1
   

HAVE U LESS RIGHT TO DEFEND YOUR LIFE IF U R STUDYING ?

 
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 10:51 am
CZJAY wrote:
i wished that you would have answered my hypothetical question.


I must have missed it. You write in a very incoherent way, and I'd have to put a lot of effort in if I wanted to understand everything you said. Try writing in proper sentences and paragraphs, like in a book or an essay. Then I'll make the effort to respond.

Quote:
feel free to change
type of people
total strangers
enemies/ people you dont like
people you care about

or how you obtain the gun
from the holster of a fallen police officer
from a fallen permit holder
from your own holster.
from a struggle with cho


I can't make any sense of this. Until you can learn to write, I give up on this debate.
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Aug, 2007 11:40 am
here is my hypothetical situation.

you are in a classroom full of your friends, family, significant other.
cho walks in and open fires on everything. everybody hits the deck.
some take cover behind a desk, others get shot and fall to the ground lifeless. your professor screams for help, your eyes look towards the door. hoping for help to come through, maybe for a chance to escape.
you see your friends and family bleeding. a couple of your friends are dead. this must be a dream, no gun law would allow this to happen. time to wake up. cho shoots you, in the arm. blood pours out and you feel such intense pain that you fell to your knees. cho is about to shoot you again. time freezes. you look down at your bloody arm and then to your other hand. a gun appears in your hand. in that single moment in time, all you had to do was disengage the safety. would you slay cho to save yourself and the rest of your family and friends?


feel free to switch these objects around to see if your actions change.
type of people
total strangers
enemies/ people you dont like
people you care about

or how you obtain the gun
from the holster of a fallen police officer
from a fallen permit holder
from your own holster.
from a struggle with cho you grab one out of two guns.


i neglected to mention that my hypothetic situation was from another post.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 12:22 am
I 'd open up on Cho as fast as I possibly cud.
Put a few warning shots of .44 special hollowpointed slugs
into his intestines, to slow him down,
then go for his head.
David
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 02:41 pm
CZJAY wrote:
here is my hypothetical situation.

you are in a classroom full of your friends, family, significant other.
cho walks in and open fires on everything. everybody hits the deck.
some take cover behind a desk, others get shot and fall to the ground lifeless. your professor screams for help, your eyes look towards the door. hoping for help to come through, maybe for a chance to escape.
you see your friends and family bleeding. a couple of your friends are dead. this must be a dream, no gun law would allow this to happen. time to wake up. cho shoots you, in the arm. blood pours out and you feel such intense pain that you fell to your knees. cho is about to shoot you again. time freezes. you look down at your bloody arm and then to your other hand. a gun appears in your hand. in that single moment in time, all you had to do was disengage the safety. would you slay cho to save yourself and the rest of your family and friends?


feel free to switch these objects around to see if your actions change.
type of people
total strangers
enemies/ people you dont like
people you care about

or how you obtain the gun
from the holster of a fallen police officer
from a fallen permit holder
from your own holster.
from a struggle with cho you grab one out of two guns.


i neglected to mention that my hypothetic situation was from another post.


Could you explain what this has to do with our debate?

If my answer is, "I would kill Cho", so what? What implications does this have?

And what if I say, "I would not kill Cho"?
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 09:09 pm
agrote
my point is that if you did kill cho with a gun.

it does not matter how you got the gun. the gun is what you "needed" in that moment in time to confront cho and to prevent cho from killing others.

it should not have mattered if it was your friends or enemies, who were getting killed. you would have still killed cho regardless of the situation, "if" you could obtain the gun.

what you proposed was that using legislation you could get rid of all the registered guns. that would have removed two options in the hypothesis, you carrying a gun or a fellow student or professor carrying one.

va tech removed the third option of having localized armed security.

this leaves you only one option with dealing the armed threat, police arrival.

in my experience, police intervention is the slowest of the options for subduing an armed threat. while the armed citizen is usually the fastest.

my point is that i dont think legislation would have helped the students in any way. i believe it hurt their ability to survive an armed threat.

if you wouldn't use the gun i applaud you. passivism is a hard thing thing to pursue, and if you truly believe in it, you are morally better than i am.

i would have killed cho without much thought.
i would have killed him with my own gun.
it would not have mattered who was in the room, or if i was by myself.

i dont care about the possibility of being shot by police or security.
once i engage an armed threat i am living on borrowed time as it is.

if i am not able to subdue him, at least i was able to forcefully resist.
i would give the students necessary time barricade the classroom.
cho would not be making a return visit into my classroom.

my entire point of this hypothesis was that in order to subdue an armed
threat you must be armed.

banning guns on campus did not help the students in anyway. not providing localized security surely did not help either.

i think that poviding for your own security is a good idea. prove to the goverment that you have recieved training, are mentally stable and have done nothing wrong. get a concealed carry permit, protect yourself it is your responsibility, the va tech massacre proves that schools will not take responsibility for your safety.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 05:02 pm
CZJAY wrote:
what you proposed was that using legislation you could get rid of all the registered guns. that would have removed two options in the hypothesis, you carrying a gun or a fellow student or professor carrying one.

va tech removed the third option of having localized armed security.

this leaves you only one option with dealing the armed threat, police arrival.


Hang on a minute. You're forgetting to remove Cho's gun. No arms means no armed threat. I don't need a gun to shoot Cho because Cho was never able to buy his own gun in the first place.

Quote:
my point is that i dont think legislation would have helped the students in any way. i believe it hurt their ability to survive an armed threat.


Legislation could have prevented the armed threat, and eliminated the need for students to be equipped to survive an armed threat.

Quote:
my entire point of this hypothesis was that in order to subdue an armed
threat you must be armed.


I'm not denying this. My point is that it's better to prevent an armed threat from occuring at all than it is to subdue it after it happens. The best way to prevent armed threats is to prevent arms. No guns, no gun violence.

Guns can help you survive armed threats (by posing your own armed threat), but strict gun laws can prevent armed threats from occuring in the first place.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 05:09 pm
Quote:
Guns can help you survive armed threats (by posing your own armed threat), but strict gun laws can prevent armed threats from occuring in the first place.


That's certainly reflected in the international scene, where generally, countries with less guns has have less gun murders.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2007 07:21 pm
Everyone has an absolute right to arm
in his own defense, to give him the best possible opportunity
to survive the depredations of man or beast.
David
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 01:26 am
Quote:
Everyone has an absolute right to arm
in his own defense, to give him the best possible opportunity
to survive the depredations of man or beast.


The differing views are obviously one of :

What is best for society Vs What is best for the individual
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 01:41 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Everyone has an absolute right to arm
in his own defense, to give him the best possible opportunity
to survive the depredations of man or beast.
David


You don't need a gun to survive the depredatioins of man or best.

A gun is useful for surviving the depredations of pistol or shotgun, but if you take away pistols and shotguns then there's no need to survive such depredations.

By giving themselves the "right to bear arms", Americans have created a need for themselves. Many people choose to exercise that right, so many people are armed with guns. The high demand for guns means there are many gun shops, making it ever more easy to purchase a gun. And the high availability of guns means that there is more opportunity for people, who do not qualify legally to own a gun, to purchase one illegally. Everybody else has a gun, so you need one too.

The right to bear arms has led to a need to bear arms. Depending on where you live, it's can be actually quite sensible to have your own gun in America. It's no longer a 'right' or a privilege; it's necessary for your own safety from other people with guns. And so many Americans seem happy with this increadibly dangerous and violent culture. The NRA actually encourage it. But they forget that every time somebody goes out and buys their first gun, one more potential 'gunman' has been created, and the need to protect oneself from armed threats has increased slightly.

It's a vicious cycle

Americans have have a right to bear arms, so they buy guns.
/\ |
| |
| |
| \/
More Americans are armed with guns, and so there are more potential 'armed threats' from which Americans need to be protected.

The result is an extremely violent culture with high murder rate. And the cure is to break the cycle. Forget about the right to bear arms... what about the right to live in a peaceful society where people aren't constantly in danger of being shot?

Am I getting through to you?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:35 am
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
Everyone has an absolute right to arm
in his own defense, to give him the best possible opportunity
to survive the depredations of man or beast.


The differing views are obviously one of :

What is best for society Vs What is best for the individual

YES,
and in that case ( survival ) the individual must SUBORDINATE
what is best for society to his own best interests.

If he does NOT, he thereby conclusively proves that he is too stupid
to survive and society is better off with his absence,
hopefully b4 he has had time to genetically reproduce his stupidity.
David


P.S.
I do not mean to imply
that I have conceded your estimate qua public safety.
I do not.
In America, crime has declined,
as we rejected gun control.
Vermont has always been among our very safest states,
never having had any gun laws.
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 09:44 am
AGROTE

you are trying to create an idealogical society that, no criminal would follow.

my ideological society is proven to work in america
kennesaw georgia has no crime rate to speak of.
there is no law that says that you have to carry a gun.
but there are laws that require you to own a firearm.
you still have to apply for a permit to carry concealed.

as omsig david says
vermont has no crime rate, no gun law.


new york, DC, los angeles. murder capitols of america, have a lot of gun laws.


i am i alone in saying that gun legislation only increase crime.

as you stated before, you dont think that the US will be able to confiscate all the unregistered firearms.

you admit that you cant fight the availability of firearms in the US.

your logic is that if there are no guns, there would be no gun violence.
using your same logic.

there would be no theft if there were nothing to steal.

trying to prevent gun violence using your logic is as impossible as preventing theft using your stategy.

you keep saying the UK is much safer because of a
our media does not portray the UK as a safe place. GB may not have a high prevalence of firearms, but the country has a knife crime epidemic.

knives are more common than guns what will you do to contol them? if are successful then what? will you ban sporting equipment? martial arts?


my interest is controlling the criminal, not controlling the implement.

letting a citizen carry a gun controls the criminal, affects their rationale.

you seem to think that adding some form of legislation will make a lot of difference.
you are right in that respect.
i just think you will be disarming the wrong people.

criminals will get guns, just like they get drugs, just like they get like they get other contraband.

even with legislation you still have not removed the armed threat. you only succeed in making the common citizen less able to subdue the threat.

what makes you think that legislation will work on a person that has no respect for it?



belive me, i want the US to be Free of all Violence, this will not happen unless the common citizen refuses to be a victim and acknowledges that they need to uphold the law, and exercise their right to self defense.


due to firearms being commonplace in america, everyone needs to know how to use a firearm and learn the basic rules of safety. whether a person decides to carry is up to them. i think it is a fundamental right of citizens to protect themselves and other citizens.

the only real cure is to raise children with good moral values.

i am not getting through to you either, am i.....

my uncle was anti-gun, the only thing that got through to him was getting robbed and almost getting killed. he now believes in concealed carry. i suppose the only way you will see the merits of concealed carry, is to survive an armed encounter. it is the most common way most antigun citizens turn progun.
0 Replies
 
CZJAY
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 12:40 pm
agrote

as for a gun not being necessary to survive a beast, try encountering grizzly bear.




a right does not have to be exercised, i just choose to do so.

criminals do not have to use guns to commit a crime.
they do because they can get away with it.


if it happens there needs to be a way to stop the criminal. usually the victim is the first responder.

a gun is not necessary, it is a choice. you can take your chances with the police or you can choose to defend yourself. you are not forced to arm yourself. you can deal with the situation as you like.

guns are not dangerous criminals are. 90% of people that live in my area own guns, 100% of my friends own guns. we have never had any crime in our part of town. we have never had to use our guns. they are there if and when we need them.


areas like new york for example, it is necessary to own a gun, but the citizens there are not allowed to own guns. it is my belief that criminals take advantage of this. why would anyone want the criminal to have an advantage over a citizen is beyond me. advertising that you do not have a gun is not a good idea.


americans hold their rights in high regard.
rights are guaranteed to an individual.

individuals allow a society to exist.
society without individuals is a lost one.

the bill of rights is the foundation of the constitution, and our freedom.
a true american will never edit the bill of rights. period...
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 05:30 pm
CZJAY, your idiotic ideas aren't worth my time.

It really is as simple as this...

1) If you got rid of guns altogether, you would no longer need them to protect yourselves. If nobody was armed, there would be no armed threats, and no need for you to arm yourself for protection. Your country would be safer if there were no guns at all.

2) It's possible to have a gun-free society. We pretty much have one here in England. There's about 1 shooting per year in my city.

3) It's possible to turn a gun-rich society like the USA into a (largely) gun-free society like the UK. I don't know how it could be done, or how long it would take, but it can be done.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 07:19 pm
agrote wrote:
CZJAY, your idiotic ideas aren't worth my time.

It really is as simple as this...

Quote:
1) If you got rid of guns altogether,
you would no longer need them to protect yourselves.

The same way we got rid of alcohol in the 1920s,
and the same way we got rid of marijuana, crack, and heroin now ??



Quote:
If nobody was armed, there would be no armed threats,
and no need for you to arm yourself for protection.
Your country would be safer if there were no guns at all.

That is idiotic thinking.
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws?





Quote:

2) It's possible to have a gun-free society.

If by some supernatural miracle
criminals were disarmed,
WHAT wud prevent them from re-arming themselves ?
Thay have free access to the hardware stores of America.

Thay even make guns in prison.
Every once in a while thay accidentally shoot themselves
and are discovered by the guards.



Quote:

We pretty much have one here in England.
There's about 1 shooting per year in my city.

BALONEY !

NOT according to your press
and to a RETIRED hi level police official
who complained of being coerced into creating fraudulent statistics
( e.g., counting multiple felonies against multiple victims at the same time and place, as ONE crime,
so that gun prohibition wud not look so bad ).
I understand that burglaries with occupied premises have drasticly increased
( as the criminals know that your government has made crime SAFE for them ).



Quote:
3) It's possible to turn a gun-rich society like the USA into a
(largely) gun-free society like the UK.

If, for some reason, criminals were too lazy to make their own guns,
and too lazy to trot over to the local gunsmith,
then Y wud thay not just make boms, as an instrument of intimidation ?
Boms r much easier to make than guns;
( in my childhood, I made both, just for fun, as did the other kids in my neighborhood ).



Quote:
I don't know how it could be done, or how long it would take, but it can be done.

Only in your dreams.
I understand that England was once a free society,
before the First World War.
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:03 am
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:
1) If you got rid of guns altogether,
you would no longer need them to protect yourselves.

The same way we got rid of alcohol in the 1920s,
and the same way we got rid of marijuana, crack, and heroin now ??


No. It would probably have to be a much slower process of phasing them out. I'm not an expert on these things, but I'm sure that it would be possible to eradicate guns from your society. It's not like they grow in fields like crack and heroin.

Quote:
Quote:
If nobody was armed, there would be no armed threats,
and no need for you to arm yourself for protection.
Your country would be safer if there were no guns at all.

That is idiotic thinking.
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws?


You're not listening to me. I didn't say anything about gun laws. You don't need to get criminals to obey any new laws, you just need to make it physically impossible for them to own a gun. Close the guns shops, melt them all down, stop selling bullets or gun parts or whatever.

Perhaps you think that could never happen. But do you at least agree that IF it did happen, and guns were practically impossible to make or get hold of, then your society would be safer? IF there werel iterally no guns in America, America would be a safer place. Right?

If you don't agree with that hypothesis then I don't think I'll ever get through to you.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

2) It's possible to have a gun-free society.

If by some supernatural miracle
criminals were disarmed,
WHAT wud prevent them from re-arming themselves ?
Thay have free access to the hardware stores of America.

Thay even make guns in prison.
Every once in a while thay accidentally shoot themselves
and are discovered by the guards.


Does that happen often? I've never heard of it happening in the UK... why do you think that is?

And where do they get the bullets from? If it was impossible to buy bullets, what would they do with their home-made guns?

Quote:
Quote:

We pretty much have one here in England.
There's about 1 shooting per year in my city.

BALONEY !

NOT according to your press


You don't even know which city I live in, so I don't know what the hell you think you're talking about.

Quote:
Quote:
3) It's possible to turn a gun-rich society like the USA into a
(largely) gun-free society like the UK.

If, for some reason, criminals were too lazy to make their own guns,
and too lazy to trot over to the local gunsmith,
then Y wud thay not just make boms, as an instrument of intimidation ?
Boms r much easier to make than guns;
( in my childhood, I made both, just for fun, as did the other kids in my neighborhood ).


Firstly, don't forget that while it is possible to make your own gun, not every ex-gun-owner would do it if guns were banned. SO banning guns would reduce gun crime, if not get rid of it.

And I don't think that bombs would replace guns. People would still be able to make bombs, as they do now, but I doubt that all the various shootings that occur would be replaced by bombings. You can't carry a bomb round with you all day and pull it out if you spontaneously decide to kill someone. And while bombs work well for suicide bombers, what about bombers who don't have a death wish? And how do you aim a bomb at a single moving target?

Bombs will always remain a seperate thing. The alternative to a handgun is a knife... they're both easily concealed, they can be held in one hand, they pose a visible threat etc.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't know how it could be done, or how long it would take, but it can be done.

Only in your dreams.
I understand that England was once a free society,
before the First World War.


I just don't know how to snap you out of this American mindset. Just because some guy wrote on a piece of paper many years ago, "we have the right to bear arms" (or however it was worded), you all demand to have the 'freedom' to own machines designed for killing human beings.

Do you realise how arbitrary it is to call gun ownership a sort of 'freedom'? Why not call stealing from other people an act of freedom? Or animal rape... why not demand the freedom to rape animals? Or rub your penis on empty bus-seats, or keep your kids in the basement?

You obviously don't want absolute freedom, because you don't want criminals to be free to rob people - at least not without being threatened by death.

So why demand the freedom to own guns? What's so important about this particular freedom?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 04:10 am
agrote wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Quote:
1) If you got rid of guns altogether,
you would no longer need them to protect yourselves.

The same way we got rid of alcohol in the 1920s,
and the same way we got rid of marijuana, crack, and heroin now ??


Quote:
No. It would probably have to be a much slower process of phasing them out.

Since I was 8 years old, when I started with a 2 inch .38 caliber revolver,
I have been slowly ADDING to my gun collection. I do not add to it
out of further concerns for my security, but out of appreciation of esthetics
and of artifacts of history.


Quote:
I'm not an expert on these things,

I believe u.




Quote:
but I'm sure that it would be possible to eradicate guns from your society.
It's not like they grow in fields like crack and heroin.

1 ) We, including MYSELF, wud simply make more guns.

2 ) Guns were among the world's first machines with moving parts,
(tho more easily made now with modern "know-how").
Guns were not new to Columbus nor to his grandfather.
They are simple machines, easily made.
(The M-1 Carbine was invented by a prisoner, David Williams, in prison for moonshining;
convicts have secretly made pistols
[including fully functional submachineguns] in prison workshops.)

The accumulated knowledge of the gunsmith is not secret;
it is among the world's freely available engineering data.
If criminals had no guns, they'd arm themselves using that information
and access to the hardware stores of America;
thus the FUTILITY of "gun control" philosophy:
the disarmament of criminals is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.
REMOVAL from America of violently felonious recidivists can reduce misconduct
Crime comes from bad people, not tools.
Do u blame spoons for obesity?





Quote:
Quote:
If nobody was armed, there would be no armed threats,
and no need for you to arm yourself for protection.
Your country would be safer if there were no guns at all.

That is idiotic thinking.
If criminals are willing to ignore the laws against ROBBERY;
if criminals are willing to disregard the laws against MURDER,
HOW can we convince them to OBEY "gun control" laws?


Quote:
You're not listening to me.
I didn't say anything about gun laws.
You don't need to get criminals to obey any new laws,
you just need to make it physically impossible for them to own a gun.
Close the guns shops, melt them all down,
stop selling bullets or gun parts or whatever.

I addressed that above ( Q.V. )
Personally, I have never involved myself in manufacture
of ammunition, but I am aware that civilian marksmanship competitors
make their own ammunition,
knowing that this is the way to get the VERY BEST and exactly what u want.
Some time ago, I saw on the Military Channel that US Army snipers
take the same philosophy: thay also make their own ammunition,
for the same reason: the pursuit of the finest and most reliable quality.



Quote:
Perhaps you think that could never happen.

There is no "PERHAPS" about it.




Quote:
But do you at least agree that IF it did happen,
and guns were practically impossible to make

We KNOW from both personal experience
and direct observation that making guns,
including fully automatic weapons, is fast and e z.






Quote:
or get hold of, then your society would be safer?
IF there werel iterally no guns in America,
America would be a safer place. Right?

RONG, and assuming the impossible, for the sake of argument:
it wud be an outrageously unfair discrimination against the weak and infirm.
I just heard on the radio of 2 girls being raped and murdered
in a schoolyard in New Jersey, by some M13 Gangmembers,
who did not even bother using their guns: thay just used some
machettes. The victims fought desperately ( as Churchill spoke of doing )
but were killed by the gang.
It is pretty dam obvious that the victims wud have liked to have guns
in their final moments of struggle.
Maybe u deny that.

3 years ago, I had surgery to my intestines.
I was so badly debilitated that I cud not WALK,
let alone defend myself in a fight from the depredations
of criminals or of animals,
YET I HAD AS MUCH RIGHT AS ANYONE
TO DEFEND MY PROPERTY, and cud not do it
without the applicable tools.


Quote:

If you don't agree with that hypothesis then I don't think I'll ever get through to you.

Everyone has an absolute right to defend his life and property.
Man is a tool making species.
We have risen to the top of the food chain
thru the use of weapons. We need tools for almost ANY job,
including self defense.



Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

2) It's possible to have a gun-free society.

If by some supernatural miracle
criminals were disarmed,
WHAT wud prevent them from re-arming themselves ?
Thay have free access to the hardware stores of America.

Thay even make guns in prison.
Every once in a while thay accidentally shoot themselves
and are discovered by the guards.


Quote:
Does that happen often?

Every so ofen.
The guards also find them, along with other weapons,
during "shake downs"; I know some retired prison guards.

Quote:
I've never heard of it happening in the UK...
why do you think that is?

Maybe suppression in the press.
I don 't know much about English criminals.


Quote:
And where do they get the bullets from?
If it was impossible to buy bullets, what would they do with their home-made guns?

Use the finest quality homemade ammunition; see above.
I addressed that.




Quote:
Quote:

We pretty much have one here in England.
There's about 1 shooting per year in my city.

BALONEY !

NOT according to your press


Quote:
You don't even know which city I live in, so I don't know what the hell you think you're talking about.

The retired hi leve police officer worked in London.


Quote:
Quote:
3) It's possible to turn a gun-rich society like the USA into a
(largely) gun-free society like the UK.

If, for some reason, criminals were too lazy to make their own guns,
and too lazy to trot over to the local gunsmith,
then Y wud thay not just make boms, as an instrument of intimidation ?
Boms r much easier to make than guns;
( in my childhood, I made both, just for fun, as did the other kids in my neighborhood ).


Firstly, don't forget that while it is possible to make your own gun, not every ex-gun-owner would do it if guns were banned. SO banning guns would reduce gun crime, if not get rid of it.

And I don't think that bombs would replace guns. People would still be able to make bombs, as they do now, but I doubt that all the various shootings that occur would be replaced by bombings. You can't carry a bomb round with you all day and pull it out if you spontaneously decide to kill someone. And while bombs work well for suicide bombers, what about bombers who don't have a death wish? And how do you aim a bomb at a single moving target?

Bombs will always remain a seperate thing. The alternative to a handgun is a knife... they're both easily concealed, they can be held in one hand, they pose a visible threat etc.

Quote:
Quote:
I don't know how it could be done, or how long it would take, but it can be done.

Only in your dreams.
I understand that England was once a free society,
before the First World War.


I just don't know how to snap you out of this American mindset. Just because some guy wrote on a piece of paper many years ago, "we have the right to bear arms" (or however it was worded), you all demand to have the 'freedom' to own machines designed for killing human beings.

Do you realise how arbitrary it is to call gun ownership a sort of 'freedom'? Why not call stealing from other people an act of freedom? Or animal rape... why not demand the freedom to rape animals? Or rub your penis on empty bus-seats, or keep your kids in the basement?

You obviously don't want absolute freedom, because you don't want criminals to be free to rob people - at least not without being threatened by death.

Quote:
So why demand the freedom to own guns?
What's so important about this particular freedom?

All the other freedoms depend on this one,
to keep the government in line.

I gotta run for the airport;
my limosine will be here in a few minutes,
so I have no time to respond to the rest of your post today,
( no time to discuss English penises on mt bus seats )
but I will point out that we DO NOT "DEMAND" freedom to bear arms.
It is not properly the free choice of government,
inasmuch as when government was created,
the power to control guns was WITH HELD from it.
Hence it can only exercise any such power by USURPATION,
and overthrowint the instrument of its creation:
the US Constitution, and its Bill of Rights,
which cripples government 37 differently ways,
including THAT ONE,
so that the heavy boot of the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN
will always be on the neck of his baby: government.
David
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 04:32 am
You neet to learn to write properly, and use basic HTML.

But from what I can gather, your post once again argues that banning guns would not get rid of them completely, and it would not get rid of violence completely. Let's be clear: I agree with this. Banning guns would not make your country 100% safe.

Banning guns would make it more difficult for people to own guns (a large number of people are unlikely to understand how to make guns or bullets), and therefore more difficult for them to attack people with guns. Gun violence would be reduced.

And as for violence in general, that would be reduced too. It is doubtful that Cho would know how to make bullets, since he was studying an arts subject. He would have used a knife, or maybe something clumsy like a chainsaw. Fewer than 32 people would have died.

It is true that people can make their own guns, and they can use bombs or other weapons. But you seem to be suggesting that the number of deaths in the USA would stay the same even if ALL guns were banned. How do you know this? Do you really think that every gun-owner would be able to switch to another weapon, or make his own weapons, and still be just as prepared to kill just as many people?

Banning guns would not make the number of deaths go down to zero, but it would reduce it to some extent. Legal availability of guns makes it very easy to go out and kill somebody, and banning guns would make this harder. The death rate would go down, and that can only be a good thing.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 05:09 am
David,

Can you also make gunpowder?
0 Replies
 
agrote
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 07:33 am
agrote wrote:
You neet to learn to write properly...


Haha! Whoops. Confused
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 03:51:27