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.
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.
It's called prison
I would think a world where you can trust most people not to have guns is less of a prison than one where you have to watch every single person's movements carefully out of paranoia that they would shoot you.
You're afraid of "corrupt government", correct? What about if the scale tips to the opposite end? "corrupt citizenry", as it were?
What would happen if a majority of the gun owners went on an anarchic rampage? Who would save the population who make up the unarmed citizenry? If they ally with the citizens, they'll be shot and killed by the army. If they ally with the government, they'd be shot at by the rebels. Is it their fault they don't want to bear arms? Why are they dragged into a war between their countrymen and their own government? Where can they go to get to safety?
I'm also assuming by "gun control" you think we mean "omg ban teh gunz deyr ebil deyr gunna tri 2 taek awai R gunzZ!!111"?
We don't. We want a tighter control on the ease of obtaining a gun. You can buy assault rifles- fucking assault rifles, which have no practical use outside of WARFARE- in supermarkets in America, for Christ's sake. Don't you think that's a problem? Enough firepower as long as you have the cash?
Your federal law states, from my research; that 18 year olds are able to own long rifles and shotguns. Why? What use is militarising a teenager? How are teenagers qualified to own something that has the potential to take other people's lives?
Tu fui, ego eris.
Signature: Maribelle, Fire Emblem Awakening
Moony, I'd like to reply to you with my own opinion on the subject.
As I've hinted at in some of my other posts, most anarchists (myself included) are not idealistic enough to believe that the world would actually run smoothly without some sort of governing force. Here is the basis of anarchy that is used.
From Wikipedia
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral, or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.
Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.
I'm in the middle on collectivism and individualism but the purpose of me showing you this is that government would still exist, even in an anarchical state. Anarchists don't want chaos. They want a government that isn't corrupt.
To explain Assault Rifles
People in America tend to feel strongly about individual rights. Most people aren't educated enough to know why they have been taught to feel this way, unfortunately. The purpose of Assault Rifle ownership is not hunting, I agree. The purpose is defense against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution (which I won't repost) states that we have weapons in order to protect ourselves from tyranny. Not from deer or from lions. We the people (according to our constitution) must be ready to fight for our rights as our forbears did.
That being said I agree with Gun Control to some extent. I do believe that the process to get weapons should be stricter, and I also feel it should be uniform across the board. Allow me give you some examples.
I can walk into Walmart, submit to a background check, and buy a gun. Pretty much anyone can when they turn 18 as they don't have a record yet, even if they will in the future.
Kentucky accepts all CCPWs (Concealed Carry Weapon Permits) from other states, but Calif doesn't take the concealed carry from other states at all. To get a CCWP in KY it is extremely simple. You must be 21 without a record, and you have to take a single class on gun safety. To get one in Michigan, you have to have a license just to own a gun, and you have to take a ton of classes and tests to get that. You can get your CCWP after that easily though.
Most states only accept and recognize CCWPs from states who's laws are stricter than theirs (except a few like KY where it is easy to get a gun and everything, they accept everyone). Some don't even recognize those from other states.
Sorry for that long boring synopsis, but my point is that in the US it is difficult to travel across states (legally) with a gun. If they made the laws all equally strict so someone's license is legal everywhere else, it would prove that the license holders really ARE responsible with guns.
*Edit* Guns are primarily for defense against tyranny (in America). It even states that in the Constitution. Sorry for those who feel that the constitution states something to the contrary (like primarily for hunting).
As summary Kant named these four kinds of government:
Law And Freedom without Violence (Anarchy)
Law And Violence without Freedom (Despotism)
Violence without Freedom And Law (Barbarism)
Violence with Freedom And Law (Republic)
Edited by Joshkl2013 on 01/14/2013 01:22:14
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...
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.
Guns were made for hunting and to protect our human rights.
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.
So your telling me if there is no guns, the big guys won't pick on the small guys?
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.
I would think a world where you can trust most people not to have guns is less of a prison than one where you have to watch every single person's movements carefully out of paranoia that they would shoot you.
You're afraid of "corrupt government", correct? What about if the scale tips to the opposite end? "corrupt citizenry", as it were?
Would you live in the country where guns are freely available, but everyone is so educated that it will be second nature not to commit any crime, and also live with pure freedom?
It is possible. So so possible. Let me know if you want the details.
What would happen if a majority of the gun owners went on an anarchic rampage? Who would save the population who make up the unarmed citizenry? If they ally with the citizens, they'll be shot and killed by the army. If they ally with the government, they'd be shot at by the rebels. Is it their fault they don't want to bear arms? Why are they dragged into a war between their countrymen and their own government? Where can they go to get to safety?
This is very absurd. There is no way all these people would go on rampage, especially on how each gun owner is a different human being with different thinking to happen all at once.
UNLESS we, the citizens, have to attack our own government. Which is why we Americans have the Right To Bear Arms, just in case the government oppresses us too much.
That's 100% proof why we needs guns.
It's either freedom or no freedom, you pick.
Here's a hint: No guns = no freedom.
Your federal law states, from my research; that 18 year olds are able to own long rifles and shotguns. Why? What use is militarising a teenager? How are teenagers qualified to own something that has the potential to take other people's lives?
Teenagers already have the right to reproduce and create life. In society that doesn't look right, because we are raised to think to wait to be financially stable, which in today's society takes a while or a lot of effort. (Of coarse I mean all of these if the teenage couple have real love between them)
This is very absurd. There is no way all these people would go on rampage, especially on how each gun owner is a different human being with different thinking to happen all at once.
UNLESS we, the citizens, have to attack our own government. Which is why we Americans have the Right To Bear Arms, just in case the government oppresses us too much.
That's 100% proof why we needs guns.
It's either freedom or no freedom, you pick.
Here's a hint: No guns = no freedom.
You'd be surprised at the amazing potential of both human stampeding and the mob mentality.
From http://businesset...3-Aug2011/
It highlights a behaviour that is becoming frighteningly prevalent in our everyday life – ‘herd behavior’ - how individuals in a group can act together without planned direction. The rioters in the UK displayed this behaviour but it’s not a leap to think of how banks and property developers acted here in Ireland in the recent past. ‘Herd mentality’ describes how people are influenced by their peers to adopt certain behaviours. When either continues, unchecked, the outcome can be both drastic and tragic.
People are not in total control of themselves during mob mentality. It leads to death, and it actually is possible that a small number of people can entice the majority into rioting with them. (Most anarchists wouldn't do this though)
Also, keep in mind that an opinion is never 100% proof, and that while Britain doesn't have free guns, their people tend to be free enough.
Edited by Joshkl2013 on 01/14/2013 01:20:27
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...
Here's a quote from an official on the Connecticut shooting, "The only way to stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns." These may not be the exact words, but you get the point.
What kind of order are they hoping to achieve by arming every Tom, Dick and Harry to the teeth with military-grade firearms? I don't believe that countering violence with violence is a good way to prevent future crimes.
Here's another thing they were planning on implementing. Some were suggesting to have armed guards patrolling school hallways to supposedly discourage an attack. But guess who these guards are. Government-employed swat members? No, parent volunteers for crying out loud. I don't know about you guys, but I know a few of my friends parents who I wouldn't ever think to trust with a gun. Some redneck dad sees his kid getting bullied, and who knows what could happen.
The general public is too unpredictable to be in charge of something as touchy as turning an elementary school into a militia, for lack of a better word. My point is, under any law where the public is allowed such easy access to weapons, there will be accidents.
Sorry if that was a bit off-topic, but I wanted to put my thoughts down on the matter, and this seemed like the place to do it.
Edited by theatticus on 01/14/2013 01:59:35
Never judge a book by its movie.
lol i have owned gun since i was 13 lol, a 30-06 rifle. i use it only for hunting, we have around 30 guns in my house all used for hunting, thats how we get our meat we live on, if everyone was able to have a concealed weapon the crim rate in the country would be close to nothing. because all the criminals wouldnt know who was carrying a weapon nd who wasnt, if we take all the guns awat from people the criminals will still be able to get them on the black market nd all the regular people would be killed because they cant defend themselves lol, thats what i think
PirateKing wrote:
lol i have owned gun since i was 13 lol, a 30-06 rifle. i use it only for hunting, we have around 30 guns in my house all used for hunting, thats how we get our meat we live on, if everyone was able to have a concealed weapon the crim rate in the country would be close to nothing. because all the criminals wouldnt know who was carrying a weapon nd who wasnt, if we take all the guns awat from people the criminals will still be able to get them on the black market nd all the regular people would be killed because they cant defend themselves lol, thats what i think
ZA BrickSquad wrote: Guns were made for hunting and to protect our human rights.
And what does hunting do again? Oh yeah, it takes lives. Just because it's an animal that's murdered doesn't make it any different: A life is a life. So you agree with me on this point. Legislation also protects our human rights, but it doesn't kill people.
So your telling me if there is no guns, the big guys won't pick on the small guys?
What reason would there be for it? Also, "big guys"? We're not peasants being oppressed by the local monarchy.
Would you live in the country where guns are freely available, but everyone is so educated that it will be second nature not to commit any crime, and also live with pure freedom?
It is possible. So so possible. Let me know if you want the details.
Where is this country? It's certainly not America, because the current education is obviously insufficient to stop people shooting each other.
Again, You seem to be of the wrong impression. I DON'T WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS.
I want education and/or a qualification proving that people are qualified to own something that has the potential to erase someone from existence for whatever reason they want. I don't want people who are still foundering in education to be able to kill people if they desired.
This is very absurd. There is no way all these people would go on rampage, especially on how each gun owner is a different human being with different thinking to happen all at once.
UNLESS we, the citizens, have to attack our own government. Which is why we Americans have the Right To Bear Arms, just in case the government oppresses us too much.
That's 100% proof why we needs guns.
It's either freedom or no freedom, you pick.
Here's a hint: No guns = no freedom.
It's no less absurd than your theory that "The government will rise up, enslave our daughters into prostitution, put our sons to work mining coal, and when we die, broken after fifty years of slavery, they'll grind us up to make their bread"
A government is not a dictatorship. There are many cogs in the clock that makes up a government, and it is difficult for them all to be corrupt as opposed to the machinations of one person who decides everything. The effect of a single corrupt person in a government is mitigated by everyone else around him; whereas a dictatorship is corrupt to the core.
Like I said, freedom with guns is a paradox, because it's impossible to be free in a society where anyone could gun you down whenever they decide to. You're living in the times of the wild west, practically the dinosaur ages compared to modern humanity.
And even then, like I said, I'd rather be oppressed than have to suffer a freedom with widespread gun ownership. especially when people show they obviously cannot be trusted. The stats I posted show that well; especially in a country with such a high suicide rate and that claims to be "73% Christian"
Teenagers already have the right to reproduce and create life. In society that doesn't look right, because we are raised to think to wait to be financially stable, which in today's society takes a while or a lot of effort. (Of coarse I mean all of these if the teenage couple have real love between them)
Which is exactly why it is sensible to wait until you are financially stable before attempting to raise a family- it's called common sense and decency. Why would you willingly bring a child up into poverty? "Loving" your child isn't enough in this day and age. A child costs money, and you need to be able to provide for it's every need, and there are countless selfish people who can't wait for sex or at the least use contraception who think otherwise and bring new children up.
Tu fui, ego eris.
Signature: Maribelle, Fire Emblem Awakening
And what does hunting do again? Oh yeah, it takes lives. Just because it's an animal that's murdered doesn't make it any different: A life is a life. So you agree with me on this point. Legislation also protects our human rights, but it doesn't kill people.
It takes lives of an animal, not human. God gave us plants and animals to use, and not to abuse. A human life is not equal to an animal life, because if it is, that means there is nothing wrong hunting humans.
Legislation does not protect our human rights 100% of the time or forever either. That's why we need guns, just in case worst scenario happens, which could lead to a point of no return in full government control.
I just proved you wrong, no offense, but I'm trying to open your eyes and see what's real. I'm trying to help you.
What reason would there be for it? Also, "big guys"? We're not peasants being oppressed by the local monarchy.
Bigger animals always likes to pick and/or control the weaker. Happens in most species, humans too. It's human nature to overtake the weaker or help. We are not peasants being oppressed by a local monarchy, but we will be humans being oppressed but a super strong government, and there is no point of return.
I DON'T WANT TO BAN ALL GUNS.
I know, you want to ban MOST GUNS, especially from the good citizens from a country.
It's no less absurd than your theory that "The government will rise up, enslave our daughters into prostitution, put our sons to work mining coal, and when we die, broken after fifty years of slavery, they'll grind us up to make their bread"
A government is not a dictatorship. There are many cogs in the clock that makes up a government, and it is difficult for them all to be corrupt as opposed to the machinations of one person who decides everything. The effect of a single corrupt person in a government is mitigated by everyone else around him; whereas a dictatorship is corrupt to the core.
It is not a theory. It is a real possibility.
I never said a government is dictatorship. There are many types of government. But what I'm trying to say that it is possible where the most powerful people in a government are corrupt, anything can happen.
Which is exactly why it is sensible to wait until you are financially stable before attempting to raise a family- it's called common sense and decency. Why would you willingly bring a child up into poverty? "Loving" your child isn't enough in this day and age. A child costs money, and you need to be able to provide for it's every need, and there are countless selfish people who can't wait for sex or at the least use contraception who think otherwise and bring new children up.
You can have your own land without ever needing money to raise a child. What happen if the only way to get out of poverty is having children? So the poor hungry Africans are stupid (not common sense) and indecent????
Now you are being VERY RUDE saying it's common sense and decency.
PirateKing:
PirateKing wrote:
lol i have owned gun since i was 13 lol, a 30-06 rifle. i use it only for hunting, we have around 30 guns in my house all used for hunting, thats how we get our meat we live on, if everyone was able to have a concealed weapon the crim rate in the country would be close to nothing. because all the criminals wouldnt know who was carrying a weapon nd who wasnt, if we take all the guns awat from people the criminals will still be able to get them on the black market nd all the regular people would be killed because they cant defend themselves lol, thats what i think
Amen! Lol =D
Drk:
Drkinferno wrote:
Let's invade Mexico, so we can distract oursleves from this issue. Besides they have oil
For some reason...I kinda agree with you...
But we can peacefully ask for the whole country of Mexico? Why not, give it a shot lol ;P
Not sure if this debate was locked for being too volatile or just going off track but I was recently in a debate on this very subject and as someone who hops both sides of the political fence I ran into a comment I at first thought was a solid argument in that republicans pointed out well if you make gun laws stricter or take them away nearly completely then only criminals have guns.
Yes that was a run on sentence with no punctuation get over it.
Anyway seeing this argument prompted me to think where the criminals get their guns in the first place but more specifically where the illegal suppliers get their guns. The results surprised me.
It turns out that nearly all illegal gun suppliers get their guns in a legal manner. e.g. a statistic on one source showed that in a study of 3,000 legal gun salesmen each had an average of 7 guns go "missing" each year in a suspicious manner
aka illegal sales.
It made me think that in fact if guns were theoretically banned or highly controlled that it would in fact lessen the amount of guns that criminals had as well simply because they have less people who have the availability to sell them
another interesting sale fact is that at gun conventions criminals often obtain guns because there are many stands that even advertise that no background check is needed just thought these facts would provoke a good argument.
If prompted to I will dig up the sources to these facts again I would already but as they are not currently opened on my browser I am simply too lazy
When i read all in here it seems an endless discussion, i see members against weapons and the opposite, i see respectfull reactions but also disrespectfull reactions as if you are not allowed to have a different oppinion, even in here ;-(
luckely i live in a country where weapons are forbidden (for citizens), our army ofcourse but also the police wears a weapon.
ofcourse there are illegal weapons in our country, criminals the most but they use them mostly to kill another criminal so i dont mind them doing that ;-)
they are also used to rob (best way to see that is to see the tape, in the netherlands we have i guess 1 camera for each 3 inhabitants, for protection they say ;( )
hunting is also forbidden here for citizens, only special licences are given to special hunters with rifles during a pointed seasson
its all regulated
The US is the only country in the whole world where citizens want the right to wear a weapon to protect themself, against themself? against their own fellow citizens?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Study the science of art;
Study the art of science.
Learn how to see.
Realize that everything
connects to everything else.
I think: the problem might be seen as guncontrol but i think the problem is the US weapon industry, their lobby is sooooo strong , they pay millions each year to your politicians and every year it goes on and on, guncontrol is just the result of it all( in the US the next 1000 years there will not be guncontrol, there are so many weapons given to the inhabitants, the only way to get rid of them to make sure there wont be any amo available and the guns itself become to old to function anymore and that takes time ;-))
what the US spends on weaponry each year is terrible
when they would use 1 year of that budget for the rest of the world profit there would be food for everyone, education for everyone etcetc
billions and billions, its realy a crazy amount of money (fictive money because when its all spent the US just prints more money and there we go again .......)
we would be far beyond mars with a working spaceprogram when we would use that money for things like that but unfortunately we are humans ;-(
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Study the science of art;
Study the art of science.
Learn how to see.
Realize that everything
connects to everything else.
