Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 12:36:09 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subgirlDomguy

YES that's exactly what I'm saying. LIVE BY THE GUN DIE BY THE GUN! And nowhere did you dispute the facts that in civilized countries like England (most of Europe actually) and Japan where almost NO ONE has guns, they also have almost NO gun crimes! duh! NO GUNS = NO GUN CRIMES. LOTS OF GUNS=LOTS OF GUN DEATHS. jeez get a brain.


So it's much better to be like the woman that my friend treated in the ER a month ago who had her face beaten in by an enraged, drunken husband using the claw end of a hammer?  Are you sick in the head or something?  What relevance do "guns" have to do with the brutality of murder?  Why is it better to be killed by anything other than a firearm?

I love the fact that you're claiming to advocate being "civilized," but at the same time you're saying that everyone who lives in a location where guns are legal should be murdered by them.  Yes, my dear, you are a very "peaceful" person ... I can see how civilized you are, and believe me, you speak quite well for the rest of the anti-gun crowd.

The notion that "No Guns = No Gun Crimes" is perfectly acceptable, beyond the fact that that notion only exists in a fantasy land.  If there were no ice cream, the rate of obesity in the western world would drop dramatically ... if there were no cars, the number of children being killed in automobiles would drop.  What the hell is your point?  You're grasping an ignorant concept that is so obvious and yet you're waving it around like you've come to some great revelation that the rest of us were incapable of.  Have a cookie if you'd like, and congratulations on declaring the obvious as the flagship of your argument.

Now tell me what the lack of "gun crimes" has to do with decreasing murder rates.  Personally I'd rather be shot by a gun than cut apart by an axe murderer.

-Sicarius

< Message edited by Sicarius -- 4/30/2007 12:41:16 AM >

(in reply to subgirlDomguy)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 12:37:37 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
In conclusion: With a murder rate as high as in the US, why give people even more means to kill each other?


I'm going to try to word this as politely as possible, but if that argument were admissable, how would you respond to the counterargument: "why does Germany have a standing military given what has transpired twice within the past hundred years?"  The arguments are fundamentally the same.

-Sicarius

< Message edited by Sicarius -- 4/30/2007 12:39:42 AM >

(in reply to kentaro1980)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 12:45:42 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Oh God.

I really believe one of the reasons why people love weapons is that it makes them feel powerful to hold them.  Here's a guy who's getting off just WRITING about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

I own a wide variety of bladed weapons, including a competition-grade katana forged by Dragon Well in Asia.  I have seen the blade slice a stalk of bamboo nearly seven inches thick at a perfect 45 degree angle, and have very little doubt that it would produce much the same result in a human being.

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 12:49:54 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Oh God.

I really believe one of the reasons why people love weapons is that it makes them feel powerful to hold them.  Here's a guy who's getting off just WRITING about it.


Conveying the brutality that the weapon is capable of was intrinsic to the point that I was making.  I was establishing the basis that melee weapons and other forms of violence are no less brutal than firearms.  By substantiating that I know what I am talking about (citing what it is), followed by what I have seen it do, I can paint a vivid image of what it is capable of.

The funny thing is that despite your allegations, I almost never touch that weapon.  I treat each of them reverently because I respect them for what they are capable of.  Outside of training regimens to ensure that I am more capable of wielding them, they are left alone.  If you have trouble understanding that, go ahead and ask.

-Sicarius

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 12:55:43 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, enjoy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

By substantiating that I know what I am talking about (citing what it is), followed by what I have seen it do, I can paint a vivid image of what it is capable of.

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 12:59:36 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Oh God.

I really believe one of the reasons why people love weapons is that it makes them feel powerful to hold them.  Here's a guy who's getting off just WRITING about it.


Conveying the brutality that the weapon is capable of was intrinsic to the point that I was making.  I was establishing the basis that melee weapons and other forms of violence are no less brutal than firearms.  By substantiating that I know what I am talking about (citing what it is), followed by what I have seen it do, I can paint a vivid image of what it is capable of.



In conveying the brutality of that weapon you  came across an awful lot like conveying the sexiness of a particular woman. Certainly my experience in the probation service in London was that weapons appears to have the effect on certain men, particularly young men, to have them permamently on the edge of orgasm.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 12:59:56 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Yeah, enjoy.


I can see that you're prepared to offer a lot to this conversation.  Thank you for your deeply enlightening points -- I truly feel inspired by their relevance to the discussion at hand.  I'm so sorry to see that you've chosen to depart from the conversation rather than to engage someone who has countered your argument, but I suppose that drive-by-trolling tends to be easier than actually representing some semblance of a sophisticated argument.

-Sicarius

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 1:03:39 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
In conveying the brutality of that weapon you  came across an awful lot like conveying the sexiness of a particular woman. Certainly my experience in the probation service in London was that weapons appears to have the effect on certain men, particularly young men, to have them permamently on the edge of orgasm.


I don't know what you've seen, but I've seen my fair share of what weapons of all varieties are capable of.  I know that your bandwagon argument over every single gun thread is this "lead in the pencil" cliche', and you can attempt to falsely categorize me with that crowd if you'd like.

I have seen what weapons are capable of, and I would not wish what I have seen on anyone.  It is because I know what they are capable of that I choose to own them ... so that I may do all I can to ensure that myself, my friends, and my family never fall prey to those who have them and become what I have seen.

If you want to attack me based on the fluidity of my prose, feel free.  I would never glamorize the effects of a weapon on a human being, though, and if you're reading that into the comment I made ... you're vastly missing the point.

-Sicarius

< Message edited by Sicarius -- 4/30/2007 1:04:42 AM >

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 3:47:21 AM   
kentaro1980


Posts: 31
Joined: 12/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

how would you respond to the counterargument:"why does Germany have a standing military given what has transpired twice within the past hundred years?"


That it's not a valid counterargument?

Because Post-war Germany has yet to prove to be unable to solve differences peacefully. Again, I am not saying guns are t3h debil (misspelling intentional), I am saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with a murderrate that is considerably higher than in (western) Europe, Scandinavia and Canada. The whole argument of "i am safer with a gun" becomes a purely subjective feeling when faced with the numbers and has nothing to do with reality.

Because you are comparing an entire country and the right of a sovereign nation with the right of an individual citizen. A right..or rather, a priviledge that has been given to the american citizen when the British Empire was a threat, when the Native Americans were a threat, when bandits and wild animals went rampant in the Wild West, when difference between two people were resolved at high noon on the dusty main street of unnamed towns in aforementioned Wild West.
(that was an exxageration to get my point across) None of these are still a threat. The biggest threat to the average US citizen is another US citizen with a weapon (not necessarily a gun) The biggest threat to a sovereign nation are other sovereign nations and, to an extent, terrorist organizations, drug cartels and the like.

Also, since Germany was on the loosing side of World War 1, naturally, Germany was blamed to start it in the Versailles Treaty, so for all that matters, let's not do the mistake again and solely blame Germany for WW1. There were too many sides involved to say that.

Edit:
I am not a pacifist. I enjoy shooting clay targets and paintballing. I am playing the quite violent Pen & Paper RPG Shadowrun and my favourite games on the computer are strategy and tactical simulations. I believe in military might being a possible solution to a crisis once all other options have failed.
I also believe that, once fully understanding the responsibility of owning a weapon, a ban on weapons is not necessary.
In my opinion the only people that do fully understand the responsibility are those  that  have served in the military or the police.





< Message edited by kentaro1980 -- 4/30/2007 3:59:59 AM >

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 4:14:55 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980

Also, since Germany was on the loosing side of World War 1, naturally, Germany was blamed to start it in the Versailles Treaty, so for all that matters, let's not do the mistake again and solely blame Germany for WW1. There were too many sides involved to say that.



Very true. Blaming Germany for WWI is a case of the victors writing history. Germany only wanted what everyone else wanted and if there had been a proper peace with justice in 1918, there probably wouldn't have been a WWII. Which is why the same victors in 1945 took a different approach post war.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to kentaro1980)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 5:51:29 AM   
nighthawk3569


Posts: 283
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack45

When waiting periods became fashionable there were lives lost, women's lives. I recall several cases one in Wisconsin where a woman had a court order of protection against her ex-husband. One day she went to a gunstore  and selected a self-defense firearm, the clerk told her that she could not take the firearm with her due to a waiting period of 5-days, so the gun stayed in the glass case. That very night her ex broke down her front door as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers, the transcripts were horrifying, she and her daughter were butchered using a bayonet. If she had been able to bring her firearm home with her she may well have been alive today.
IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE: JUST SAY NO TO VICTIM DISARMAMENT.

Fed up with the totalitarians wanting to make YOU  helpless in the face of thugs and crazies?
Gun Owners of America


[/quote]


   Well said, Jack. The 'thugs and crazies' don't undergo background checks, paperwork and waiting periods...why should law-abiding citizens?
   In an aside to this...and for general information to whom it may concern...in the early 40's US citizens were asked to donate any firearm they wanted to...to be shipped to England, to rearm the citizens, in case of an invasion. My grandparents donated a .45-70 rifle(worth a bundle, today)and an old 12ga shotgun. Reckon they've been confiscated and melted down, by now, unless 'rescued' by a criminal, in which case they may be 'alive and well'.
 
                                                                        'hawk

(in reply to Jack45)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 7:09:51 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: nighthawk3569

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jack45

When waiting periods became fashionable there were lives lost, women's lives. I recall several cases one in Wisconsin where a woman had a court order of protection against her ex-husband. One day she went to a gunstore  and selected a self-defense firearm, the clerk told her that she could not take the firearm with her due to a waiting period of 5-days, so the gun stayed in the glass case. That very night her ex broke down her front door as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers, the transcripts were horrifying, she and her daughter were butchered using a bayonet. If she had been able to bring her firearm home with her she may well have been alive today.
IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE: JUST SAY NO TO VICTIM DISARMAMENT.

Fed up with the totalitarians wanting to make YOU  helpless in the face of thugs and crazies?
Gun Owners of America


[/quote]


   Well said, Jack. The 'thugs and crazies' don't undergo background checks, paperwork and waiting periods...why should law-abiding citizens?
   In an aside to this...and for general information to whom it may concern...in the early 40's US citizens were asked to donate any firearm they wanted to...to be shipped to England, to rearm the citizens, in case of an invasion. My grandparents donated a .45-70 rifle(worth a bundle, today)and an old 12ga shotgun. Reckon they've been confiscated and melted down, by now, unless 'rescued' by a criminal, in which case they may be 'alive and well'.
 
                                                                        'hawk


LOL How come pro-gun people always come up with an anecdote of an unverifiable case they remember hearing some years ago where a gun could have saved someone. Everytime I see one of these anecdotes I piss myself with laughter. These stories get more and more like fisherman's tales.

< Message edited by meatcleaver -- 4/30/2007 7:11:19 AM >

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to nighthawk3569)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 9:21:39 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		That's cute--someone with 34 posts is accusing me of drive-by trolling.

People who speak knowledgeably about katanas talk about the balance, the tempering, the details of the jigane; if they really know what they're talking about, they'll discuss the tang and the tsuba.

And then there are people who talk about how a katana can crush someone's skull.

Now good bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sicarius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Yeah, enjoy.


I can see that you're prepared to offer a lot to this conversation.  Thank you for your deeply enlightening points -- I truly feel inspired by their relevance to the discussion at hand.  I'm so sorry to see that you've chosen to depart from the conversation rather than to engage someone who has countered your argument, but I suppose that drive-by-trolling tends to be easier than actually representing some semblance of a sophisticated argument.

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 10:07:04 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
That it's not a valid counterargument?

Because Post-war Germany has yet to prove to be unable to solve differences peacefully. Again, I am not saying guns are t3h debil (misspelling intentional), I am saying that there is something fundamentally wrong with a murderrate that is considerably higher than in (western) Europe, Scandinavia and Canada. The whole argument of "i am safer with a gun" becomes a purely subjective feeling when faced with the numbers and has nothing to do with reality.


Obviously I suspect that that would be your response.  First and foremost, allow me to clarify that while I do believe that it is not a valid "argument," I do believe that it is a valid "counterargument."  Most estimates suggest that there are several hundred million guns in America.  The average estimate is that about half of the households possess firearms.  Every day that goes by becomes a new day in which the vast, vast, vast majority of responsible gun owners in this country commit absolutely no crimes at all.

Now, to further complicate the statistic, you are advocating that because firearms kill approximately 5 out of every hundred thousand people in this country that things are out of control.  I'm not happy with the statistic ... I'm not defending it ... and I have yet to see a scientific explanation of it for a thorough breakdown of what is included within it.  Even if we are to assume that this statistic holds true throughout history, which it does not, that would be an average of about 2,700 deaths per year.  If we take that figure and multiply it by 62 (which is the number of years since the end of WW2), the number would be 167,400.  You seem like an intelligent guy, so I'm not going to waste time explaining why even this figure is grossly over-swollen when taking into account things like population growth.

There are some estimates that suggest that the nation of Germany, even if we completely discount WW1, may be responsible for as many as 55,000,000 deaths as a result of WW2.  Despite this, your nation still maintains an active military to this day.  In the scheme of history and the slowness of nations, 62 years might as well be considered "yesterday."

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
Because you are comparing an entire country and the right of a sovereign nation with the right of an individual citizen. A right..or rather, a priviledge that has been given to the american citizen when the British Empire was a threat, when the Native Americans were a threat, when bandits and wild animals went rampant in the Wild West, when difference between two people were resolved at high noon on the dusty main street of unnamed towns in aforementioned Wild West.


Is it ultimately so different?  A nation maintains an active military to defend itself and to protect its interests from its neighbors and its enemies.  Gun owners in the United States (at least, the vast majority of us as already established in this post) maintain our weapons for the exact same reason.  Furthermore, bearing arms is indeed a right in this country.  It is not a priviledge, and there is nothing ambiguous about the wording of the Second Amendment. 

"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."
 
This right was established because the framers realized that there may again come a time when it would be the responsibility of the free citizens of this country to overthrow a totalitarian government that was no longer representative of the interests of the people.  I'm not talking about Indians or foreign invaders ... I'm talking about putting in an emergency clause in case we, the citizens of America, ever need to destroy our own government and replace it with something more effective.  Given the amount of very harsh criticism that we receive from around the world, I would think that foreigners would be all but cheering us on and hoping this happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
None of these are still a threat. The biggest threat to the average US citizen is another US citizen with a weapon (not necessarily a gun) The biggest threat to a sovereign nation are other sovereign nations and, to an extent, terrorist organizations, drug cartels and the like.


I will agree with you that none of the threats you mentioned are valid any longer, but I do not agree that these threats were the reasons why the Second Amendment was drafted.  The possibility of the corruption of a government is always very real.  It will never go away.  Furthermore, it is not so easy to determine how many guns are used in the prevention of murder, rape and child abuse in this country.  It may even be impossible.  I'm personally not willing to find out given the spike I have seen in the violent crime of other nations immediately following the criminalization of private weapons.

Furthermore, you are stating that because the threat, as you see it, no longer exists that we should abolish our right to bear arms.  I would in turn contrast this with your second point regarding the greatest threat to sovereign nations being terrorist organizations and drug cartels.  Time and time again, modern warfare has taught the nations of the western world that "popular army" mentalities are not going to cut it in a war on terrorism.  The military of the United States is not doing very well in Iraq right now largely as a result of this.  If these threats, which are better rectified by very small numbers of Special Operations troops (such as your exceptionally well-trained GSG-9), then why does the nation of Germany require a solution to a threat that is no longer important?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
Also, since Germany was on the loosing side of World War 1, naturally, Germany was blamed to start it in the Versailles Treaty, so for all that matters, let's not do the mistake again and solely blame Germany for WW1. There were too many sides involved to say that.


I'll grant you that.  The intention of my posts has not been to place blame on anyone but merely to offer demonstrations.  I realize that this is a sensitive topic for your country, and I have no interest in blaming you or them for the past.  Despite the points that I am making, I believe (as I stated above) that these arguments are ridiculous.  I believe that Germany is a wonderful country that has every right to maintain an army with which to defend itself ... I am simply using it as a model to compare and contrast the reasons why I believe that this line of reason and logic can be applied to more than just nations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
I am not a pacifist. I enjoy shooting clay targets and paintballing. I am playing the quite violent Pen & Paper RPG Shadowrun and my favourite games on the computer are strategy and tactical simulations. I believe in military might being a possible solution to a crisis once all other options have failed.


Fair enough.  We have all of those features in common, actually ... save for the fact that I tend to prefer White Wolf games over Shadowrun.  (I still play the former, though.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
I also believe that, once fully understanding the responsibility of owning a weapon, a ban on weapons is not necessary.
In my opinion the only people that do fully understand the responsibility are those that  have served in the military or the police.


I respect your opinion on the matter.  Furthermore, I believe that there are some very strong merits to the basis of what you're saying there.  I do believe that private citizens are capable of reaching the same level of responsibility, however.  Whether or not there should be changes made to ensure that this responsibility is taken into account prior to allowing the private citizens of this country to carry weapons is another argument entirely ... one that I am not nearly as interested in arguing, because I do see some valid points on both sides of the equation.

-Sicarius

(in reply to kentaro1980)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 10:17:52 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
That's cute--someone with 34 posts is accusing me of drive-by trolling.


How asinine is this?  Trolls are people who run around making senseless quick-fire comments to build up their post counts, and you're using the basis of the fact that you have 7,000 posts to defend yourself from my accusation?  You, sir, are indeed "trolling" this forum.  You are offering nothing to the conversation here.  You are firing from the hip and making attacks and accusations, then fading back into the shadows.  That is the very definition of trolling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
People who speak knowledgeably about katanas talk about the balance, the tempering, the details of the jigane; if they really know what they're talking about, they'll discuss the tang and the tsuba.


How very true!  You leave out one small exception, though ... people who speak knowledgeably about katanas only tend to talk about those things amongst other people who are knowledgeable about katanas.  I do not assume that the vast majority of persons participating in a discussion on firearms are intimately familiar with what a "full-tang" blade is or not.  I don't suspect that anyone in this thread has any idea what "Iaido" or "Iaijitsu" are, nor why it would be significant that I pursue them.

I'm not going to try to make a fool of you anymore being that you are stepping up to the plate and engaging, finally.  That stated, I will assume that you are familiar with the basic concepts of argument and rhetoric ... the various aspects of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos within debate.  In order to make a comment stating that melee weapons are capable of just as much brutality as firearms, I must prove to my reader that I know what I am talking about.  This is called appealing to Ethos ... the credibility and reputation of the author.  If I simply hung out in the breeze making undefended and unsubstantiated claims, this would speak poorly of my ability to properly defend my points ... ... ... like some people I know.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
And then there are people who talk about how a katana can crush someone's skull.


And I commented that I have witnessed the weapon in cutting competitions that involve very thick rods of bamboo.  I assume you're trying to interject something here to debase me in the eyes of the other readers of the forum, but I never made any comment remotely reflective of what you're implying here.  If you would like to schedule some sort of formal debate on the subject in the public eye, I'll be happy to discuss it with you, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
Now good bye.


Bye-bye!!

-Sicarius

(in reply to Lordandmaster)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 10:52:50 AM   
SirRober


Posts: 364
Joined: 1/2/2006
Status: offline 		My turn for $.02

I am in favor for a limited type of gun control.

But lets look at a easy carry law.
1. open carry...less people acting the fool and offering more respect.
2. less crime .....  why would a car jacker/burgler ..etc... try that if they had the possiablity  of getting shot.

easy option for gun control.
1 make it impossiable to change out barrels and change the riflings.. along with having a blasticks(SP?)  match to each gun.
still rough but  doing that and letting people have the reasurance that if they report or sale the gun then they are no longer involved with the weapon if it creats a crime

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 11:10:51 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
LOL How come pro-gun people always come up with an anecdote of an unverifiable case they remember hearing some years ago where a gun could have saved someone. Everytime I see one of these anecdotes I piss myself with laughter. These stories get more and more like fisherman's tales.


I understand the point that you're making here, but is it not equally ridiculous to unequivocally declare that it is impossible for firearms to be used to save someone?  You speak about the merit of verifiable evidence, but let's be honest ... how could you accurately measure what he is talking about?  I'm not saying it did or did not happen, nor will I use his model as the basis of an argument, but it is much easier to count the atrocities of guns than any good that might come from them.  Obviously when a gun is used to kill someone, there's some very tell-tale evidence left behind ... a dead body.  If a firearm were genuinely used to prevent a murder, rape, assault, etc. then what would be reported?

I respect your opinion, but I hope that you have more of an open mind on the subject than you seem to be presenting thus far.  I'm staunchly in favor of private gun ownership, but even I concede that the other side of the argument has "some" valid points.  You seem to be militantly entrenched in the belief that firearms are basically "evil" and have absolutely no capacity for good in any way, shape, or form.

-Sicarius

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 11:31:03 AM   
kentaro1980


Posts: 31
Joined: 12/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

you are advocating that because firearms kill approximately 5 out of every hundred thousand people in this country that things are out of control.

Your math is wrong at some point ;-) 5 murders per 100k citizens is roughly 14k murders per year and multiplied by 62 years about 700,000 murders (something like that. CBA to use a calculator)
Also the rearmament of Germany has been an initiative by the Allied Powers (USA, Britain, Canada and France who was the only country that had objections).
The rearmament was NOT initiated by Germany and for the past 62 years Germany has not engaged in any war bar it's Nato and UN responsibilities.
I am advocating that 5.5 murders per 100k citizens is considerably higher than the average in other civilized and industrialized countries (the former "1st world) and that something needs to be done...until that "something" is done, there should be a restriction in the guns already circulating to take the tools away from those criminals.
I tried to clarify that these 5.5 murders are done with weapons, not necessarily handguns, and that the problem is not only the abundance of firearms but deeper rooted. However i lack the insight as to pinpoint the problem(s)

quote:

There are some estimates that suggest that the nation of Germany, even if we completely discount WW1, may be responsible for as many as 55,000,000 deaths as a result of WW2.

Yes. My Grandfather, born 1936, was 9 years old by the time WW2 ended. he is now a 71 year old man and from his graduating class of 35 some people there are 3 people still alive. I really honestly truly believe it's time to put this "guilt" issue at rest. the people that were responsible for it are either convicted and/or dead. And others..(like me) were born 35 years after the war was over. I don't really see why i should be held responsible for anything ;) And no, WW1 is not a sensitive topic, not for me, nor for Germany as a whole, as history has been corrected...WW2 is a totally different subject and I for one am sick and tired of being held responsible for it in any way or form just because i happened to be born here. (Not directed at you at all btw)

quote:

then why does the nation of Germany require a solution to a threat that is no longer important?

The german Army has been reduced from 370,000 enlisted total down to about 200,000 or so and is changing it's mission profile. the biggest cut downs have been in tank and artillery batallions to "streamline" the army.

Furthermore..if 62 years are "yesterday" then the writing of the Constitution of the US was pretty much "3 days" ago. What's your point?

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 11:49:44 AM   
Sicarius


Posts: 180
Joined: 2/26/2007
From: New Orleans
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
Your math is wrong at some point ;-) 5 murders per 100k citizens is roughly 14k murders per year and multiplied by 62 years about 700,000 murders (something like that. CBA to use a calculator)


Yes, that is correct.  Idly forgot to factor in the x5 multiplier again.  Regardless, there have not been 14,000 murders committed with handguns every year in the United States for the past 62 years.  We could go with any figure, really, but that's not going to undermine the ratio of even 1,000,000 : 55,000,000.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
Also the rearmament of Germany has been an initiative by the Allied Powers (USA, Britain, Canada and France who was the only country that had objections).


If it is the duty of "responsible" gun owners to lay down our arms and render ourselves defenseless due to the actions of others, certainly it is the responsibility of a nation to do the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
The rearmament was NOT initiated by Germany and for the past 62 years Germany has not engaged in any war bar it's Nato and UN responsibilities.


I maintain the position that in the scheme of history and utilizing nations as a model comparable to individuals, 62 years might as well be considered "yesterday."

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
I am advocating that 5.5 murders per 100k citizens is considerably higher than the average in other civilized and industrialized countries (the former "1st world) and that something needs to be done...until that "something" is done, there should be a restriction in the guns already circulating to take the tools away from those criminals.


It's tragic.  I won't argue that for even a moment ... but I don't see any practical suggestions being offered.  The only suggestion being made is disarming and rendering myself, my family, and my friends completely helpless in a society that by your own admission suffers from violent trends.  For any person with a survival instinct, that doesn't seem very pragmatic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
I tried to clarify that these 5.5 murders are done with weapons, not necessarily handguns, and that the problem is not only the abundance of firearms but deeper rooted. However i lack the insight as to pinpoint the problem(s)


I believe that it is a cultural deficiency, to be honest with you.  I do not believe that getting rid of firearms will rectify this problem at all, and I believe that there are very strong reasons to believe that it may make the problem even worse.  You have clearly pointed out that the rate of violence in this country is higher than in others, yet you presume that your solutions across the pond will work when we are facing different problems here?  I'm not sure I follow the rationale there.  Furthermore, if we are genuinely a more violent culture ... how do you think you are going to convince me to lay down my weapons first, when I know that the criminals will not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
Yes. My Grandfather, born 1936, was 9 years old by the time WW2 ended. he is now a 71 year old man and from his graduating class of 35 some people there are 3 people still alive. I really honestly truly believe it's time to put this "guilt" issue at rest. the people that were responsible for it are either convicted and/or dead. And others..(like me) were born 35 years after the war was over. I don't really see why i should be held responsible for anything ;) And no, WW1 is not a sensitive topic, not for me, nor for Germany as a whole, as history has been corrected...WW2 is a totally different subject and I for one am sick and tired of being held responsible for it in any way or form just because i happened to be born here. (Not directed at you at all btw)


I completely respect that position.  I didn't mean that WW1 was a sensitive topic for you or your country ... I meant WW1 and WW2 as a whole, actually.  As I did point out in my previous post, I don't blame you or the citizens of your country for what happened.  I believe that the vast, vast majority of the German people during WW2 were manipulated by a very small minority of evil people.  Again, I reiterate ... this entire line of argument is simply being utilized to juxtapose the notion of "the sins of others" effecting the ability of one to defend oneself from harm.

I would also point out that the same line of reasoning could again be inverted.  I realize that there are irrational people out there who would label you as a Nazi just because you were born in Germany.  I realize that there are many people in the world who still hate your country because of what other people did.  As a private gun owner, I am constantly mocked and insulted.  I am told that I need to feel "macho" and have "lead in my pencil."  I am told that I should not be allowed permission to defend myself.  I am treated with suspicion, as though I were a criminal when I have committed no crimes.  Both lines of reasoning are equally unjustified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
The german Army has been reduced from 370,000 enlisted total down to about 200,000 or so and is changing it's mission profile. the biggest cut downs have been in tank and artillery batallions to "streamline" the army.


Even that is enormous, compared to Special Operations teams.  If you're suggesting that your country is impotent as a military power in the world ... well, I think you're underselling yourself.  I have quite a lot of respect for your country's military capabilities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kentaro1980
Furthermore..if 62 years are "yesterday" then the writing of the Constitution of the US was pretty much "3 days" ago. What's your point?


One applied to nations and one applied to the rights of individuals.  I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here ... if you're attempting to in some way cite the irrelevance of the Second Amendment, I'm not following the train of logic that you're establishing.  The reason that I pointed out that in the scheme of history, 62 years might as well be considered "yesterday," is that it is important to establish that a nation's good behavior is not weighed on the same time scale as an individual's.  If you want to come up with a ratio for the number of guns that exist in America that do not harm anyone, and the number of gun owners that do not harm anyone on any given day compared to the number that do/are, you're going to be dealing with some insurmountable figures.  The reason I made this point is because I felt you might point out that "there was a mass killing on April 16th."  Individuals move much, much faster than governments, though ... it's a completely different timetable.  Policies, swaying public opinion ... this all takes years or decades, compared to individuals who make up their minds in seconds.

-Sicarius

< Message edited by Sicarius -- 4/30/2007 12:13:34 PM >

(in reply to kentaro1980)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? - 4/30/2007 1:02:39 PM   
caitlyn


Posts: 3473
Joined: 12/22/2004
Status: offline 		General Response ...
 
I have a wonderful plan to get the United States in line with gun control nations.
  • The government needs to first collect the tens of millions of firearms, that criminals currently have.
  • The government needs to hire something like 2 million more police officers so response times in rural areas will be better.
  • The government needs to hire about a million more border control agents, so nobody can sneak guns in, or sneak kidnapped future sex slaves out.
  • The government needs to firgure out what to do, when you live outside Hempstead Texas, and wolves are eating your chickens.

They can count on my vote, once that's accomplished.

(in reply to Sicarius)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125