Printable View
Well any BIG robbery is armed. You didnt say big robbery. There are numerous store hold-ups in America, where bad guys use guns. There are few in the UK, where bad guys use guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by footballjds
Its the avaliability of guns in the USA which means people can easily rob places.
The thing is, bad guys will always have guns, but this doesn't mean you need them too.Quote:
Originally Posted by footballjds
Say, you are being robbed by an armed guy, and you happen to have a gun too, would you kill him? (If you would, read a few pages back and tell me I am right about guns stimulating murders)
Most likely, you won't be able to grab your gun, and if you do, he will shoot you. (If you think he would, read a few pages back and tell me I am right about guns stimulating murders. In this case you grabbing your weapon makes him fire his gun out of self defence.)
If you don't have a gun, or simply don't draw it, you will be robbed. You report the incident to the police, and they will track the guy down. He will be imprisoned, and you will get your money back from the insurance. Even if he isn't tracked down, you will most likely get your money back.
It also works if the laws are 99,99% enforced. The Netherlands is the living example of a country functioning well without guns being legal, and have very limited homicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by footballjds
Well I am glad it works in the Netherlands!
But im not sure the law could be enforced...
How about Finland ? We are good country too... ABout those homocide things :) ( you are so smart so can you check it somewhere :) )
~Home
I'm just using the Netherlands as example because I know it's laws well. I believe most European countries to be like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Home
I agree, the winner should be the person with the most votes, not the most electoral votes. I don't know why it works how it does..Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
An embryo not a living human, it's potential. Potential has no rights. Putting a potential human before a living human is much more unmoral than "killing" the embryo to benefit a living human.Quote:
Originally Posted by footballjds
who said anything about putting it b4?
how about equal. not b4
and its one thing to kill it the second to know your pregnant, rather then wait a few months...
By being anti-abortion, you are saying that an embryo should be put before a living human. If a woman wants an abortion, the government doesn't let her because they believe that the embryo shouldn't be harmed in any way, even to cause the woman to be happier. That's putting potential before living.
If they were equal in the law's eyes, the embryo would be removed, but kept alive, so as to not harm it in any way.
My opinion as opposed to Wizzup?'s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
I think it should be illegal to kill babies.
I don't think it should be illegal to carry guns. It's against the constitution. Not only that, just because guns become "against the law", does that mean criminals will stop using them? No, it just means that the good guys (law followers) will be unarmed against the criminals.
There are higher murder rates in states/cities that ban guns. OMG! People must not be following the laws!!
More taxes = less freedom to do what we want with our money. The government is going to take more of it and spend it on things they want, such as health care.
I am a 100% fiscal conservative.
You will always be unarmed against criminals, even if you are armed. Different mindset, different intentions. You can't arm yourself against criminals, unless you are one yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAD
As a wise man named Chris once said..
"Make every bullet cost 50 thousand dollars. Then when a n**** gets shot four times. You be like, 'BITCH! That n**** just got two hundred thousand dollars shot in his ass.'"
Currently, the Gun Laws in the US are rediculous. Its bullshit how easy it is to get them, the latter quote was in reference to the fact that if we made every bullet worth 50k then people wouldn't shoot someone! It'd be too damn expensive.
My point.
The Right To Bear Arms, was not created for todays society...
It was made during the time of the Revolutionary war, for the Following reason: There was not 'Official' army for the colonies... The law was made so that, when the English came every one withs Arms, could grab their guns, and work together LIKE and army.
Freedom of speach...
Same thing as above. It was designed for politics, so you could speak your view. Not so you could run around calling each other N*ggers ect...
Self-defense does not mean you're a criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
So you think that if someone says n*gger, they should be punished by the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by noidea
How do you defend yourself when you have a gun pointing at your head?Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
You can't defend yourself against people who have a bad intention. The only way to guard yourself from them is to have a worse intention that theirs. (EG: Point them gun at them first.)
Also, I was wondering, is there so many crime in America that you all fear you'll be robbed or murdered?
A gun won't help you when you let them get as far as pointing one at your head. I'm talking about a more real scenario, like if I heard someone breaking into my house (smashed glass, kicked in door, etc.), and I had my gun nearby, I'd get ready to shoot the next person I saw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
No. Not me, at least. I just think that everybody should have a right to self-defense, within reason (no bombs, grenades, and other stuff that poses a threat to innocent people).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
You watch too many movies. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
If someone wants to break into a house, he will do it at night, when no one is at home.
He won't just go in, smash a few windows, bash himself through the door, without checking if there is anyone home. Only hopelessly lost tramps or heroin junks would do that, and even they would do that very seldom.
A gun is as much a threat to innocent people as grenades or bombs. (Yes, I got your point about area damage, but I don't think it matters.)Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
The actual fact of everyone walking around with guns is a threat to the society, not one person in particular.
What if someone in a moment of rage takes out his gun and shoots everyone around him? (EG, he would normally not do this, and it isn't planned. If it was planned he could have gotten a gun anyway, as we've stated before. )
I just figured if you used the gun-to-the-head example, I could use the break-in one :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
And there's no way to stop this. But I've said, my priorities are different than yours, so I guess that is where it comes down to. Like I've said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
Fir that reason, us arguing about gun control is going nowhere fast.Quote:
I think we have different priorities. Yours is keeping people from shooting each other via government intervention. Mine is keeping the people safe from government intervention.
Actually, I have used "gun pointed at head" mainly, which seems like a fair example to me. If I were to rob someone, I'd keep my gun pointed at his head at all times. Wouldn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
But don't you see that your way isn't making the world or people more safe, but instead makes the world more dangerous? (As adding weapons generally tends to do...)Quote:
And there's no way to stop this. But I've said, my priorities are different than yours, so I guess that is where it comes down to. Like I've said:
Fir that reason, us arguing about gun control is going nowhere fast.
You don't take out the dangers, you add more.
Just wondering do the people who are pro guns support having nuclear weapons in the world? It's a similar situation: "we need nukes in case someone nukes us we can get them back". Like people having guns in case someone else has one, the situation quickly escalates and people can die. Hence why there are heaps of treaties and programs to destroy the amount of nukes in the world.
It's like carrying a knife. I live in a bad area so use to take a knife with me when I went out Friday and Saturday nights so if I got mugged on the way home I could protect myself. But then I realized if I pulled out a knife I'd have to stab someone or risk getting stabbed by their knife. Rather than getting held up for my phone and then walking away, it would escalate into a situation where one of us will end up on the ground bleeding. Just like with guns.
Land of the free because you are more free. "Like people having guns in case someone else has one, the situation quickly escalates and people can die." Yes, freedom can be a bad thing, but something like this means the people have the freedom to choose to own a weapon or not, choose to follow suit or not or even choose to be free or not. This unlimited number of choices is what I think freedom really is.
Yup. If you carry a knife you are more likely to get stabbed because you are seen as a threat. If you carry a gun, you are more likely to get shot if a situation arises because you are seen as a threat.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Claw
The gun laws are lapse, bullzeye, and you know it. And lets be honest, could you really shoot someone? I mean, even if you only shoot to wound, what happens if it becomes fatal? Could you live with the death of that guy on your hands, for the sake of a DvD player or a TV? I know I couldnt.
I don't understand gun control at all, or how it would make the world any "less dangerous". Guns are dangerous when they are put into the wrong hands. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. If there are laws banning the use of guns, do you think that the bad guys will not be able to get a gun just because it's "against the law"? No, because that's what bad guys do: break the law.
It is fact that the cities with gun control have higher murder rates. This is because the bad guys get guns no matter what. Now let me ask you this: If you were a mugger/robber/whatever, would you be more scared to break into someone's house/mug them if you didn't know if they were armed? I know I would be...
You can use the same example with the police. Police are hardly allowed to use their guns at all now with all the laws/law suites. Would you be more inclined to run away from the police if you knew that they couldn't shoot you, or if you knew that you would have a bullet in your leg if you decided to run. Would you be more inclined to mug someone if you knew that there was a chance of getting the death penalty?
There needs to be consequences for doing bad things, and that may create a little fear, which is a good thing. You should be scared to mug someone/break into their house, not sure if you are going to get shot/get a death penalty. You should be scared to run from the cops, not knowing if they will shoot you. Now, it's a win win situation for poor people or criminals for doing illegal activity. If they steal something and get away with it, then that's a good thing for them. If they go to jail, then they have us paying $100,000 per year per person to house them and give them food. Prison isn't even a bad place anymore... So there are no consequences.
Anyways, the bad guys will always find a way to obtain guns... Why unarm the good guys?
Yes, a person who steals doesn't deserve to live. They would mean nothing to me, and would be harming me. I see no problem with killing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torrent of Flame
Well your a cold-hearted bastard, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
I see every problem with killing people. Perhaps once you realise what killing actually is, you might change your mind. Sit down for some hours, listen to some Wagner (you have to get in the right mood), and think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
The only ones who *perhaps* deserve to die are the ones who torture or kill other people.
Also, a petty gun is not going to protect you is someone is really after you in particular, and wants to give his life killing you. You can't fight such strong hate. (Off-Topic, partially.)
This gun control matter can easily be solved with statistics:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-guncontrol.htm
That is in the USA. We could also compare Europe to the US, and you'll see the same correlation.
Basically, the less guns the less murders. It's proven countless of times before. Nothing's wrong with that, is it?
Bullzeye: you say you have no problem in killing a robber. So you say that if someone robs you (because he's really desperate or something, you can't know), in which nothing is harmed (except you lose like $200 max), you are allowed to take his life? (which is priceless + you would get sent to jail for some time) You should think about what killing actually is.
i can see a lot of similarities between attitudes towards the bible, and attitudes towards the US constitution.
With both of them, there are many people who accept what they say unquestioningly.
Theres some people who almost worship the US constitution, and if the constitution say something, then you must obey it without even thinking rationally about it.
Now the US constitution isnt as old as the bible, but you could still argue that its slowly outliving its relevance.
But then again, the US constitution can be changed by some courts or other democratic process, so one would hope that it would keep up with the times.
I see a huge problem with killing people too, but not in self-defense or defense of property. In a real situation, I may not actually kill the person (only because I would be scared of the law), but I would shoot enough to immobilize them if I could.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wizzup?
I understand what killing is. I hold every person's life at a different value. Some people don't deserve to live IMO, including thieves.
So if a poor family has like 3 kids who need them and their dad is forced to go steel some food so they don't die. You think he should be killed because of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
If he is going to steal my food so me and my family can't eat and we die, then he shouldn't necessarily be killed, but stopped and punished. And anyways, the government steals the money for the poor families now. If they just hop on welfare, they can get the pre-stolen money.Quote:
Originally Posted by NiCbaZ
Nobody will respond to any of the points made in my above posts...
Yes. He could work at McDonalds if he's that desperate.Quote:
Originally Posted by NiCbaZ
And JAD also mentioned, welfare (stealing people who contribute to society and giving to those who don't) would feed them well enough.
Guns aren't only legal to protect you against robbers. They are also there to protect you against the tyranny of the government as well.
I don't own a gun, but that's one of the most important reasons for holding a gun in the first place, according to America's founding fathers.
If only the government has guns, then they can do anything they want. The second amendment makes it so that there must be mutual respect between the government and the people.
Just think about how it has affected traffic stops. Cops are much more careful and observant when they approach a vehicle because it's one of the most dangerous parts of their job. They have to act as if there may be a weapon in any car they are approaching. They have to respect that possibility.
Anti-gun people often argue that a gun is more dangerous to your own family/kids than to any robber. Although that may be true, I haven't ever heard someone argue that someone else outside your family lawfully owning a gun is a threat to anyone else walking down the street or in your neighborhood. So, if your dad owns a gun I guess you could tell him you want him to get rid of it for your own safety, but I don't think it's fair to tell someone else that their guns somehow endanger you when the statistics don't bear that out.
And I support nukes as long as we're the only ones that have them. :) That's essentially the entire rationale behind all US foreign policy. We're on top, and we're going to stay there, and nobody else can be trusted. It may sound cynical, but we have a 40+ year track record of restraint with nuclear weapons that many others (Iran, North Korea) don't.
The politicians (mainly liberals) don't want us to have guns though because they want the power to do whatever they want. They don't want us to have power...Quote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
I love reading your posts in political discussions on these forums tarajunky. You have a lot of views that I 100% agree with.
http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5127/america1b.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by tarajunky
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/9...nintheusas.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by JAD
LOL, which is which?
No. That's putting a feeling (happiness) above a life.Quote:
Originally Posted by bullzeye95
I don't classify something unborn as important as something born, thinking, and feeling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartzkid
vid about stupid americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE
You could do that anywhere in the world..Quote:
Originally Posted by pur3b100d
Also, it sounds really edited. Like the part where they asked how many sides there are on a triangle, and the girl responds "There's no sides... one?" It sounds like they really asked her how many sides there are on a circle.
You eat meat, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartzkid
The debate really boils down to what people consider a life. Personally, I think a young embryo (~3 months and below) is just as much living as a sperm, and I consider it the right of the (potential) mother to decide based what she wants to do.
Take the time to think through what a life is, don't just spout what your religious leaders tell you to.
(Edit, 600th post :p)