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?
Oh yes, so he can hold a rusty knife that who knows where it has been, having possible HIV, or other blood infections.
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.
I AM NOT BEING STEREOTYPICAL. I live in FLORIDA, everyone has guns! Whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc.! I'm saying that everyone with the right to bear arms, and loves their security would be outright mad. Taking guns away makes any human being vulnerable to an attack of knifes and other stuff.
Basically what you're trying to say is that we gotta take away knifes or anything sharp. If we are gonna have gun control, we need to have knife control. Which there is already laws on it!!!!
So if you agree with gun control, you basically agree with knife control, or anything SHARP! Hat, do you want to have knife control too? I bet they got that in Britain. Oh look Knives Act 1997... lol...
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.
You're telling me that 100% of everyone you ask that guns are mostly used to kill people, I'll be you my life and everything valuable I have. Did you know many people check their guns more often than they eat in a day? Or that some people SLEEP with their gun? Hat you just live in this safe bubble. I do too in the USA, but not as baby-ish like Britain. I appreciate I live in a peaceful country, unlike others where people can't even go outside to get milk!
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?
Some people do get it legally, but that's the government's FAULT. And you want the same government to take away all guns? THAT'S RECIPE FOR DISASTER!!!!!
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 why the government needs to focus on educating every single person born into this world on how life works. Most people don't know about life so they do these evil things like stealing from another, killing, abusing animals, cutting down all trees, etc.
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.
Then you got hoodlums with knifes and needles with HIV ready to attack and threaten life. If bad guys can't win in fight with knifes or guns, they will most likely start using biological weapons. Think about it Hat =P
But what if some people are misusing the knot to strangle people?
With education, it will never happen. They will most likely have better things to look forward to in life than wasting away doing stuff like that.
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?
Okay, I think most people in the world would rather get shot to death than stabbed to death, or stabbed by a needle with diaereses and serious fatal infections.
Yes, certain laws should be tighter, and certain laws should be looser. Guns should be tighter to only have the responsible good people owning it and the bad ones away. And some plants should have looser laws ;P
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.
How exactly do you prove that you need it? That must be easy. I just say "there is crime in Miami", so I get a gun? Or do I need to have a "government" job? And anyone can be a bodyguard for anyone, so technically anyone can need a gun to be a bodyguard for anyone...
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.
So now the root of all evil are guns? .......... So anything bad that happens has to do with a gun? Bank robbery, oh gun right? No. Not every crime is involved with a gun, most crimes have nothing to do with guns.
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.
No, you're the one putting down what you think/believe. I type down REAL FACTS. I want you to use supporting facts to all your "opinions", and you'll see you have really nothing to back up.
Using Britain and other countries are not examples, because most of the counties in the world lets most people have guns, so your point is invalid to you, which favors to me.
Oh yes, so he can hold a rusty knife that who knows where it has been, having possible HIV, or other blood infections.
Ok, better than a bullet.
I AM NOT BEING STEREOTYPICAL. I live in FLORIDA, everyone has guns! Whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc.! I'm saying that everyone with the right to bear arms, and loves their security would be outright mad. Taking guns away makes any human being vulnerable to an attack of knifes and other stuff.
There would be protest, I'm sure. Taking away guns may make you vulnerable to knife crime but it takes away the threay of gun crime. Knives or guns? Well, let's choose the less dangerous one, knives.
Basically what you're trying to say is that we gotta take away knifes or anything sharp. If we are gonna have gun control, we need to have knife control. Which there is already laws on it!!!!
So if you agree with gun control, you basically agree with knife control, or anything SHARP! Hat, do you want to have knife control too? I bet they got that in Britain. Oh look Knives Act 1997... lol...
Ooooh, you got me there, Brick, aren't you justified for feeling smug? Except that I do agree with knife control. So no, actually, you're not.
You're telling me that 100% of everyone you ask that guns are mostly used to kill people, I'll be you my life and everything valuable I have. Did you know many people check their guns more often than they eat in a day? Or that some people SLEEP with their gun? Hat you just live in this safe bubble. I do too in the USA, but not as baby-ish like Britain. I appreciate I live in a peaceful country, unlike others where people can't even go outside to get milk!
Guns are designed to kill/injure. Do you deny this?
And if you can't attempt to rebuke my point without calling countries with gun control babyish, while making out that Americas are macho freedom fighters because you have guns, don't bother typing anything, Brick.
Whether you can go outside to get milk has little to do with gun control as far as I can see. Feel free to explain.
Some people do get it legally, but that's the government's FAULT. And you want the same government to take away all guns? THAT'S RECIPE FOR DISASTER!!!!!
So it's the government's fault that people get guns? Ok, let's find a solution. What about gun control?
That's why the government needs to focus on educating every single person born into this world on how life works. Most people don't know about life so they do these evil things like stealing from another, killing, abusing animals, cutting down all trees, etc.
Yes, education is important and it would probably reduce this kind of stuff. But proper standards and control set up to make sure that people who don't deserve guns don't get them would reduce it even further.
Then you got hoodlums with knifes and needles with HIV ready to attack and threaten life. If bad guys can't win in fight with knifes or guns, they will most likely start using biological weapons. Think about it Hat =P
Sorry, Brick, I had to laugh. First off, you say guns are defending yourself. If someone's coming at you, stabbing or shooting them will drive them off, yes. Injecting them with HIV (don't know how they got this) will not. So no, that won't happen.
Secondly, it doesn't happen. This doesn't happen anywhere with gun control. It's a ridiculous conclusion to jump to. The main violent crime problem Britain has is knife crime which is less of a problem; when was the last time you heard about a mass stabbing in the news
With education, it will never happen. They will most likely have better things to look forward to in life than wasting away doing stuff like that.
Even with education, people will still attack others. This is not an idealistic world and education will not get rid of the problem.
Okay, I think most people in the world would rather get shot to death than stabbed to death, or stabbed by a needle with diaereses and serious fatal infections.
People attacking would rather pull a trigger than get within arm's length and slash with a knife. This is why guns are more dangerous than knives: gun crime is easier. So let's decide based on how many lives we can save, not how slow their deaths will be.
Yes, certain laws should be tighter, and certain laws should be looser. Guns should be tighter to only have the responsible good people owning it and the bad ones away. And some plants should have looser laws ;P
Well, that's something. How do you choose who's good or bad though?
So now the root of all evil are guns? .......... So anything bad that happens has to do with a gun? Bank robbery, oh gun right? No. Not every crime is involved with a gun, most crimes have nothing to do with guns.
That's not what I meant. I was talking only about gun crime; if we take away guns, you do not need to protect yourself against guns and so gun crime is widely eliminated. Yes, it will be partially replaced by stuff like knife crime but this is the lesser of two evils.
No, you're the one putting down what you think/believe. I type down REAL FACTS. I want you to use supporting facts to all your "opinions", and you'll see you have really nothing to back up.
Using Britain and other countries are not examples, because most of the counties in the world lets most people have guns, so your point is invalid to you, which favors to me.
Please go and look up what an opinion is before you debate again. Everything you are saying is an opinion and you have provided just as few sources as I have. For facts and statistics, see the bottom of my post.
And using Britain and other countries are examples. Since I'm using them as examples I don't see how they could be anything else.
How exactly do you prove that you need it? That must be easy. I just say "there is crime in Miami", so I get a gun? Or do I need to have a "government" job? And anyone can be a bodyguard for anyone, so technically anyone can need a gun to be a bodyguard for anyone...
No, obviously it's not as easy as that. First off, most firearms are completely illegal for private use, including semi-automatic and automatic guns and those with a barrel length of 30cm. Guns are usually only allowed for hunting and target shooting but not for self-defence. All firearms above a certain power require a certificate. Even air rifles are illegal under 18.
I'll leave you with some quotes from Wikipedia's page on Gun Politics in the United Kingdom, bearing in mind that Britain has one of the 'strictest gun firearms laws in the world'.
Wikipedia: The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher)
During the latter half of the 20th century there were only two incidents in which people holding licensed firearms went on shooting sprees and killed on a large scale
injury caused during a firearm offence was rare, with fewer than 3% of offences resulting in a serious or fatal injury.
And this supports my statement that gun crime is worse than knife crime:
The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales. The homicide rate in England and Wales at the end of the 1990s was below the EU average, but the rates in Northern Ireland and Scotland were above the EU average.
I will be referring to this throughout the calculations, so please read it.
By using a statistical model- by multiplying the total number of people in a population by an estimated death rate per hundred thousand people we can determine the death rate of a population per year solely down to firearms. By "scaling up" the population to match the largest population we can also compare results efficiently. BEAR IN MIND THESE ARE ESTIMATIONS.
There are 3150 hundred thousands in the US population (which is about 315 million, so we'll round up to make things easier) and there are roughly 10 people per hundred thousand killed by firearms.
Multiply the two together and you get 31500 people who die to firearms abuse in a year in the USA.
-
For comparison, let's take the UK, where I live, where there is strict gun control in place. There are 62.3 million in the population, rounded up, which makes 623 hundred thousands. There are 0.25 deaths in every hundred thousand in the population due to firearm death.
Multiplying them together gives 155.75 people who die per year to firearms. Let's round up to 156 for ease of calculation. There are 60 million in the UK, so let's scale the result up by multiplying it by 5 (since there are 5 60s in 300) and you get a projected 780 deaths from firearm misuse a year in UK.
And now let's compare the results:
31500 vs 780. That's less than 2.5% of your total. That's absurd. In fact, farcical. Why do so many more people die? Is it because the general populace do not know how to use a gun? What about the correct situation? Either way you look at it, the death toll is staggering for a first-world country- you're up there with the drug lords of the south american countries. You're not quite as bad as them, far from it, but you're still pretty bad- you're the highest first world country on that list, and most definitely the largest for quite a while in terms of population.
---
However, this is comparing a country where gun ownership is so restricted it isn't funny- not even the police use them regularly- to one where gun ownership is widespread. So let's compare somewhere like Switzerland, where gun control is similar to the USA, if I'm correct, to get a more accurate view.
According to wikipedals the population is somewhere in the region of 8 million rounded down, and there are 80 hundred thousands in that number. 3.5 people per hundred thousand die due to firearm abuse.
That figure is 280 deaths per year in the population. Let's multiply by 40 to get a general idea of what it would be like if it were the size of the US (40x8=320), and it gives us 11200.
31500 vs 11200. That's just 35.5% of that amount... Which is STILL a huge difference. Interestingly enough, both numbers are so big due to firearm related suicides.
---
I'll let you make of them what you will. They're accurate to December 2012.
Above all, remember that these are just results what we would EXPECT to get from this data after manipulation and extrapolation. They're in no way real. They also include a lot of rounding errors and are probably highly inaccurate, but they are fairly close in terms of precision.
But let's get back to the point. Yes, I think Gun control needs to be enforced stronger in your country. The argument "If gun regulation were enforced, people would still break the law" is illogical- by that logic, why have things like traffic laws, or contraband drug laws?
Another thing... Assault weapons. Why are they so freely available? You don't use that sort of thing to hunt deer or animals. You use them to hunt PEOPLE. Why do you need a device capable of feeding hundreds of rounds a minute to hunt animals when a handgun or a shotgun will do the same thing?
Forgive me if I'm too varied, but I'm curious. I live in a country where there is very little gun crime because there are few guns available and those that do own them know what to do with them.
Tu fui, ego eris.
Signature: Maribelle, Fire Emblem Awakening
To put it plain and simple and in the words that many have used, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And yes I know, that can be argued to hell as well. But a gun is an inanimate object. The person is the one that pulls the trigger.
Making guns illegal and taking away guns will in no way eliminate gun crime/violence. The "bad guys" who are killing with guns will still find ways to obtain and kill with guns. Marijuana is a perfect example of this. It is illegal yet a 6th grader can easily obtain some by just going to school. And yes, I know that MJ can not kill a person in an instant the way a gun can. But the fact still remains that anything can be obtained; illegal, controlled, regulated, or not.
Now, I do strongly believe that anyone who does purchase a rifle/firearm should have to go through a course or training to be certified to keep the gun. No one should be able to just buy a rifle imo. I realize, as I already stated, people will still find ways obtain weapons without having to be trained/certified. But some control is better than no control.
Automatic Rifle and large firearms should not be in the hands of any ordinary citizen. As stated, in the need for self-defense or hunting, there is no need for that kind of firepower. Now collectors and trained professions (who have passed some sort of certification and KNOW and RESPECT guns) are a different story. But I do not believe that any country should completely disarm its citizens.
And as any 'Merican or gunman would say in these types of discussions, "to conquer a nation, one must first disarm its citizens". People in Texas say that the reason our state is "peaceful" is due to the fact that there are more registered guns in Texas than citizens. Sadly, statistics do not really support that so it is in no way a point or debate.
To conclude, I am in no way a die hard gun fanatic. I have met many and have many as friends (Texas). Guns are not bad. It is the people and that fact that they are so easily obtained that taints their name. Violence will always continue to ensue no matter what is banned/controlled.
The main scare tactic, at least used by the politicians, is the saying: "good people can do bad things". So they make guns harder to get, in the hopes that good people will never do bad things.
I don't know if anyone noticed, but anyone from the UK are very biased according to how their government wants their citizens to think/believe.
We can do a poll asking each country what they think about guns, then you come back with the right answer, and you'll know I was right the whole time.
Most of the people arguing against guns either live in a country that doesn't like guns, never really left their "cradle", or they were raised in a shell from the real world.
I'm really getting tired of all these spam responses. So technically we will never end this, because if I state a fact, you can come back at me saying "oh this country thinks this and look at these statistics for this only ONE country" and then there is no end.
THIS IS NOT THE GOD DEBATE. So we can actually reach to real conclusions, but the ones that are wrong don't want to, or if they accept the truth, they will think their "hole life was a lie" type thing.
I'm a real person, I talk the truth, and if I wanna tell you something, I'll tell you. I'm very honest and understanding person.
All this spam responses just makes me understand your scared of the truth/life. Which is why you always hear about the UK having SOCIAL ISSUES. Just like those riots??? Thank God they didn't have guns, most of you guys do not have the capabilities to own a gun, NO WAY. That's why I keep saying it's all about EDUCATION and teaching people the truth. Why don't you think they tell children where babies actually come from? Because they won't understand until they are older, and it's better to wait.
It's all about biology/psychology. Use your head guys, think out side of your box. THINK GLOBAL, NOT LOCAL.
Edited by ZA BrickSquad on 01/07/2013 09:50:43
Brick, frankly, you're being an idiot. This is a DEBATE. You have no right whatsoever to say that every word you speak is the truth. You are not God. You've done this in the drugs debate too.
Perhaps if you got past your own ignorance, you might start listening to what others have to say.
No, those of us in the UK are NOT biased because of our government. In fact, I myself HATE the British government. They are highly flawed. I would never allow the government to teach me what to believe. I have denied a lot of things the government has tried to teach me as a British child and as a young adult.
But in this situation, the government is partly right. Guns are bad. The only issue with their logic is that they believe guns are only bad in the hands of citizens but are fine in their hands. I disagree. Guns are never alright in my opinion.
If you read Moony's post carefully, you will see intelligent reasoning as to why guns are not alright. Thanks for that by the way Moony. That's some good first impressions of your intelligence there.
There is little gun violence or violence of any kind in Britain and the idea that gun control will just make it worse or make violence in general worse is ridiculous. Knife use is not a major issue here and we have gun control. So the idea that knives and other weapons will be used if gun control is instated is ridiculous.
And also Brick, I have no idea where you got this idea of social issues in the UK from. As far as I know, Britain's society is only as flawed as any other or even less flawed due to stricter laws.
Also, I am fully capable of owning and utilising a gun. I have the skills. I've used a gun before(yes, a real gun, not a BB gun). I merely don't want to own a gun.
Edited by SpartanJaz on 01/07/2013 09:53:18
Jaz, I respect you. I do see everyone else viewpoints. And I understand their view points.
The only problem going on here is that YOU GUYS are not understanding my viewpoints.
Why do we always have to compare to the USA or the UK? Why not all the countries (like the average). First of all, most of you guys are young (no offense) and are not very knowledgeable of real world problems/situations. I'm not being rude or disrespectful, I'm just saying what's FACT (what's concrete, not opinion).
We are debating using facts so we can reach to a conclusion/solution.
Jaz, why don't you want to own one? Answer honestly and as specific as you can.
Edited by ZA BrickSquad on 01/07/2013 09:58:21
ZA BrickSquad wrote: I don't know if anyone noticed, but anyone from the UK are very biased according to how their government wants their citizens to think/believe.
.
.
.
I'm really getting tired of all these spam responses. So technically we will never end this, because if I state a fact, you can come back at me saying "oh this country thinks this and look at these statistics for this only ONE country" and then there is no end.
The UK being a real example of a developed country with strict gun laws doesn't make its inhabitants biased. In fact, it's a perfect comparison for America.
Moony has very kindly found some statistics for the UK and America and extrapolated the data from the UK so that the size of the two countries are comparable. His calculations very clearly show that there is significantly less gun crime in the UK (or more specifically the theoretical no-gun America). He's also correctly stated that the UK is recognised as a country with some of the strictest gun laws. No, we can't assume it's a causal link between the two, but there's undeniable correlation. That is a fact.
I haven't read all of your posts because I stop when they get insulting, but perhaps you could highlight all of these facts that you keep referring to. Please remember sources.
ZA BrickSquad wrote: We can do a poll asking each country what they think about guns, then you come back with the right answer, and you'll know I was right the whole time.
Most of the people arguing against guns either live in a country that doesn't like guns, never really left their "cradle" ".
There's not necessarily a 'right' answer - this isn't a trivial maths question. In civilised society, we discuss the options and choose what we think is best. There's no knowing whether the other options would be better. If one person comes along claiming that they know what is best, then first of all they only think they know best, and second, they need to back up what they're saying otherwise people won't believe them.
I find it insulting that you say we've never left our "cradle".
ZA BrickSquad wrote: THIS IS NOT THE GOD DEBATE. So we can actually reach to real conclusions, but the ones that are wrong don't want to, or if they accept the truth, they will think their "hole life was a lie" type thing.
I'm a real person, I talk the truth, and if I wanna tell you something, I'll tell you. I'm very honest and understanding person.
All this spam responses just makes me understand your scared of the truth/life. Which is why you always hear about the UK having SOCIAL ISSUES.
Yes, we can reach some sort of conclusion, as can be done in any debate. That doesn't mean those who think differently are wrong, or stupid. I'm discussing this out of intellectual curiosity, our conclusion isn't going to make a difference, and trust me, I won't go to bed crying 'my whole life was a lie' what ever the outcome.
Again, you think you speak the truth. However, largely these 'truths' are subjective, and many will disagree with you on equally valid grounds. You need to keep in mind that saying 'everyone else is wrong' is rude and not always true.
It's very insulting to call other people's arguments 'spam', and if you ever find yourself entering a proper debate, I advise you not to do so. I, for one, am not scared of the truth, nor of life. In fact, as a mathematician, I aim to unearth the purest of truths, and perhaps an essence of what life really is.
Brick, you are also young but that is entirely irrelevant to maturity. Do not be ageist. There are 8 year olds in the world that are more intelligent than any of us so age is quite a pointless topic to bring up.
And we compare to different countries so that we can use facts and statistics. We have to somehow compare countries with gun control to those without gun control.
On the topic of me owning a gun, well... you've got me there. Not sure how exactly to explain. I guess I just don't want to harm anyone.
I suppose it's more that I don't want to use a gun though. I don't believe I have the right to harm another person. I'm not just against gun violence, I avoid violence altogether if possible. It's usually pointless and I don't think anyone has the right to harm another no matter what. Of course if somebody attacked me, I would defend myself if necessary. But only with unlethal weaponry i.e. my hands or weak objects. (Well, I could kill somebody with my hands pretty easily if I tried, being pretty strong, but you get the picture)
The UK being a real example of a developed country with strict gun laws doesn't make its inhabitants biased. In fact, it's a perfect comparison for America.
Moony has very kindly found some statistics for the UK and America and extrapolated the data from the UK so that the size of the two countries are comparable. His calculations very clearly show that there is significantly less gun crime in the UK (or more specifically the theoretical no-gun America). He's also correctly stated that the UK is recognised as a country with some of the strictest gun laws. No, we can't assume it's a causal link between the two, but there's undeniable correlation. That is a fact.
I haven't read all of your posts because I stop when they get insulting, but perhaps you could highlight all of these facts that you keep referring to. Please remember sources.
What makes us is our thoughts and actions, which I believe are influenced by environmental factors such as the mood of the people you live with in a city, the education made by the government, the foods/medications, etc.
I believe Moony's statistics, but that just shows the RELATIONSHIP of recorded gun related deaths. So the deaths that guns bring is the only thing gun control is about? We need to also focus on the right to live, bear arms and protect yourself.
I'll get really mad if the government doesn't let me own a gun, that's not fair, then any one could come in my house and kill my whole family with a illegal gun they got and because my government was too into money they don't want to educate our citizens more. If the US government taught quality education, the gun crime would dramatically fall. Also those statistics are not accurate because a lot of deaths comes from the Mexican-American border area (because of drug trade).
Sorry if anything I say seems insulting, I never meant to insult anyone.
There's not necessarily a 'right' answer - this isn't a trivial maths question. In civilised society, we discuss the options and choose what we think is best. There's no knowing whether the other options would be better. If one person comes along claiming that they know what is best, then first of all they only think they know best, and second, they need to back up what they're saying otherwise people won't believe them.
I find it insulting that you say we've never left our "cradle".
There is a right answer AND there is a BEST answer. THERE IS KNOWING of which answer is better.
I never said your country left you in a cradle, I said "Most of the people arguing against guns either live in a country that doesn't like guns, never really left their "cradle", or they were raised in a shell from the real world.", which you most likely falls in a country that doesn't like guns. I respect your opinion, but it seems you are a little more on the safe/peace side. Trust me, I love being safe and having peace, which is why you need guns, to defend or stop the BAD guys that got their hands on a gun.
Guns don't kill, people kill. SO LETS GET TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM: PEOPLE. We educate people, then people won't kill. Which leads to guns won't "kill people" anymore...
This debate makes me feel like guns are alive and have a brain of their own... Starting to see a gun as an organism now...LOL
Yes, we can reach some sort of conclusion, as can be done in any debate. That doesn't mean those who think differently are wrong, or stupid. I'm discussing this out of intellectual curiosity, our conclusion isn't going to make a difference, and trust me, I won't go to bed crying 'my whole life was a lie' what ever the outcome.
Again, you think you speak the truth. However, largely these 'truths' are subjective, and many will disagree with you on equally valid grounds. You need to keep in mind that saying 'everyone else is wrong' is rude and not always true.
It's very insulting to call other people's arguments 'spam', and if you ever find yourself entering a proper debate, I advise you not to do so. I, for one, am not scared of the truth, nor of life. In fact, as a mathematician, I aim to unearth the purest of truths, and perhaps an essence of what life really is.
I NEVER EVER SAID/SHOW in any way that anyone who thinks differently are stupid/wrong. Some questions don't have a right answer, so has to have a BEST answer (one that would work the best in the given circumstances and factors), or it's unanswerable due to lack of evidence, such as "Is God real?".
Our conclusion CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE, but we just need power. Same way we think of ideas, that's what the leaders of the world do and actually make it happen. Only difference is they have more "power/control" in what happens or goes, usually depends on their system of governing people.
I know it's insulting to call other people's arguments spam, but the posts that I say is spam has an INVALID argument, or one that does not make sense/without concrete meaning.
Ninja, I don't know if you know, but I look up to you, you're a very smart person, I am too a mathematician (love numbers!) and on the same path as you in unearthing truths and making the world a better place for EVERYONE. That's why I say THINK GLOBAL, not local.
Jaz:
Brick, you are also young but that is entirely irrelevant to maturity. Do not be ageist. There are 8 year olds in the world that are more intelligent than any of us so age is quite a pointless topic to bring up.
I am very young, 19, I know that, but I meant in experience wise. You have no idea how my life is, am actually just on vacation right now. But the point is, that I'm making a statistical guess that most of the people here on ZA haven't experience a lot of the world, even normal people. I'm not ignorant, I'm the complete opposite. I wish I can eat books just to fill up my brain.
On the topic of me owning a gun, well... you've got me there. Not sure how exactly to explain. I guess I just don't want to harm anyone.
I suppose it's more that I don't want to use a gun though. I don't believe I have the right to harm another person. I'm not just against gun violence, I avoid violence altogether if possible. It's usually pointless and I don't think anyone has the right to harm another no matter what. Of course if somebody attacked me, I would defend myself if necessary. But only with unlethal weaponry i.e. my hands or weak objects. (Well, I could kill somebody with my hands pretty easily if I tried, being pretty strong, but you get the picture)
Who said owning a gun you HAVE to harm somebody? Or are you scared YOU might harm someone because one day you won't control your emotions?
NO ONE has the right to harm someone else, BUT you do have the RIGHT TO DEFEND, which mostly every animal does.
So you're telling me you're going to avoid violence for the rest of your life? I really wanna know where you are gonna live and who's going to get the grocery food for you... I hate violence too, guns prevents violence more than it causes.
Jaz, answer this question: If a person is trying to kill you by beating you to death, what would you do?
Well, what could I do? Guns couldn't help me. If I'm being beaten to death, there's little chance I could reach to a gun, nevermind aim it well with all of the physical injuries. Movies exaggerate the idea of reaching to a gun when in danger. It's quite difficult to aim most real guns and it takes a fair bit of strength to use a lethal gun(lighter guns are generally less lethal). I doubt that, with physical injuries, I could actually use a gun properly.
If I could fight back at all, I would knock down my opponent non-lethally(with ease if I had strength at all, as while beating someone, you're in quite a weak mental position due to adrenaline)
I find it somewhat difficult to understand how you simultaneous vouch for peace, yet condone gun use. The two seem mutually exclusive.
I'm all for education, but you have to be careful and like you say not create bias.
In the mean time, there's an evident issue with the prevalence of guns in America. I don't want to take away from peoples' freedom, but if that's 'collateral damage' in an effort to save lives, then it's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make.
Alright. I just turned 18. So this is legal.
My state allows conceal carry for weapons. Needless to say, there aren't many crimes here because people can defend themselves in the case of emergency.
For my birthday, I got a 9mm and a concealed carry permit. It's sitting in my car in my glove right now, and I carry it on me when I'm not in school.
Why? So I can defend myself. If Colorado had concealed carry, they could have taken out tht bastard in the movie theatre. In Colorado, they cannot carry weapons on their person. As such, it lead to a slaughter, because they could not hae guns.
If someone is going to kill, they will circumvent laws to do so. Therefore, the public should be able to carry weapons to protect themselves from those looking to kill, because they will NOT kill randomly.
On another note, people have differing opinions on weapons. You cannot say each country has their own opinion, because there are a CRAP TON of people who do not agree with their individual countries!!
For example, look at the Texas Seceding thing. Some people want to secede, some don't. There is a majority, but you cannot seriously say that everyone/no one wants to secede.
Remember that this is a debate, and you have an opinion. Other people have opinions. Your opinion is not fact, and it is okay for others to disagree with you. To say that others don't have a right to post their opinion while you do is just downright rude.
Edited by Joshkl2013 on 01/07/2013 12:34:02
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox
Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call 1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...
Ninja, you can't vouch for peace by taking away all the guns either. Peace can only come from a mutual consent by all the citizens of a society - it can not come from passing laws or enforcing rules upon the society. There will always be bad people and good people, the main thing to understand is that good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. We should not attempt to find the "bad people" in an effort to stop violence, as this will only ruin the freedoms of the "good people". The best we can do, in my opinion, is limit the damage that "good people" can do, may it be through accident or intention.
Banning guns is as futile as Prohibition (1920s). Making guns harder to obtain is a smarter idea. We will always have the anomalies in society (such as Newtown and Aurora), but we can only react to them. There is no way to predict their actions with our current understanding of mental illnesses. Honestly, I believe this year should be a lesson in parenting and psychological behavior analysis. Making more laws will never fix the problem.
Brick, I have asked you many times before and now I will ask you again: if you can not grasp the concept of a debate, if you are going to trample this thread with your arrogant assertions that you have the 'right' answer and everyone else is wrong, overprotected and not thinking for themselves simply because they disagree with you and if you can't reply to other people's well thought-out arguments (Moony's in particular was based on statistics and numbers) without insulting them and their countries then please do not post. I'm not even interested in carrying on this debate with you - I don't want to repeat our other debates where I just end up saying the same points over and over. But please have a little more respect for other people and their opinions. If you are not prepared to accept that someone else may have a viewpoint that matters just as much as yours and isn't wrong (let me remind you that opinions are not objectively wrong or right) then I would suggest that you leave the debate here for now.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
soulcyon wrote:
Ninja, you can't vouch for peace by taking away all the guns either. Peace can only come from a mutual consent by all the citizens of a society - it can not come from passing laws or enforcing rules upon the society. There will always be bad people and good people, the main thing to understand is that good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. We should not attempt to find the "bad people" in an effort to stop violence, as this will only ruin the freedoms of the "good people". The best we can do, in my opinion, is limit the damage that "good people" can do, may it be through accident or intention.
Banning guns is as futile as Prohibition (1920s). Making guns harder to obtain is a smarter idea. We will always have the anomalies in society (such as Newtown and Aurora), but we can only react to them. There is no way to predict their actions with our current understanding of mental illnesses. Honestly, I believe this year should be a lesson in parenting and psychological behavior analysis. Making more laws will never fix the problem.
I agree with what you're saying. In America, making guns harder to obtain might well work better (at least, in the short term). I think that the eventual removal of guns from society is a good target though.
soulcyon wrote:
Ninja, you can't vouch for peace by taking away all the guns either. Peace can only come from a mutual consent by all the citizens of a society - it can not come from passing laws or enforcing rules upon the society. There will always be bad people and good people, the main thing to understand is that good people can do bad things and bad people can do good things. We should not attempt to find the "bad people" in an effort to stop violence, as this will only ruin the freedoms of the "good people". The best we can do, in my opinion, is limit the damage that "good people" can do, may it be through accident or intention.
Banning guns is as futile as Prohibition (1920s). Making guns harder to obtain is a smarter idea. We will always have the anomalies in society (such as Newtown and Aurora), but we can only react to them. There is no way to predict their actions with our current understanding of mental illnesses. Honestly, I believe this year should be a lesson in parenting and psychological behavior analysis. Making more laws will never fix the problem.
I agree with what you're saying. In America, making guns harder to obtain might well work better (at least, in the short term). I think that the eventual removal of guns from society is a good target though.
Idk if that is physically possible.
If people know how to make guns, they will make them and sell them to whoever is willing to buy. This is how the free-market works, businesses take the risk for gaining profits (legality is no matter, e.g black market). If the government is the ONLY entity to own guns, then who will protect the citizens when the government rapes the citizens (e.g, Hitler or some other wacko dictator)? Knives, pepper spray, axes nor sticks will stop the onslaught of basic firearms.
I personally don't vouch for starting an arms race among the people, but at some point we have to say stop. Let people use their own method of self-defense. Violent maniacs are an ANOMALY, we don't need to cause pain and suffering to the whole populace just for the sake of stopping a couple bad guys. Furthermore, I ask this question - what if somebody had a gun at the Colorado shooting (other than the culprit, of course)? I believe there would have been many fewer deaths because people were allowed to defend themselves. We don't need to employ the police force at the doorstep of every store and road in the country - we sure as hell can't afford it.
Edited by soulcyon on 01/07/2013 13:07:01
Also, I'd like to bring up that while people in Britain don't condone firearm use, IT MAKES SENSE, especially when you use the statistics moony posted. No duh they won't want to use firearms- barley anyone dies from firearm abuse there! America does have firearms legal, and it isn't simply for "defense" as everyone in America so "knowledgeably" claims. We have guns, simply put, so that we can rise up against the government if they do a shitty job. Don't believe me? It is in our CONSTITUTION.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
Basically, we necessitate firearms as they allow us to rebel against our government if they try to make us NOT a free state. Using weaponry, we can establish ourselves a free state once again if our government becomes oppressive.
I wanna be like RAZ!!! [ZÅ]Paradox
Need a shotgun to protect you while you snipe? Call 1-800-SHOTGUN today!
Need a nuke? Call 1-800-NUKE-ALL
Take advantage of this limited offer now!
Offer expires in 3..2..1...
