A country like the USA is very unlikely to suddenly turn into a dictatorship. You can't say 'we should keep our guns to fight against the dictatorship' when that dictatorship isn't going to happen, just as it hasn't happened everywhere else.
There is nothing wrong owning an AK-47, that's like saying that owning a Ferrari is bad.
That's nothing like saying that Brick. Please explain what you mean.
Freedom is great, but killing/harming others is taking away freedom from the victim. Guns are to protect from danger, not to injure others for fun.
They are only needed to protect from other guns.
Guns are not made just for killing, guns have millions of uses, even starting up a match, just because it's fun to light a match with a bullet (hey that sounds crazy, but that's your freedom, to be happy, but not to take away another person's freedom).
But their primary purpose is killing. That is what they were designed for and that is what they are bought for: either killing or to threaten people with killing to make the owner feel safe. A car's primary purpose is transport. Guns do not equal Ferraris.
You only buy a gun if you're responsible.
I don't know how you got to this conclusion. How do you explain all the obviously irresponsible people who have acquired guns?
Ninja, do you know the costs of just making 1 nuclear bomb? First you need to find the uranium, which for a lot of COUNTRIES it's already almost to impossible to get their hands on it. Then you need to have at least $500 MILLION to $3 BILLION just for the testing and doing all the technical stuff just for 1 bomb... Also don't forget you need a lo of SPACE and LAND for all your stuff. IMPOSSIBLE.
Ninja wasn't being serious. He was making the point, I think, that if guns are there for self-defence and to fight against any fascist regimes that your country may or may not be under threat from where do you draw the line? If personal nukes existed, why would people not use them? Would they not justify their use and their ownership in the same way that you are defending guns?
And Ninja, if you owned/opened a jewelry store one day, I think you'll need a pistol just in case... Get me? It's just part of everyday life, you never know which person is gonna have a really bad day...
We have jewellery shops in Britain too. Since the robber doesn't have a gun, you don't need one either. I'd even go as far as to say that since the robber doesn't have a gun he's less likely to consider the burglary in the first place.
"I rather spend LIMITED time in prison than UNLIMITED time in a coffin."
Which all seems rather pointless if you get shot. By someone with a gun. Which they wouldn't have had were it not for the US' loose gun laws.
Understand where I'm coming from Hat? =)
Yes, I just disagree. I think you're trying to justify what you want rather than looking at it objectively.
Edited by The Hat of Love on 01/02/2013 15:01:00
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
Ninja, do you know the costs of just making 1 nuclear bomb? First you need to find the uranium, which for a lot of COUNTRIES it's already almost to impossible to get their hands on it. Then you need to have at least $500 MILLION to $3 BILLION just for the testing and doing all the technical stuff just for 1 bomb... Also don't forget you need a lo of SPACE and LAND for all your stuff. IMPOSSIBLE.
Ninja wasn't being serious. He was making the point, I think, that if guns are there for self-defence and to fight against any fascist regimes that your country may or may not be under threat from where do you draw the line? If personal nukes existed, why would people not use them? Would they not justify their use and their ownership in the same way that you are defending guns?
Yes, pretty much. I'm not suggesting that people start making their own nuclear warheads.
And Ninja, if you owned/opened a jewelry store one day, I think you'll need a pistol just in case... Get me? It's just part of everyday life, you never know which person is gonna have a really bad day...
We have jewellery shops in Britain too. Since the robber doesn't have a gun, you don't need one either. I'd even go as far as to say that since the robber doesn't have a gun he's less likely to consider the burglary in the first place.
Wielding a pistol isn't part of everyday life for me. There's no point in my having a gun, since I wouldn't shoot anybody - I don't think I have a right to kill another human.
hat, even if it was unlikely to turn into a dictatorship, the possiblity is still there, and people should have the means to have it and just in case they need to use it.
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
But then that possibility is so low, as it is in developed countries like UK and the US, is the harm that mass gun ownership does (i.e. gun crime) worth it? No, I don't think so.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
Ugh, I hate the argument that the President uses firearms so citizens should be allowed to too.
The President shouldn't be using firearms in the first place! The President has a bigger responsibility than any citizen and so SHOULD be putting himself in situations in which he is as much at risk or in more risk than the people he has vowed to guide and protect.
Anyway, my opinion is that firearms should not be allowed at all. Just as nobody's allowed nuclear arms, we shouldn't be allowed dangerous firearms.
Yes, knives or any other melee weapons can be just as dangerous in small spaces. But a knife could only kill a few people IF the user is skilled. A gun can kill at least ten people in the hands of a novice. It can kill hundreds in the hands of a skilled user.
Also, in the case of a dictatorship, I'm pretty sure regardless of any change in law now, the dictator would limit gun use. They'd have to be stupid not to.
But we could still gain access to firearms just as much as we can now. There are sources. So that's pretty much a void argument. There would be no difference in how well we survive regardless of any change in law made now.
Edited by SpartanJaz on 01/03/2013 12:09:26
The problem is not the harmless people but the harmful people for whom it is so easy to get guns. And what rights have you had to defend recently? Why do you need a gun?
Okay, those "harmful" people are not allowed to get guns, which is why we "kinda" restrict guns to the "bad" people.
You need a gun to defend for your life, just like the day I got robbed at gunpoint. If I had a gun that day, everything would of been alright. But NO, the 2 girls I was with got SEXUALLY HARASSED, I got robbed of my valuables, almost getting shot in the head by a revolver.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. In what possible way would that happen, Brick? Why would saying 'you're not allowed guns' suddenly spark a world war? Explain why this has not happened in the UK, Australia, India, Japan and most of Europe. What makes you think that suddenly there would be a great uproar and everyone would start shooting if guns were banned? And then you've jumped to the conclusion that there would be a dictatorship. This has no basis in fact. Let me remind you that as of 1972 Germany has very strict gun control. Before 1972 they did not.
Dictatorships sometimes enforce gun legislation as way to stop the masses rising up; the dictatorship causes the gun control, not the other way round. A country like the USA is very unlikely to suddenly turn into a dictatorship. You can't say 'we should keep our guns to fight against the dictatorship' when that dictatorship isn't going to happen, just as it hasn't happened everywhere else.
Hat...no offense...but those countries, the majority of the people do not have the... um... *cough cough*.... to do it. Here in America, if that ever happened, ask any true American. Do a survey if you like, I already know the answer.
USA is very unlikely to happen BECAUSE the government knows what would happen if they try to ban guns. I just completely proved my point on how the USA could go in chaos, that's why the government hasn't done it.
There is nothing wrong owning an AK-47, that's like saying that owning a Ferrari is bad.
That's nothing like saying that Brick. Please explain what you mean.
AK47 is a very high powered gun, a Ferrari is a high powered fast car. Both can be luxury, or just to work more efficiently. Also can be as better art.
Freedom is great, but killing/harming others is taking away freedom from the victim. Guns are to protect from danger, not to injure others for fun.
They are only needed to protect from other guns.
No. Like I said before, you can use a gun to light up a match. You can do anything with YOUR gun, just not take anyone's rights, and life would be beautiful.
But yes, guns are usually used to protect from danger, not other guns. So a gun can't protect from a threat with a knife, cuz it's "guns only" like you said?
But their primary purpose is killing. That is what they were designed for and that is what they are bought for: either killing or to threaten people with killing to make the owner feel safe. A car's primary purpose is transport. Guns do not equal Ferraris.
Keyword: primary. Guns are also used to pierce through objects, and also destroy obstacles (nothing biotic). I never said guns equal Ferrarri's. Please review what you typed before you post it.
I don't know how you got to this conclusion. How do you explain all the obviously irresponsible people who have acquired guns?
Those people that got it, was most likely from not heavily enforced place that sells guns, or from anther irresponsible gun owner, or from an illegal arms salesman (which the government failed to stop, which shows that the government is flawed).
Ninja wasn't being serious. He was making the point, I think, that if guns are there for self-defence and to fight against any fascist regimes that your country may or may not be under threat from where do you draw the line? If personal nukes existed, why would people not use them? Would they not justify their use and their ownership in the same way that you are defending guns?
The laws of God justify their use. It's common sense guns are used for defense. It's not all about who gets their hands on the gun, but how smart is the person that gets their hand on the gun.
We have jewellery shops in Britain too. Since the robber doesn't have a gun, you don't need one either. I'd even go as far as to say that since the robber doesn't have a gun he's less likely to consider the burglary in the first place.
That's Britain... let's say Ninja wants to expand his business to New York in USA, last time I checked their's a whole world out their. So I think Ninja needs some training in gun use, that he would of had already in Britain.
Think about this quote and try to relate it to what I just said: "Better to know a knot and not need it, than need a knot and not know it."
Which all seems rather pointless if you get shot. By someone with a gun. Which they wouldn't have had were it not for the US' loose gun laws.
You won't get shot if you shoot them first! I JUST PROVED A POINT. USA does have loose laws, which I keep repeating, the GOVERNMENT IS FLAWED.
Yes, I just disagree. I think you're trying to justify what you want rather than looking at it objectively.
NO! I think YOU'RE the on justifying because you are wrong. I'm TALKING FOR REAL and down to the basic, which is the truth. And that's what's bothering you. I know your not used to it. That's what happens when a country has TOO MUCH CENSORSHIP and CONTROL, the truth will scare many.
Ninja:
Wielding a pistol isn't part of everyday life for me. There's no point in my having a gun, since I wouldn't shoot anybody - I don't think I have a right to kill another human.
Maybe it's not part of your everyday life, you don't need it, but many jobs or part of life people really need it or they won't come back home to their family.
But if you about to get shot to the head by a spree-killer, but you had that 3 second window you would of saved your own and many other lives?
You need a gun to defend for your life, just like the day I got robbed at gunpoint.
This is exactly my point. If the person robbing you did not have a gun you would not have needed to defend yourself from the gun, would you?
Hat...no offense...but those countries, the majority of the people do not have the... um... *cough cough*.... to do it. Here in America, if that ever happened, ask any true American. Do a survey if you like, I already know the answer.
You're taking a very stereotypical view that all Americans are basically rednecks who will start shooting people if they are not allowed things to shoot with. Let's not forget that this debate was not about whether we should introduce gun control in the USA, it was about whether gun control was good. If gun control had been introduced at the formation of the US then the 'we deserve guns' mentality would not exist any more than it does in other countries. The only reason some Americans have your supposed *cough cough* is because of the lack of gun control in the first place.
Keyword: primary. Guns are also used to pierce through objects, and also destroy obstacles (nothing biotic).
Yes, exactly. Primary. Main use. A key can be used to deflate tyres but no one would deny that it is mostly used to open doors. A gun can be used to strike a match but no one would deny that it is mostly used to kill people. Remind me why you need your guns to strike a match, also. I'm pretty sure you have other things for that.
Those people that got it, was most likely from not heavily enforced place that sells guns, or from anther irresponsible gun owner, or from an illegal arms salesman (which the government failed to stop, which shows that the government is flawed).
There is nothing in countries with no gun control to stop someone with no prior history walking into a gun shop, purchasing a gun and perpetrating a mass shooting. This happens. People who want a gun for nefarious purposes will get them wherever they can. To say that they usually get them illegally is an inaccurate generalisation. Why wouldn't they just get them from a gun store?
The laws of God justify their use. It's common sense guns are used for defense. It's not all about who gets their hands on the gun, but how smart is the person that gets their hand on the gun.
God's law is not relevant, especially when the US was not founded on religion.
People do not always have common sense.
People who are not smart do get their hands on guns, simply because it is so easy for them. I've got little against sensible people owning guns, it's the not-so-sensible people I'm concerned about.
That's Britain... let's say Ninja wants to expand his business to New York in USA, last time I checked their's a whole world out their. So I think Ninja needs some training in gun use, that he would of had already in Britain.
The whole point of this debate is about whether there should be gun control. If there was he would not need a gun in New York.
"Better to know a knot and not need it, than need a knot and not know it."
But what if some people are misusing the knot to strangle people?
You won't get shot if you shoot them first! I JUST PROVED A POINT. USA does have loose laws, which I keep repeating, the GOVERNMENT IS FLAWED.
I think what you said works more in my favour, Brick. If you've just shot them then someone has been shot. That is exactly my point: someone has been shot, possibly killed. With gun control, you would not have shot them and there would have been no threat of you being shot.
So you're saying that the government is flawed because it has loose laws. Are you implying then that the laws should be tighter?
I never said guns equal Ferrarri's. Please review what you typed before you post it.
Brick, if I asked you to review everything you wrote we'd be here for the next week.
Maybe it's not part of your everyday life, you don't need it, but many jobs or part of life people really need it or they won't come back home to their family.
Gun control is not banning guns. Guns are still allowed in Britain if you can prove that you need them. Therefore, this point is invalid.
But if you about to get shot to the head by a spree-killer, but you had that 3 second window you would of saved your own and many other lives?
My point being that the spree-killer would not be shooting you if stricter gun control was enforced. Shootings are very rare outside of countries like the US.
What it essentially boils down to is this, Brick: you are saying that we should have guns to defend ourselves against problems which would not exist if it were not for guns.
If you take away guns these problems are solved and you need no solution, i.e., no guns.
NO! I think YOU'RE the on justifying because you are wrong. I'm TALKING FOR REAL and down to the basic, which is the truth. And that's what's bothering you. I know your not used to it. That's what happens when a country has TOO MUCH CENSORSHIP and CONTROL, the truth will scare many.
If I may just address this... What you're basically implying is that the country I'm in has controlled my mind to the point where I'm not even able to think for myself. I find what you say a little patronising. We've been over this: it's a debate. I think differently and that's alright. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong. You are looking at this debate and every other from the same way; you're not debating, you're just saying what you think, with no intention of changing your views, no matter how good others' points are.
Edited by The Hat of Love on 01/03/2013 14:54:47
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
and now my question is, what about gun control to the government? remember operation fast and furious?
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
