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)
Seriously... First of all, your gun is in your holster on your right thigh, or your back, or on the waist, or any other safe place to keep a firearm ON YOU.
NO ONE IS TALKING MOVIES. I been in real life situations whee I see the guy reaching for a gun. IN REAL LIFE, you have the reach all the time, perfect example: POLICE.
That's why when you buy a gun, you practice using it. You practice reloading, aiming, holding, stance, etc.
Ninja:
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.
I do vouch for peace, there's nothing wrong with gun use, UNLESS IT'S TO DISRUPT PEACE. There is nothing wrong living in a peaceful country ready to defend.
Ninja, the way you and everyone else is thinking is like this:
Control guns = less gun crime/violence
That makes perfect sense, I agree with you Ninja ^ My idea what I'm trying to do, goes a little like this:
Educate humans = less crime, less violence, less EVERYTHING BAD, and more focusing on how to make the world a better place =D
Paradox:
It's sitting in my car in my glove right now
No offense, but you are one of those people that leaves guns in cars...so when stolen, the bad guy does not only have a new car, but a GUN! And that's how many criminals get their hands on guns.
I agree with you on how the thetre massacre could have been EASILY stopped. Everyone now-a-days THINK they need a police man to do the work... I feel bad for you guys when you have a RUDE AWAKENING to real life.
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.
I NEVER SAID OTHERS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST THEIR OWN OPINION.
So you're telling me it's okay for me to say "drinking a liter of vodka daily is very beneficial to your health"?
Soulcyon:
We let bad people be. If we really wanted no bad people in life, it's possible. Also adding laws and making things strict actually makes things worse. Illegal things brings economy in the illegal area, making strict ways of life stresses the body physically and also mentally, which leads to all these mental problems and disorders people have, because the body cannot function in a robot-like society with all the laws/rules.
Hat:
Hat, prove it to me right now. Give me a real example of ME using "arrogant assertions that you have the 'right' answer and everyone else is wrong" type statements. Quote any and show me please.
Opinions are neither right or wrong, VERY TRUE. But FACTS, they are right or wrong. There are FACTS being thrown around that are WRONG/UNTRUE/FALSE. Do you understand Hat? Seriously do you? Do you know how to tell the difference of a FALSE statement, a TRUE statement, and an OPINION?
Ninja:
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.
Yes, only in America should it be harder for guns to be obtained by the WHOLE population.
Brick, if you keep just getting angry at people, especially an admin, when they advise you to calm down, you might end up on the fast track to a ban. Just a bit of a warning.
And if you read this quote very carefully, you'll see what Hat means:
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.
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.
SpartanJaz wrote:
Brick, if you keep just getting angry at people, especially an admin, when they advise you to calm down, you might end up on the fast track to a ban. Just a bit of a warning.
And if you read this quote very carefully, you'll see what Hat means:
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.
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.
When was I getting angry at people? Please highlight/quote where I was getting angry, especially at an admin. Show me Jaz.
I said I'm getting an annoyance of FALSE statements and opinions WITHOUT REASONING.
No offense, but you are one of those people that leaves guns in cars...so when stolen, the bad guy does not only have a new car, but a GUN! And that's how many criminals get their hands on guns.
I agree with you on how the thetre massacre could have been EASILY stopped. Everyone now-a-days THINK they need a police man to do the work... I feel bad for you guys when you have a RUDE AWAKENING to real life.
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.
I NEVER SAID OTHERS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST THEIR OWN OPINION.
So you're telling me it's okay for me to say "drinking a liter of vodka daily is very beneficial to your health"?
You said that people shouldn't post spam opinions. You say they shouldn't repeat themselves. And you then repeat yourself.
My gun is in my car because I am at school. Do you want me to bring my gun IN SCHOOL? Because that's stupid.
My car actually has preventative measures to keep people from stealing it. Pretty much every new car does. And many criminals do not get guns by stealing cars. That's actually an unreliable way to get guns. The majority of criminals BUY their guns. Don't just say what comes to your mind, research then post.
Also, you do sound angry because of the caps.
Also, about the theatre. People in Britain will not have a rude awakening like you say, because 1: their legal system is awesome as hell 2: It's really really almost impossible to get a gun in Britain. I don't foresee a rude awakening for them.
Opinions are neither right or wrong, VERY TRUE. But FACTS, they are right or wrong. There are FACTS being thrown around that are WRONG/UNTRUE/FALSE. Do you understand Hat? Seriously do you? Do you know how to tell the difference of a FALSE statement, a TRUE statement, and an OPINION?
This sounds really disrespectful, but ignoring that.
Most, if not all of what you say is opinion. Either that or you just make it up. If you want to say something is fact, cite it. Cite it or stop acting like everything you say comes directly from an encyclopedia.
Edited by Joshkl2013 on 01/07/2013 14:20:30
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...
Brick:
Hat, prove it to me right now. Give me a real example of ME using "arrogant assertions that you have the 'right' answer and everyone else is wrong" type statements. Quote any and show me please.
Here:
Brick:
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.
I used the word arrogant because you're assuming that we are the ones who are wrong and you are unaffected by your country's mindset. And you explicitly said that you were right, implying that we were wrong.
I'm not being rude or disrespectful, I'm just saying what's FACT (what's concrete, not opinion).
Again, I would say that assuming you are in the right when it is a matter of debate is fairly arrogant.
Opinions are neither right or wrong, VERY TRUE. But FACTS, they are right or wrong. There are FACTS being thrown around that are WRONG/UNTRUE/FALSE. Do you understand Hat? Seriously do you? Do you know how to tell the difference of a FALSE statement, a TRUE statement, and an OPINION?
Please find, as you asked of me, these false statements. And then, when you have done that, explain why you couldn't have just picked these statements out and pointed out that they were wrong instead of writing off the argument the way that you did.
And in answer to this:
I NEVER SAID OTHERS DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST THEIR OWN OPINION.
So you're telling me it's okay for me to say "drinking a liter of vodka daily is very beneficial to your health"?
This is what I'm talking about. This is a debate, as I seem to have say constantly. The correct response is not 'well obviously that's bollocks and you're an idiot'; tell them why they're wrong, not just that they're wrong.
Edited by The Hat of Love on 01/07/2013 14:23:29
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
hmm, so hat, you say the risks outweigh the the importence? well, i can't say wiether no gun coontrol, what would happen. that would be wrong. there has to be some control. like a physc check back ground check all that. but to ban all guns would be wrong. because as i said, law abiding citizens who may use these guns, it would make it harder for them. while the people who plan to murder, drung wars, all that, they would still be able to get them. gun control, i can say is needed. its a good thing. but to much of a good thing is bad. absolute banning of guns would not solve problems. it would be so much easier if bullets cost as my professor in this class said, be 1000 dollers per bullet. it would solve many probs. but back to the subject. guns are needed. and gun control is needed as well, for the reasons said. but insted of making it alot of money why not a simple process? did you know that mentally defective people, have gun rights?
with no mental evaluation.that applys for everyone.
just put a mental evaluation in the gun license tests.and a background test
it wouldnt take much. insted of banning the whole concept of guns just try to prevent it. just need mental tests. for gods sake. they dont have those required for getting a gun. and for criminals. you cant do much with them. you cant kill it. so just give everyone a mental test when getting a gun!
Edited by ODST on 01/07/2013 22:01:15
�RG� (Renegade Gamers) Senior Admin [C�R] Veteren
@Jaz, I think you misunderstand the point of the government.
The way I see it, any government has the monopoly on initiating violence. Think about this for a second. What other entity or group of people can initiate violence without any consequence? Only the government. They will throw people in jail, kill foreigner invaders, or even kill their own citizens "for the sake of the law". No other entity, business-related or otherwise, can ever initiate violence. Sure, we can talk about some utopian world where nobody is violent towards anybody else - but you know this will never happen. Violence will always exist, and to promote peace and NON-violence, we should have a way to self-defend. If us peaceful people did not defend ourselves, then who will be left to promote peace, if all the violent maniacs kill everyone?
soulcyon wrote:
@Jaz, I think you misunderstand the point of the government.
The way I see it, any government has the monopoly on initiating violence. Think about this for a second. What other entity or group of people can initiate violence without any consequence? Only the government. They will throw people in jail, kill foreigner invaders, or even kill their own citizens "for the sake of the law". No other entity, business-related or otherwise, can ever initiate violence. Sure, we can talk about some utopian world where nobody is violent towards anybody else - but you know this will never happen. Violence will always exist, and to promote peace and NON-violence, we should have a way to self-defend. If us peaceful people did not defend ourselves, then who will be left to promote peace, if all the violent maniacs kill everyone?
This is pretty much the reason I support guns. Yes they are good for self defense and all that, but Americans have the right to tell their government what is enough.
That said, I understand where all you Europeans are coming from. At youth, Americans are told that it is our right that we can have guns. That kind of skews our thinking. You don't have guns, and as such you are more able to see the issue with an unbiased viewpoint. There are definite pros and cons to both having guns and not having guns.
Pros.
Self defense
Government control (think of the Magna Carta!)
Hunting
Recreation
Badass movies
Cons.
War
Firearm-based suicide
Murder
Human hubris
Mediocre films using gunfights as a cop-out for having a bad movie
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...
Not that this is biased. This is the 'All for raise your hands? And all who hate freedom?' kind of argument; you've phrased it in such a way that people can't disagree with you.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
I won't participate in the debate, but I will post some useful quotes for all of you to think about. Have a good day all.
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President of the United States
"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."
-- Peter Venetoklis
Don't think of it as `gun control', think of it as `victim disarmament'. If we make enough laws, we can all be criminals.
The possession of arms by the people is the ultimate warrant that government governs only with the consent of the governed.
-- Jeff Snyder
As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people.
-- Jeff Snyder
Probably fewer than 2% of handguns and well under 1% of all guns will ever be involved in a violent crime. Thus, the problem of criminal gun violence is concentrated within a very small subset of gun owners, indicating that gun control aimed at the general population faces a serious needle-in-the-haystack problem.
-- Gary Kleck, "Point Blank: Handgun Violence In America"
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here? - Paul Harvey, 1994
Not that this is biased. This is the 'All for raise your hands? And all who hate freedom?' kind of argument; you've phrased it in such a way that people can't disagree with you.
You'd be surprised how many people would rather have laws than freedom. Vouching for increased gun control, or even the "removal of guns", is simply going against freedom. So yes, if you disagree with freedom, then you will agree with the laws enacted in China.
Any takers on "freedom is an illusion"? I'm in the mood for a serious debate :3
Soul, while yes, I am a total supporter in free will and if this was a perfect world, of course I would want there to be no law at all. I believe in the idea that one day people might learn to live peacefully without having to be controlled and watched over by a government or police or any force like that.
But that day is not today and gun control is unfortunately needed. It does prevent death so in my opinion it's a necessary evil.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. A gun does not fire it's self. A person behind the gun fire the bullet.
That's like saying "No knifes, no killing!", knife doesn't kill people. People kill people.
I just proved your quote wrong, without being mean, rude, or disrespectful =)
Have a good day, and hope the new information will help.
A knife is a necessity in modern life since it has other uses than being able to kill people. It is a tool for hunting or whatever you need first and a weapon second, just like a scythe/sickle was before the modern machine-operated harvester was invented. There are weaponised knives. but the majority of knives are used as tools and cutlery.
A gun takes lives and does nothing else. It was invented with one purpose- to take lives. There is nothing else a gun can do. Hell, even dynamite has another use.
The argument "But guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a fallacy. In the majority of cases, a person cannot kill another person on their own. It is very difficult, very very difficult to beat someone to death or strangle them with your bare hands and not have them resist- you need to be significantly bigger and significantly stronger than them, for a start, or have a weapon handy, in which case you're not using your hands and that's assault with a deadly weapon. In short, a person needs a gun in order to kill with a gun. If a person did not have that gun they would be unable to kill someone with a gun.
I would much rather live in a country where there are no guns available, in an "oppressive" country but the police are trusted to do their job than a "free" country where a man has the ability to turn around and shoot me in the face if he so desired.
Edited by Moony on 01/13/2013 18:49:57
Tu fui, ego eris.
Signature: Maribelle, Fire Emblem Awakening
