tommyjones
New Member
again, i will refer you back to your own posts.
NC said:
it appears to make a really good argument that gun control works.......
Eight shot dead including principal in school massacre predicted in YouTube video
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
again, i will refer you back to your own posts.
it appears to make a really good argument that gun control works.......
This_person
Well-Known Member
You're half right!
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Why is that...
...stupid?
Presuming I am bigger and stronger than you and capable of greater violence than you and I robbed you out of the blue or attacked you in some way, shape or form, intended you great bodily harm or death, why would you carrying a pistol be stupid?
...stupid?
Presuming I am bigger and stronger than you and capable of greater violence than you and I robbed you out of the blue or attacked you in some way, shape or form, intended you great bodily harm or death, why would you carrying a pistol be stupid?
This_person
Well-Known Member
Or that gun ownership works.
tommyjones
New Member
it just is.
Just like it would be equally stupid for the anti's to say "thats why all guns should be banned. if it wasn't for guns....."
tommyjones
New Member
you are free to completely ignore the fact that finland strictly controls gun ownership if you want.
Novus Collectus
New Member
The most common argument for strict gun control and gun bans is that the proliferation of guns in society leads to more crime and murder.
Did you know silencers are bought over the counter in Finland, but yet they have no silencer crime? They allow the ownership of handguns many Americans cannot even buy because they live in gun restrictive states, yet they have more gun crime than Finland does. States like Massachussetts has much more strict registering, licensing and they ban many firearms, but they have a higher murder rate than Finland too.
The experiment of registering all guns, banning certain kinds, requiring even more strict license requirments than Finland and such was tried in Canada. What happened is after years of the laws being in effect crime, gun crime and murder has gone up, not down. Strict gun control and registering has proven not to work. Just because Finland has these registration laws, it does not prove the low crime is because of it, but the high proliferation of guns in their society however does disprove the claim that more guns means more crimes.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Ok...
...the anti position is 100% correct; if there were no guns, no one would ever get shot with one. It happens to be a bit unrealistic and doesn't address a right to self defense.
The pro gun position is also 100% correct; if you have a firearm and you happen to need it, you'll be happy you're allowed to.
This is based on the rational perspective that people will try to hurt other people, guns or no guns and that you, as a good and free citizen, have the right to CHOOSE to have a gun if you like.
You may never need it. You may never need a cop or a fire extinguisher or a seat belt or a helmet.
...the anti position is 100% correct; if there were no guns, no one would ever get shot with one. It happens to be a bit unrealistic and doesn't address a right to self defense.
The pro gun position is also 100% correct; if you have a firearm and you happen to need it, you'll be happy you're allowed to.
This is based on the rational perspective that people will try to hurt other people, guns or no guns and that you, as a good and free citizen, have the right to CHOOSE to have a gun if you like.
You may never need it. You may never need a cop or a fire extinguisher or a seat belt or a helmet.
Novus Collectus
New Member
Finland restricts gun ownership less than England, Canada and the UK, yet they all have a higher murder rate than Finland does.
You can continue to ignore this all you want, it will not go away.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Didn't you say:
In Finland there are 56 privately owned weapons per 100 civilians. Only the United States (90) and Yemen (61) have more heavily armed civilian population according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva, Switzerland.
While it may be controlled, it's a country with high gun ownership. Thus, the ownership factor may be a bit more of a reason than the control factor, since countries with higher controls and less ownership have more violent crime.
Novus Collectus
New Member
If someone shot the attacker, then the attack stops. Simple as that.
If you don't think someone with a gun could have stopped an attacker on a killing spree, then call for disarming cops because their guns are useless by that logic.
tommyjones
New Member
i agree completely. and the position that there are limits on all our rights is also 100% correct.
so there you have it, a great big gray area, what limits?
tommyjones
New Member
and as larry just conceded, if there were no guns this wouldn't have happened.
Both are stupid arguments.
Novus Collectus
New Member
The gun cannot be uninvented, as long as there is a human mind that remembers what a gun is, they will always exist.
One of the largest death tolls in a school attack was committed with a knife. One of the biggest death tolls in a school attack in history was not committed with a gun. If someone had a gun, they could have stopped the attacker, plain and simple. If you honestly believe what you are saying it is a stupid idea to claim a gun could stop an attack, then why don't you say the same about police being armed being stupid?
Please explain your position better, you are making no sense.
Novus Collectus
New Member
The limit on our rights are not limits, but rather a protection of other people's rights. Where your rights end is where mine begin. You have the right to say whatever you want, but you call for someone's murder, say something that will cause them harm or slander someone else, then your rights to say whatever you feel stops at their right not to be harmed or slandered.
If a gun owned by someone is not misused, then no one elses right is trespassed. There has to be a reason to restirct a right and the reason has to be when it violates other people's rights.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I accept...
..limits. I do not think you should be able to keep and bear atomic weapons or B2's or an armored tank division. I do think carrying a gun around in public is both a right and appropriate for law abiding citizens who choose to do so.
I think there should be numerous guns in a school. As we all too well know, that's where our most vulnerable are.
There. I gave ground. A lot.
..limits. I do not think you should be able to keep and bear atomic weapons or B2's or an armored tank division. I do think carrying a gun around in public is both a right and appropriate for law abiding citizens who choose to do so.
I think there should be numerous guns in a school. As we all too well know, that's where our most vulnerable are.
There. I gave ground. A lot.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I didn't concede...
...that. I pointed out the position of the people creeped out by guns and that it is an impossibility.
...that. I pointed out the position of the people creeped out by guns and that it is an impossibility.
Novus Collectus
New Member
You said it better.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hollywood...
...not withstanding, it's best to clarify for the beginner shooters out there that the goal isn't to shoot the bad guy, the goal is to stop the bad guy. Shooting them once might just make them mad.
...not withstanding, it's best to clarify for the beginner shooters out there that the goal isn't to shoot the bad guy, the goal is to stop the bad guy. Shooting them once might just make them mad.