RE: The issue of firearms

RE: The issue of firearms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:28:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 No it isn't what is morally reprehensible in our culture includes owning guns as it led to high rates of gun crime. So in our society we made it against the law. Our laws govern what we consider morally unacceptable. That makes us no less free. Guns don't lead to anything. Irresponsible people and criminals lead to the high rates of gun crime. That's one thing you have yet to get straight. A gun can do nothing but sit where it is placed. It points at nothing unless directed by a human hand. It does not fire a shot unless a human pulls the trigger. You're banning an inanimate object for the actions of a few people.

kittinSol -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:29:29 PM)
Yeah yeah yeah.

Starbuck09 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:29:51 PM)
We don't ignore it we answe it every time. Your society cannot ensure that criminals don't get access to fully automatic weapons so do you advocate giving every citizen access to these firearms to level the playing field.? As to my earlier question do you hold children killed by criminals partly responsible for their death as they did not defend themselves?

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:30:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yeah yeah yeah. What an intelligent response.

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 We don't ignore it we answe it every time. Your society cannot ensure that criminals don't get access to fully automatic weapons so do you advocate giving every citizen access to these firearms to level the playing field.? I think those who are trained to handle the weapons should be allowed to choose how they defend themselves within reason. quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 As to my earlier question do you hold children killed by criminals partly responsible for their death as they did not defend themselves? Are you implying that every child killed is killed by a gun? Because I would think the stats might disagree with you.

Starbuck09 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:32:17 PM)
You were in the army so don't give me that nonsens Loki. A gun is by an order of magnitude more lethal than other weapons available to criminals. It is exceptionally dangerous. Do you advocate people having access to fighter jets as after all they are only tools. Or flamethrowers after all you could use them to get rid of snow. if every household had one of them what do you think would happen?

kittinSol -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:33:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Yeah yeah yeah. What an intelligent response. Petite réponse stupide à question stupide.

Starbuck09 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:34:46 PM)
I'm not implying that in the slightest i'm asking if you consider those that are killed by guns partially responsible for their demise as they did not defend themselves? The problem with having only those trained to use firearms using them is that your society is flooded with firearms so access to them for irresponsible people is remarkably easy. Therfore a ban would not work. you have to start by stopping manufacture of ammunition and firearms for civilians.

Politesub53 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 I keep repeating it because it bears repeating, especially when I know that every time I say it, it goes right over your heads (so noted because you continue to ignore it). Listen, control is fine. Regulations, steps taken to make sure the 'right people' can attain weapons is fine. An outright ban does only one thing: it ensures that a law-abiding citizen can't get something but a criminal can and will. That is unacceptable. As you cannot assure that a criminal won't get a gun, you cannot and will not take one from me, a law-abiding citizen trained in responsible gun ownership. I don't ever want to 'need' to pull a gun on someone. I hope my gun does nothing in its life but collect dust. But if the day comes when I 'need' to use it, I want that choice. I want the ability to defend myself and my loved ones, period. This isnt about you though, you decided to introduce the UK gun laws into your argument. I have shown your argument to be invalid, setting aside the fact the majority here dont wish to own guns. Those that need them, such as farmers, can obtain them. Lets say half those 42 killed with a gun were murdered, that makes it a ratio of 1 in 3 million, your repeated quote doesnt go over my head, as the figures show its a nonsensical argument.

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:38:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Petite réponse stupide à question stupide. That's what I think when I see all your answers, though of course we disagree about the question. (Of course I think in English, not French.)

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:41:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 You were in the army so don't give me that nonsens Loki. A gun is by an order of magnitude more lethal than other weapons available to criminals. It is exceptionally dangerous. Do you advocate people having access to fighter jets as after all they are only tools. Or flamethrowers after all you could use them to get rid of snow. if every household had one of them what do you think would happen? Nice assumption. I wasn't in the Army though. And a gun is not lethal at all. It allows its weilder to use lethal force. A gun can do nothing but sit there. As the groan Marines say "without me my rifle is nothing." That phrase means exactly what it sounds like. Without the shooter, the gun does nothing but sit there collecting dust. Human action must intervene to make the gun a lethal weapon. Without that intervention, a gun is nothing more than a paperweight.

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:43:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 This isnt about you though, you decided to introduce the UK gun laws into your argument. Wrong. The Brits here arguing for a ban in a country they don't live in are the ones who brought the UK gun laws into the argument by somehow insinuating that what worked in their country would work in ours. I jumped in to point out that isn't the case. You don't govern your country by our beliefs or standards, don't ask us to do the same.

Starbuck09 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:45:41 PM)
Very well you were in the military, branch unspecified you should still have drawn the same lesson. The whole point is that a gun is much much more dangerous than any other weapon. it's no good saying oh well if everyone just left them alone it would be allright. Nuclear weapons are not dangerous unless triggered but i am presuming you would not want every individual in america with detonation codes? Why do you think in modern armies we use battle rifles and not broadswords or craft knives? You were in the military you know this as well as I do. Don't know what happened to the start of that post sorry there.

Starbuck09 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:51:54 PM)
We are talking about the issue of firearms and pointing out that bans work in making gun crime negligible Loki. There is no reason the same could not happen in america if the political will is there.

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 3:59:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Very well you were in the military, branch unspecified you should still have drawn the same lesson. The whole point is that a gun is much much more dangerous than any other weapon. No, as I've said now three times, the whole POINT is that a weapon....ANY weapon is only as dangerous as the one wielding it. If you have an idiot or a psycho wielding a gun, it's dangerous. If you have a responsible, law-abiding gun owner or a member or the military or police wielding it, it is a tool. Can it kill in the hands of a cop or soldier or a responsible gun owner? Of course it can. That is what it is designed to do. But like a sword, simply existing does not make it a bad thing that needs to be eliminated. Even in the middle ages you could have one guy hold a sword that has no clue how to hold it, or you could have a man trained from birth in swordsmanship who can kill very easily with it. Guns are the same way. I could hand a gun to my sister and she couldn't hit the broadside of a barn. A soldier or cop or a range enthusiast could not only hit the barn but could make a smiley face on the side of it out of bullet holes. The point is that banning the tool is not the anwer here. More regulation, more EDUCATION and more training is needed. You don't need to stop making guns to limit criminals' access to them. Law-abiding citizens who know how to secure their weapons and prevent their thefts can do that.

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 4:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 We are talking about the issue of firearms and pointing out that bans work in making gun crime negligible Loki. There is no reason the same could not happen in america if the political will is there. The problem with this statement (as I and many of my countrymen have tried to point out) is that the political will is not here. Our constitution grants us the right to own firearms. Though 'some' here would like that to go away, an equal, if not larger group would not.

Starbuck09 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 4:03:49 PM)
Horsepiss Loki and you know it. like ~I said would you consider giving everyone access to flamethrowers, fighter jets and nuclear weapons as they are simply expensive scenery without the will to use them. No one is suggesting that the guns themselves are somehow evil spirits possessing the minds of men. The point in anyone's hands they are extremely dangerous. Intensive training mitigates and lessens that danger. However in america for various reasons just about anyone can own a firearm and that, I believe is unacceptable as the average civilian is not fit to wield a water pistol in my opinion. For god's sake man how many drive by stonings are there in Compton?

Starbuck09 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 4:05:43 PM)
But that's it Loki if the argument is there will be no change in gun laws because we don't want to then fair enough. It does'nt mean that such laws would'nt work though and in an issue about firearms it is prudent to popint out the benfits of bans to attempt to influence those who just don't want to.

Loki45 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 4:11:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Starbuck09 Horsepiss Loki and you know it. Actually it's not at all. That's the problem with those with you on the side of extreme bans. You know nothing about guns. You fear them and you only see what happens in the papers. My CHL instructor said he knew someone like you who feared guns, didn't like them, thought they were vile 'toys' that should be banned -- that is until he taught the person about the weapon in question. Now that person asks HIM to take them shooting with him. You know nothing about guns because you don't want to know. You're happy they're banned and you don't want to ever touch one. I have had a different educational experience. I grew in a house with half a freakin' arsenal. No one in my house died. No one in my house had guns stolen from them and no one in my house killed anyone accidentally. The existence of the weapon does not mean those bad things will happen. Lack of knowledge in the hands of a gun wielder does. And ummm...last I checked Compton was just one city. Don't believe everything you hear in rap songs, either. There are ordinary citizens in that town that live and work and thrive every day. Those who make the choice to be a criminal or an irresponsible gun owner make that choice for themselves.

Politesub53 -> RE: The issue of firearms (8/17/2009 4:12:13 PM)
My apologies Loki, You are correct that you were no the first to mention the UK laws. You can see where Starbuck and I are comming from though, UK laws work fairly well all things considered. The problem you have with a gun ban in the US, is that people outside of the Cities would always need a gun. This is from protection from both animals and criminals. Im not sure a ban could ever be properly enforced in such a large nation.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875