I will wait for bans on all weapons. Then, when I am defenseless against all the criminals that break the law already, I'll run straight at them with my knife. I don't think I will win this. All chaos would break loose if guns vanish from the law abiding citizens hand. Washington D.C. has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, most of any at all in the 90's. Where as cities that have guns typically have lower crime rates.
Very good post. The only change i would make is that "The gun was intended for one thing, to shoot." to the correct statement of "The gun was intended for one thing, to kill." Please for the love of god people accept this, you may not realise this but the gun wasnt invented in America, the gun was invented when your for fathers were still Europian. The word gun directly comes from the "war sword", now war generally involves killing. The only wars where this wasnt true, were between oriental armies thousands of years ago where the whole battle was done like a game of chess and with no blood shed.Earl_SwaggerJr. wrote:
I am not a scared citizen that feels the need to have guns around the house or under the bed for protection by any means. But, I do take comfort in the fact that our country has been able to keep some of the laws that our forefathers placed down in their wisdom. There is a reason that right to bear arms is so high up on the list. This country wanted to be seperate from the rational and thought processes of other countries. We wanted to be distinct, in doing so we may have increased gun crimes with in our own borders.
Isn't it logical to think that having guns with varied degrees of retrictions has done nothing to help with the problems that we have now? I am not saying an out-right ban on guns is the way to go. Banning the right to bear arms would only bring about an even worse result. I don't say that as some conspiracy theorist, I say from a historical prospective. Try to think of some other things that have been banned that now plaque our country. Recreational drugs? Motorcycle helmet laws? Health Insurance? Now these may be viewed as lesser of evils in some eyes, including mine, I only point out these restictions to help support my thoughts regarding the wrongfullness of banning firearms in general.
I live in Louisiana, so that alone already has placed me in a number of people groups for all those reading this. Yes, I do own a number of firearms, I hunt, I fish, I enjoy having the freedom to learn to live off the land. Some of my fondest memories are growing up in the woods learning to shoot, learning to fish, and ultimately learning to survive on my own accord. Guns have taught me such great life lessons as respect. You can't pick up and gun of any type from a little pellet gun to a .45 and not give it respect. The gun was indended for one thing, to shoot. Now to shoot, what you may ask? To that I say whatever is within its legal limitations. Whether that be paper targets (which I really enjoy), vermin on your property, deer on your lease, or ducks in your pond.
I am all about some guns. There should be no ban on them just because of a select few that do not respect them or use them in the correct manner. I am a strong advocate for stricter gun laws, being, if you commit a crime that involves the use of a firearm whether used or not your prison time should be much harsher.
Excuse my spelling errors and my rambling,
These guns were first around in the 1500's, they replaced archers in the army, bows are also designed to kill, just like everyother weapon ever invented by man.
Last edited by Vilham (2006-10-30 16:27:56)
haha please show one post where your comment has even remotely come close to disproving something i have said, all your posts are showing now is that you cant argue and have to resort to some kind of insult that realy doesnt work. If you continue i will continue to rip the shit out of you even more.Phantom2828 wrote:
No you are trying to make yourself look superior by bashing Americans, which BTW is failing miserably.
You have been owned numerous times in this argument so apparently you can't read along with your inability to act your age.
Miller I think we've established that it's too late for USA. There is no turning back on gun ownership. A ban could never realistically be enforced. The point being made mostly now is that had the US started out with a situation where all firearms were illegal then murder levels would be more like they are in Europe. We can't be certain of that however - the disparity between rich and poor is greater in the US than it is in Europe and I believe that is another factor influencing US crime levels as against those in Europe.Miller wrote:
I will wait for bans on all weapons. Then, when I am defenseless against all the criminals that break the law already, I'll run straight at them with my knife. I don't think I will win this. All chaos would break loose if guns vanish from the law abiding citizens hand. Washington D.C. has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, most of any at all in the 90's. Where as cities that have guns typically have lower crime rates.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-10-30 16:26:06)
Cameron and I arent saying guns should be banned, it is far too late for that in America, we are just going to show that in countries where guns are harder to access civilians are more safe. Which quite a few people on this forum are having a hard time grasping even though the proof is in the pudding.Miller wrote:
I will wait for bans on all weapons. Then, when I am defenseless against all the criminals that break the law already, I'll run straight at them with my knife. I don't think I will win this. All chaos would break loose if guns vanish from the law abiding citizens hand. Washington D.C. has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, most of any at all in the 90's. Where as cities that have guns typically have lower crime rates.
Please read the OP. I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about all the other pro gun people.Vilham wrote:
haha please show one post where your comment has even remotely come close to disproving something i have said, all your posts are showing now is that you cant argue and have to resort to some kind of insult that realy doesnt work. If you continue i will continue to rip the shit out of you even more.Phantom2828 wrote:
No you are trying to make yourself look superior by bashing Americans, which BTW is failing miserably.
You have been owned numerous times in this argument so apparently you can't read along with your inability to act your age.
You have been given numerous arguments you can't respond to including a lot of my points in the OP
What exactly aren't we accepting? Everyone knows that guns were meant to kill, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all guns will see lethal service. Each one of the firearms currently in my possession have never killed a single creature. Some are used for target practice, along with my (OHNOES) archery supplies, and the more manageable ones are kept on standby in case something or someone requires a bullet, however improbable the 'someone' aspect may statistically be. Many Americans value what independence is left to them in this age of big government, and you will find (unless you haven't already noticed) that they are loathe to bow to suggestions from the 'old' world...which, as we all know, does not have a perfect track record of peacekeeping, even with limited 'commoner' access to arms and armour.Vilham wrote:
Very good post. The only change i would make is that "The gun was intended for one thing, to shoot." to the correct statement of "The gun was intended for one thing, to kill." Please for the love of god people accept this, you may not realise this but the gun wasnt invented in America, the gun was invented when your for fathers were still Europian. The word gun directly comes from the "war sword", now war generally involves killing. The only wars where this wasnt true, were between oriental armies thousands of years ago where the whole battle was done like a game of chess and with no blood shed.
These guns were first around in the 1500's, they replaced archers in the army, bows are also designed to kill, just like everyother weapon ever invented by man.
If you're going to ban something, ban the yo-yo while you're at it. Thumbs, should that not work. Well, I'm off to blame frags on my keyboard.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-30 16:46:58)
Did you read about the 5th post in this whole topic that i wrote... nope didnt think so, and someone has yet to counter the evidence that hasnt said something stupid like, "our country is bigger" when im talking about RATES! Do any of you know what a rate is?! They have said guns are for fun. WRONG they were made to kill. Someone has yet to provide any kind of evidence that doesnt support the view that guns cause more deaths than they save. Other than someone taking the figures of dead and injured criminals and claiming that is how many civilians it saved, which is evidentally not true, criminals dont go after you to kill you, unless that is the crime they are trying to commit which means you are screwed anyway.Phantom2828 wrote:
Please read the OP. I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about all the other pro gun people.Vilham wrote:
haha please show one post where your comment has even remotely come close to disproving something i have said, all your posts are showing now is that you cant argue and have to resort to some kind of insult that realy doesnt work. If you continue i will continue to rip the shit out of you even more.Phantom2828 wrote:
No you are trying to make yourself look superior by bashing Americans, which BTW is failing miserably.
You have been owned numerous times in this argument so apparently you can't read along with your inability to act your age.
You have been given numerous arguments you can't respond to including a lot of my points in the OP
Banning the yo-yo is fine too, that was also designed as a weapon, however the difference is that it doesnt kill people very well, that is the one thing a gun does incredibly well. A gun is pretty much the only weapon in existance that is accessable and easy to use that kills incredibly well (i have shot guns before so please dont spout this "guns are realy hard to use crap"). I currently shoot bows, however they arent very good at killing and involve ALOT of skill to hit a small target with, they also arent used in a huge number of crimes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What exactly aren't we accepting? Everyone knows that guns were meant to kill, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all guns will see lethal service. Each one of the firearms currently in my possession have never killed a single creature. Some are used for target practice, along with my (OHNOES) archery supplies, and the more manageable ones are kept on standby in case something or someone requires a bullet, however improbable the 'someone' aspect may statistically be. Many Americans value what independence is left to them in this age of big government, and you will find (unless you haven't already noticed) that they are loathe to bow to suggestions from the 'old' world...which, as we all know, does not have a perfect track record of peacekeeping, even with limited 'commoner' access to arms and armour.Vilham wrote:
Very good post. The only change i would make is that "The gun was intended for one thing, to shoot." to the correct statement of "The gun was intended for one thing, to kill." Please for the love of god people accept this, you may not realise this but the gun wasnt invented in America, the gun was invented when your for fathers were still Europian. The word gun directly comes from the "war sword", now war generally involves killing. The only wars where this wasnt true, were between oriental armies thousands of years ago where the whole battle was done like a game of chess and with no blood shed.
These guns were first around in the 1500's, they replaced archers in the army, bows are also designed to kill, just like everyother weapon ever invented by man.
If you're going to ban something, ban the yo-yo while you're at it. Thumbs, should that not work.
As to the last comment, the difference between the "old" world and America is that we have got invading and killing others out of our system (bar tony fucking blair the soon not to be prime minister), in comparison America is a new country and still hasnt got past the fact that war is bad. I think it will take another world war before you grasp that.
Its called culture. Are you that ignorant to not reconize that places like switzerland which are not violent by nature and almost all adults own fully fucking automatic firearms. They barely have any gun deaths.
Yes.... the point of my last paragraph, they arent gun wielding psyco's.... Thousands of years of war has got that out of their system.Phantom2828 wrote:
Its called culture. Are you that ignorant to not reconize that places like switzerland which are not violent by nature and almost all adults own fully fucking automatic firearms. They barely have any gun deaths.
We can continue this debate tomorrow if you realy want more of it, i however need to do 2 pieces of coursework for tomorrow that make up 25% of 2 of my modules.
Oh, well, ban the yo-yo then, by all means! What a way to garner moderate favor. "A gun is pretty much the only weapon in existance that is accessable and easy to use that kills incredibly well," you say? The only one in existence? What about natural weapons? Hands? Brains? Beyond purely anatomical means, a sharpened shovel is fairly easy to come by, and could lay waste to an unarmed market as a rudimentary polearm. And where exactly did I hint that I would spout "guns are hard to shoot" crap? They aren't; that is why they come in handy for self-defense. And bows? Well, it's a bit difficult to conceal a bow, isn't it? Sort of like a rifle, that.Vilham wrote:
Banning the yo-yo is fine too, that was also designed as a weapon, however the difference is that it doesnt kill people very well, that is the one thing a gun does incredibly well. A gun is pretty much the only weapon in existance that is accessable and easy to use that kills incredibly well (i have shot guns before so please dont spout this "guns are realy hard to use crap"). I currently shoot bows, however they arent very good at killing and involve ALOT of skill to hit a small target with, they also arent used in a huge number of crimes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What exactly aren't we accepting? Everyone knows that guns were meant to kill, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all guns will see lethal service. Each one of the firearms currently in my possession have never killed a single creature. Some are used for target practice, along with my (OHNOES) archery supplies, and the more manageable ones are kept on standby in case something or someone requires a bullet, however improbable the 'someone' aspect may statistically be. Many Americans value what independence is left to them in this age of big government, and you will find (unless you haven't already noticed) that they are loathe to bow to suggestions from the 'old' world...which, as we all know, does not have a perfect track record of peacekeeping, even with limited 'commoner' access to arms and armour.Vilham wrote:
Very good post. The only change i would make is that "The gun was intended for one thing, to shoot." to the correct statement of "The gun was intended for one thing, to kill." Please for the love of god people accept this, you may not realise this but the gun wasnt invented in America, the gun was invented when your for fathers were still Europian. The word gun directly comes from the "war sword", now war generally involves killing. The only wars where this wasnt true, were between oriental armies thousands of years ago where the whole battle was done like a game of chess and with no blood shed.
These guns were first around in the 1500's, they replaced archers in the army, bows are also designed to kill, just like everyother weapon ever invented by man.
If you're going to ban something, ban the yo-yo while you're at it. Thumbs, should that not work.
As to the last comment, the difference between the "old" world and America is that we have got invading and killing others out of our system (bar tony fucking blair the soon not to be prime minister), in comparison America is a new country and still hasnt got past the fact that war is bad. I think it will take another world war before you grasp that.
Yet another generic stereotype from Europe against the US (mind, I'm not holding all of you under the same light). And you guys accuse us of squinting disdainfully at the world with a beady eye.Vilham wrote:
Yes.... the point of my last paragraph, they arent gun wielding psyco's.... Thousands of years of war has got that out of their system.
Enjoy your coursework. I hope something in life makes you happy.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-30 17:03:00)
Killing someone with a spade isnt easy and neither is with your hands, pulling a small piece of metal however is an easy way to kill someone. Have you actually ever seen someone with a gun shot wound? Ive seen 1 person when i was in hospital once, he died because the exit wound from a gun shot is so large. However getting hit on the head with a spade or being jabbed by one in comparison isnt as bad, ive had a garden fork shoved through my foot so i kinda know what its like.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Oh, well, ban the yo-yo then, by all means! What a way to garner moderate favor. "A gun is pretty much the only weapon in existance that is accessable and easy to use that kills incredibly well," you say? The only one in existence? What about natural weapons? Hands? Brains? Beyond purely anatomical means, a sharpened shovel is fairly easy to come by, and could lay waste to an unarmed market as a rudimentary polearm. And where exactly did I hint that I would spout "guns are hard to shoot" crap? They aren't; that is why they come in handy for self-defense. And bows? Well, it's a bit difficult to conceal a bow, isn't it? Sort of like a rifle, that.Vilham wrote:
Banning the yo-yo is fine too, that was also designed as a weapon, however the difference is that it doesnt kill people very well, that is the one thing a gun does incredibly well. A gun is pretty much the only weapon in existance that is accessable and easy to use that kills incredibly well (i have shot guns before so please dont spout this "guns are realy hard to use crap"). I currently shoot bows, however they arent very good at killing and involve ALOT of skill to hit a small target with, they also arent used in a huge number of crimes.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
What exactly aren't we accepting? Everyone knows that guns were meant to kill, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all guns will see lethal service. Each one of the firearms currently in my possession have never killed a single creature. Some are used for target practice, along with my (OHNOES) archery supplies, and the more manageable ones are kept on standby in case something or someone requires a bullet, however improbable the 'someone' aspect may statistically be. Many Americans value what independence is left to them in this age of big government, and you will find (unless you haven't already noticed) that they are loathe to bow to suggestions from the 'old' world...which, as we all know, does not have a perfect track record of peacekeeping, even with limited 'commoner' access to arms and armour.
If you're going to ban something, ban the yo-yo while you're at it. Thumbs, should that not work.
As to the last comment, the difference between the "old" world and America is that we have got invading and killing others out of our system (bar tony fucking blair the soon not to be prime minister), in comparison America is a new country and still hasnt got past the fact that war is bad. I think it will take another world war before you grasp that.Yet another generic stereotype from Europe against the US. And you guys accuse us of squinting disdainfully at the world with a beady eye.Vilham wrote:
Yes.... the point of my last paragraph, they arent gun wielding psyco's.... Thousands of years of war has got that out of their system.
Enjoy your coursework. I hope something in life makes you happy.
If death by melee is so difficult to inflict, then how come so much of human history consists of exemplary skill with such weapons?Vilham wrote:
Killing someone with a spade isnt easy and neither is with your hands, pulling a small piece of metal however is an easy way to kill someone. Have you actually ever seen someone with a gun shot wound? Ive seen 1 person when i was in hospital once, he died because the exit wound from a gun shot is so large. However getting hit on the head with a spade or being jabbed by one in comparison isnt as bad, ive had a garden fork shoved through my foot so i kinda know what its like.
As per gunshot wounds, that's an honest question, but rather presuming. I'm not the type to sit around and talk about having seen all the awesome bits of gore splattered everywhere. But the nature of the tissue damage itself is also dependant on the 'style' of round. Yes, I haven't been exposed to it on the level of a military 'corpse counter' or an urban ambulance driver. Still, I don't see why I should hesitate in inflicting one on someone who rather obviously means me and my family physical ill. Ultimate solution: lobotomize everyone and have society run by A.I.
What about your coursework?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-30 17:17:58)
Just thought I'd respond directly to the points made in the OP.
Although I get your point about people in countries that do exercise strict gun control being defenceless. But if no one else (or a tiny minority) has guns, then there is no need for them to defend yourself.
Does gun control work though?
Very true. Guns just make it much, much easier.Phantom2828 wrote:
Guns don't kill people people kill people.
Only if other people have guns too. If they don't guns become completely redundant except for the purpose of national defence (armed forces), so you don't get invaded. On that level guns are necessary for defence.Phantom2828 wrote:
Guns are necessary to defend yourself with.
How do you quantify good and bad? That has to be pure speculation. It's a statement I would like to believe is true, but it's also unprovable.Phantom2828 wrote:
There are MANY more GOOD people out there than bad people.
True. Guns make it much easier to commit crimes though, they also increase criminal confidence and facilitate more audacious crimes that criminals would not otherwise atempt.Phantom2828 wrote:
Guns WILL NOT stop crime. If somebody wants to kill you they WILL kill you, whether its a knife, baseball bat or whatever.
Canada has very lax gun control laws. In fact I believe that on average Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans.Phantom2828 wrote:
Criminals will ALWAYS get guns no matter what. Look at Canada. Criminals have tons of guns because they simply don't follow the law and never will.
No. They have more guns than Americans. Hardly defenceless.Phantom2828 wrote:
Yet the civilians in Canada are defenseless.
Although I get your point about people in countries that do exercise strict gun control being defenceless. But if no one else (or a tiny minority) has guns, then there is no need for them to defend yourself.
Why not? If no one else has guns it's easier to defend yourself. Even if you are overpowered, if your assailant doesn't have a gun then you are less likely to be killed. In fact numerous surveys in the US have shown that you are far more likely to be killed by an intruder if you try to use a firearm in self defence.Phantom2828 wrote:
If good people don't have guns they CANNOT protect themselves.
In more than 90% of break ins, certainly in the UK, if the intruder is interupted they run away. Any sort of conflict is really always a last resort. But yes, you are right - you would have to fight them toe to toe, as you put it. The chances of them having a gun are, however, dramatically reduced, which means the odds of survival are much higher regardless.Phantom2828 wrote:
If somebody broke into your house with either an illegal gun or a knife, if you don't have a gun you basically have to fight them toe to toe.
Did you know that countries with strict gun control laws tend to have lower crime rates. That would seem to completely contradict the statement 'guns deter crime'. In fact a more acurate statement would be 'guns facilitate crime'.Phantom2828 wrote:
Did you know guns deter crime? Criminals are more afraid to be shot by the home owner than get caught by the police.
Many women in the US have guns. It hasn't done much to help the rape rate there. Also, statistically speaking, you are far more likely to be killed if you atempt to use a gun against your attacker than if you just tried to fend them off without using a gun.Phantom2828 wrote:
Imagine this. Every woman has a nice little gun that they keep with them at all times and criminals know this.
Do you think there would be any more rape?
Does gun control work though?
Well there you go then. A great reason for having it.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
Yes, of course it (gun control) works,
What cost? In countries with strict gun control laws we don't have the luxury of being able to play with guns. That's it. That's the only cost.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
but at what cost,
The people wouldn't have to overcome a corrupt government. That's one of the nice things about properly established democracies. Have a little faith.AlbertWesker[RE] wrote:
how would the people ever be able to overcome a corrupt government?
OK OK OK OK OK FUCKING ENOUGH OF THIS USELESS THREAD. ALL OF YOU go watch Bowling for columbine, THEN COME BACK AND DEBATE. BUT STFU UP WITH THE USELESS your wrong and im right chatter. jesus. get some facts, then debate.
Naughty_Om wrote:
OK OK OK OK OK FUCKING ENOUGH OF THIS USELESS THREAD. ALL OF YOU go watch Bowling for columbine, THEN COME BACK AND DEBATE. BUT STFU UP WITH THE USELESS your wrong and im right chatter. jesus. get some facts, then debate.
- STFU with the caps.
- People need to stop preaching about making up their own minds about shit, while at the same time flinging every bit of propaganda they can get their hands on towards everyone they talk to.
- Michael Moore is not exactly an honest documentary filmmaker.
- Michael Moore should stick to films like Canadian Bacon. That was a decent film.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-10-30 17:31:57)
QFT.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Naughty_Om wrote:
OK OK OK OK OK FUCKING ENOUGH OF THIS USELESS THREAD. ALL OF YOU go watch Bowling for columbine, THEN COME BACK AND DEBATE. BUT STFU UP WITH THE USELESS your wrong and im right chatter. jesus. get some facts, then debate.
- STFU with the caps.
- People need to stop preaching about making up their own minds about shit, while at the same time flinging every bit of propaganda they can get their hands on towards everyone they talk to.
- Michael Moore is not exactly an honest documentary filmmaker.
- Michael Moore should stick to films like Canadian Bacon. That was a decent film.
Michael Moore is hardly an unbiased source. I often agree with his viewpoints, but the evidence he presents is so obviously totally biased and one sided it is certainly not to be used as proper evidence of anything.
LOL Micheal Moore! O god you are now cleared of any accountability whatsoever you might have had before.Naughty_Om wrote:
OK OK OK OK OK FUCKING ENOUGH OF THIS USELESS THREAD. ALL OF YOU go watch Bowling for columbine, THEN COME BACK AND DEBATE. BUT STFU UP WITH THE USELESS your wrong and im right chatter. jesus. get some facts, then debate.
Good day.
Im back....unnamednewbie13 wrote:
If death by melee is so difficult to inflict, then how come so much of human history consists of exemplary skill with such weapons?Vilham wrote:
Killing someone with a spade isnt easy and neither is with your hands, pulling a small piece of metal however is an easy way to kill someone. Have you actually ever seen someone with a gun shot wound? Ive seen 1 person when i was in hospital once, he died because the exit wound from a gun shot is so large. However getting hit on the head with a spade or being jabbed by one in comparison isnt as bad, ive had a garden fork shoved through my foot so i kinda know what its like.
As per gunshot wounds, that's an honest question, but rather presuming. I'm not the type to sit around and talk about having seen all the awesome bits of gore splattered everywhere. But the nature of the tissue damage itself is also dependant on the 'style' of round. Yes, I haven't been exposed to it on the level of a military 'corpse counter' or an urban ambulance driver. Still, I don't see why I should hesitate in inflicting one on someone who rather obviously means me and my family physical ill. Ultimate solution: lobotomize everyone and have society run by A.I.
What about your coursework?
If melee weapons are so good why have we taken up using guns rather than swords? Because they are easier to kill with. Simple fact! Until the point where guns were invented ofcourse we used melee weapons and bows, we didnt have anything else to use!
Oh and by the way... Please don't use Switzerland as the shining example of 'Gun-hugging-freaks'. Every Swiss Citizen that has an assault rifle at home got it from the army. After a military basic training (including a couple (!) of security courses/training). They will have a repetition course every year (couple of weeks) and also a yearly shooting contest to keep them in training. Also these rifles are not intended to hunt or shoot intruders..purely for 'national defense' purposes......
As to the US.. of course they have to decide themselves if they want their gun ownership regulated..
IF i were to live there I would prefer however that every gun owner -at least- has to have a permit and -please- also have attended some basic security classes. I also support a gun registry as well as controlled sales of guns (I mean do you really think just because the gun shows are supported by the NRA that there are no guns purchased there for 'bad' things??).
In the end though of course it's none of my business - shoot away!
JM2C
As to the US.. of course they have to decide themselves if they want their gun ownership regulated..
IF i were to live there I would prefer however that every gun owner -at least- has to have a permit and -please- also have attended some basic security classes. I also support a gun registry as well as controlled sales of guns (I mean do you really think just because the gun shows are supported by the NRA that there are no guns purchased there for 'bad' things??).
In the end though of course it's none of my business - shoot away!
JM2C
I've always thought that the right to protect myself from government tryanny was worth the occasional mass murder of innocents so that we could enjoy our right to bear arms.
The horrific spate of mass shootings does give pause to wonder if its worth it; frankly I think Americas enough lost that the tide towards one world government is unstoppable by feat of individual arms.
Fuck I'd give up my guns if I never had to hear about another batch of Amish girls being executed.
And besides, pissed of white guys use explosives to make a political point just as muslims do.
Commercial hydrogen peroxide and acetone = boomdiddty fucking boom.
The horrific spate of mass shootings does give pause to wonder if its worth it; frankly I think Americas enough lost that the tide towards one world government is unstoppable by feat of individual arms.
Fuck I'd give up my guns if I never had to hear about another batch of Amish girls being executed.
And besides, pissed of white guys use explosives to make a political point just as muslims do.
Commercial hydrogen peroxide and acetone = boomdiddty fucking boom.
And you think criminals that are intending to KILL other human beings should be alive, assuming that they KILLED an innocent person, you really are screwed up. You'd rather have a criminal that was threatening someone's life kill that person and live. WeirdVilham wrote:
Sorry did you just read the stats? It quite clearly points towards guns mean more deaths be it criminals or civilians. Guns are UNESSECARY whereas cars are nessecary to society. Im more than willing to ban cigs.
Dont deny that access to guns makes it easier to kill because it does. Protecting yourself means killing or at least wounding so badly the person is fucked for the rest of their lives. Guns were designed for killing, its what they do well, they damage things. Stop pretending they are for anything else.
Guns have many uses, YES THEY DO KILL, but they also serve well in competition, hunting, and collecting, two of which involve no killing of any sort. Stop trying to pretend that KILLING is all they do.
+1 exactlyunnamednewbie13 wrote:
For the sake of argument, could it be because citizen numbers are greater than the police force, and that their response times aren't quite as questionable? I value my own life and the lives of honest, hardworking people than five times the amount of criminal casualties you listed.Vilham wrote:
Each year, gun-wielding citizens kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000 criminals in self-defense, three times the number killed by police.
They wound another 9,000 to 17,000 criminals each year.
LMFAO bowling for columbine, did you just SERIOUSLY mention that here. HAHAHAHA Go watch it yourself and jerk off to the propaganda that the fat ass spews. That movie has been debunked, and fat tard himself admits to falsifying some key points in it just to make a point. Gimme a break.Naughty_Om wrote:
OK OK OK OK OK FUCKING ENOUGH OF THIS USELESS THREAD. ALL OF YOU go watch Bowling for columbine, THEN COME BACK AND DEBATE. BUT STFU UP WITH THE USELESS your wrong and im right chatter. jesus. get some facts, then debate.
And Vilham, the debate has NEVER been whether or not that guns were designed to kill, thats obvious, you just won't accept that they have other uses, that is all.