On the issue of Gun Control

[Dameon]

Czar,

If you want to question my logic or evidence, fine... but just slandering me will get you nowhere and prevent any true discussion.




<< What has that have to do with gun control? >>



Everything. Strong correlation in this century between disarming the people right before exterminating them.



<< How can people defend themselves if the army is killing people? >>



Hmmmm... lets think really hard about that one for a minute.....

How about with a GUN!!!!



<< Or maybe his point is that where there is gun control the government is just getting ready to kill few million people. >>



Or at least opens the door for those who would do so.



<< This article looks like articles written by a cult leader preaching that gays are deamons and quoting the bible alot. >>



Ok, I've been called alot of things in my life, but a cult leader is not one of them until now.
I provide verifiable evidence for my arguments, a clear and logical line of reasoning, and explainations for exactly why gun control is not a good thing. At NO point do I reference God, religion, Jesus, Budda, Muhammed or any other religious entity. I do not quote the Bible, I do not quote the Torah, the Koran, or Confucious.

If you think you can do better, fine. Prove it. I expect to see the page up within 2 weeks.

 

[cxim]

Dameon, Czar's post was a good one for you. You want both rational &amp; irrational disagreement. You will not find holes &amp; weak spots when most everyone agrees with you.

Egg him on... duke it out...Then when you hit the debate you will be prepared.. The rational you can guess at fairly well &amp; prepare... the irrational usually takes more thought..

 

[BoberFett]

cxim

Unfortunately, you cannot reason with an unreasonable person. Irrational arguments are impervious to rational thought. It's just the nature of the beast, there's nothing you can do to argue with them. Just stick to your guns (no pun intended ) and present facts. You can only hope that your audience sees the arguments of your opponent for what they are: the illogical ramblings of a fool.

 

[classy]

Your article is Bull$hit! I am so sick and tired of the same worn out arguments from people who want to justify having all these guns. If its not used for hunting, job, or sport its not needed. I bet you probably live in a neighborhood that has no crime. So you need a gun? Man please. Shotguns or weapons along that line for sport I am all for it. But all these handguns and assalut rifles are not neeeded. Most robberies are committed when no one is home. You used that example at the end of your article to create a scenario as if thats the norm. Its not clown. How many of you idiots have seen a person gunned down? Ever see someone bleed to death from being shot with a handgun? You gun &quot;clowns&quot; that say we need no gun control are irresponsible and live in a fantasy world. We need control, serious control, and some limitations to what is allowed to be owned. I wondered where are the statistics for how many guns that were used in a crime were stolen from some jerk's house who didn't need it anyway. I see this speech is going to be delivered in Texas. It figures. Laws can protect the innocent. Gun laws would save lives. Your argument has nothing to with freedom, it has to do with your fear of being less than a man. All the criminals would have guns and not us. The problem is a lot of the senseless killings are from law abiding people that used a gun when angry. Literally thousands have died because someone with a gun, had it, used it, but didn't need it. Plain and simple. Tell that bs to a mother when their 6 year old accidently catches a bullet in the chest because some gun dealer sold a gun to a knuckle head at a show who for lost of judgement starts shooting like a nut. Where is that little boys freedom? People who advocate freedom with no laws or rules, destroy freedom. If just 1 life is saved from strict laws or even the total outlaw of all guns not used for sport or hunting it would be worth it. The next time you look at your wife, mother, father, or someone you dearly love ask yourself how much is their life worth? Because while your still slinging your utter nonsense, someone is dying. Your little stand isn't worth spit at someone's funeral.

 

[DaBoneHead]

Czar's point is more or less valid.


There is a difference between random burglary/violent crime and a well organized initiative at the government level to persecute a group of people. If you really think that one pistol is going to save you, then you are misguided. Your pistol isn't going to buy you five more seconds of life if a tank pulls up outside. The reason for the autrocities were because the general society of those countries had endorsed the action, and thus individual resistance was futile. Whether or not the jews/russians/chinese would have suffered had they guns is a moot point in the face of systematic government oppression.

But within democracies, such things are rare, if ever they have even happened. Oh, there are some faux democracies (peru is in the process of getting rid of one right now) that would meet your criteria of an oppressive government, but dig a little deeper and you will see that our way of life is not threatened.

The current election ruckus should prove that. We take democracy seriously.

Actually, you more or less state that because of the absence of guns, the crimes were allowed to happen. I could use that similar &quot;absence-of&quot; logic to state that because of the absence of Redi-Whip Whipcream, those people died. How do you prove/disprove either?

 

[cxim]

Bobber, he is preparing for an adversarial debate....

a few irrational attacks are good practice. Irrational attacks may have a shared pattern so that a defense can be planned.

It's just a variation of forewarned is forearmed.

 

[Czar]

BoberFett

I´v not been brainwashed or anything, the government here hasnt said a thing about this, its just me making up my own mind about this. Its all about upbringing, if you grew up around guns you might want guns, I´v not come close to a gun, other than ocational hunting rifle, so owning a gun is not in my nature. Here like you know we dont have that many guns, and our culture is working very well without them.

 

[DaBoneHead]

Daemon,


After further reading... you sound paranoid.


Do you believe that when a government enacts gun-control, that it is a precursor of genocide?

It seems like it.

Do you believe Australia is about to perpetrate some great crime against humanity?

And what of other nations that have effective gun-control, but don't have the history of oppression and genocide? Why pick just the ones that lead a bloody path?

The references to history's darkest moments you make are not about guns or gun ownership/control. They are about the underlying political and social philosophies of misguided governments and an ignorant people. The greatest asset the world has today to prevent a repeat performance of such atrocities is not the pesence of armed states, but the presence of effective communication. These deeds cannot happen today without the world knowing, and thus under UN mandate the world can attempt to intervene.

In Kosovo, we saw that happen (albeit under NATO), however today in Kosovo, the presence of weapons in civilian control is not a stabalizing force, but a destabalizing one. In Rawanda, we saw it happen, knew about it, but due to a clinton/albright conspiracy, the worst genocide since cambodia was perpetrated. However, we have learned, and each time the likely hood of another, and the severity, decreases.

Gun-control isn't a cut-and-dry issue, or just a bunch of &quot;cookie cutter&quot; arguments as put forth by another. Much of your article really has nothing to do with gun-control... unless you are willing to go on the record and state that the government of the United States is actively involved in a cross-party scheme to remove weapons from its citizens, in order to perpetrate some despicable act. That is what a good bit of your article is alluding to.

You did ask for criticism...

 

[Czar]

Dameon

Everything. Strong correlation in this century between disarming the people right before exterminating them.
So you think Gore is planing to kill you, is that it?

Hmmmm... lets think really hard about that one for a minute.....
How about with a GUN!!!!
We have seen what happens if a civilan kills a soldier, the civilian is then a prime target for thousands of trained soldiers with bigger weapons than the civilian has. An army of thousands fights as one, a civilian fights as one for he is one. A civilian is simply outgunned.

Or at least opens the door for those who would do so.
It wouldnt matter anyhow, if a government wants to kill millions of its own citizens then it has to have the army behind them, look at my response here above to see what happens.



Ok, I've been called alot of things in my life, but a cult leader is not one of them until now.
I provide verifiable evidence for my arguments, a clear and logical line of reasoning, and explainations for exactly why gun control is not a good thing. At NO point do I reference God, religion, Jesus, Budda, Muhammed or any other religious entity. I do not quote the Bible, I do not quote the Torah, the Koran, or Confucious.
Did I say you were talking about god or anything like that, no. But how you tell stories about how people saved themselfes with guns and how you quote your sources like they are the only truth there is. You have to look at this from many perspectives to come to a conclusion, to bad you see it just from one, like cult leaders do with their religion.

 

[BoberFett]

classy

<< Your article is Bull$hit! I am so sick and tired of the same worn out arguments from people who want to justify having all these guns. >>

Ah yes, resort immediately to emotional arguments. It's usually what happens in these debates because gun grabbers know that the facts are against them.

<< If its not used for hunting, job, or sport its not needed. >>

Who are you to determine what I do and don't need?

<< Laws can protect the innocent. Gun laws would save lives. >>

There are already a lot of gun laws. Why does anybody still die from gunshots? Could it be because criminals ignore laws?

<< Your argument has nothing to with freedom, it has to do with your fear of being less than a man. >>

Ah yes, again with emotional arguments. The hallmark of a good gun-grabber.

<< The problem is a lot of the senseless killings are from law abiding people that used a gun when angry. Literally thousands have died because someone with a gun, had it, used it, but didn't need it. Plain and simple. >>

Facts please. Lets see some substantiated numbers. Not just your twisted opinion of what you'd like the facts to be.

<< If just 1 life is saved from strict laws or even the total outlaw of all guns not used for sport or hunting it would be worth it. >>

You forget the point of his speech already. In the name of saving lives, people like Hitler banned firearms and did manage to save a few lives. However it also paved the way for the wholesale slaugher of millions. Were those few saved lives worth WW2?

 

[DaBoneHead]

Bober,

You missed the point of the rebuttal.

Banning guns and state sponsored genocide are in no way connected. Trying to draw a connection is in error.

Please read my two posts above. Dameon asked for people to find weakspots in his logic, and I believe there are numerous weak spots. I think I detailed the ones I found cause with well enough.

 

[BoberFett]

DaBoneHead

<< There is a difference between random burglary/violent crime and a well organized initiative at the government level to persecute a group of people. >>

Gee, that was real stretch. I hope you didn't hurt yourself thinking that one up.

<< If you really think that one pistol is going to save you, then you are misguided. >>

Millions of them could though.

<< Your pistol isn't going to buy you five more seconds of life if a tank pulls up outside. >>

Here we go again. You're right, a guy with a pistol is dead against a tank. But you don't have to destroy the tank to render it useless. Commandeer the fuel or arms depot which can be done with small arms and the tank is useless. It's called guerilla warfare and it's quite effective.

<< But within democracies, such things are rare, if ever they have even happened. >>

Germany was a democracy prior to Hitler. He was elected, remember?

<< Actually, you more or less state that because of the absence of guns, the crimes were allowed to happen. I could use that similar &quot;absence-of&quot; logic to state that because of the absence of Redi-Whip Whipcream, those people died. How do you prove/disprove either? >>

Because I don't think that the German forces were afraid of non-dairy dessert topping. They would have had a harder time rounding up the Jews if they were all armed. There's a reason that the organization Jews For the Preservation of Firearms exists.

 

[BoberFett]

DaBoneHead

<< you sound paranoid... >>

There's no immediate danger of the US goverment committing genocide. Only the nutcases in the hills of MOntana think there is. However the Germans also thought they were safe and willingly surrendered their guns in the name of personal safety. Unfortunately, things change. Just because there's no imminent danger doesn't mean it can never happen. God help us if the US goverment should ever decide to wage war against it's own people, but if it does, wouldn't it be better to be armed and prepared than sitting around like lambs at the slaughter?

It can't be said any better than: &quot;Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.&quot;

 

[fdiskboy]

Czar and DaBonehead, you might want to study up on Vietnam. I'm betting a lot of US troops would tell you that trained army or armed citizenry, a well-placed bullet still kills.

BTW: Tanks are useful weapons, but they are on the whole support weapons. Without ground troops, tanks are just nice targets. Don't confuse the issue by creating vapid arguments.

 

[Czar]

fdiskboy

There are allways exceptions.

 

[Dameon]

DaBoneHead, your observations are welcomed.
However, does it not making rational sense in that if one is to go from home to home rounding up persons that are enemies of the state, to have disarmed them first to ensure as little resistance as possible? Large casualties are unpopular in all countries and armies.

As for cross-pary, Republicans do not fight for gun control.

However, I do believe that there are people in this country who would gladly see certain segments of the population disappear. The problem is that IF we do give up arms, by the time we realize we want them back, it is very difficult to get them back.

Mostly, it is opening a door that is difficult to close once opened. It is not something to be done on a knee-jerk reaction to a tragic event like Columbine. The power to forcibly resist is a power that is not given back without revolution and/or war. Our country is young in comparison to the rest of the world, and already has proven itself capable of genocide and tyranny. Look at what we did to the Native Americans, to the Japanese in world war II...

 

[NesuD]

Excellent argument Dameon very well done but you may want to correct the Kennesaw, Atlanta thing. Atlanta isn't a state I beleive you mean Kennesaw, Georgia. Don't worry about the bleeding heart LAMBS around here. Everyone knows what happens to lambs and sheep eventually they are led to the slaughter. Wonder what would happen if they had a gun to defend themselves with.

 

[DaBoneHead]

Bober &amp; dameon,


Dameon first, thank you for your consideration. My take on your argument is that it is statistically fine, though I don't agree with tying gun-control and genocide. There are some holes in that argument, since many states (and by states I mean countries) that have enacted some form of stringent gun control didn't go the bloody path of waging war on itself. I would rephrase that part as side argument, and not as a predominant one. My contribution to your article.

Bober... well I guess for every Austin Powers you must have a Dr. Evil, therefore, you are my Dr. Evil, and I shall combat you ruthlessly .

Bober, the history of Germany in the first half of the 20th century is an interesting one. I could make an argument that WWI didn't end in 1918, but ended in 1939-40 when France capitulated, and suffered the humiliation of signing the document of surrender in the same railroad car as the Germans had back in 1918. The whole interlude 1918-1939 was just a pause in a larger battle. Why do I bring this up? You brought up democracy in Germany, and Germany did have a democracy (always unstable, largely from communist/soviet influence) for awhile, but Hitler wasn't really elected as we in the West perceive elections (i.e. as a series of democratic processes). He managed to get appointed to high postions (ultimately PM) through manipulation and coercion. Finally, in what was purely a token gesture, he was elected by the populace who really didnt have another choice, since the &quot;other-guy&quot; would have ended up dead had he been a legitimate challenge to Hitler.

Finally,

Gee, that was real stretch. I hope you didn't hurt yourself thinking that one up.

My response was to a request by dameon on finding weakspots in his logic. I pointed out one. Try to be a little more mature and level-headed in your replies. That isn't asking too much... is it?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Funny how people argue for gun control yet fail to identify what is a gun and what isn't. Is a BB gun a gun? if so is a cross bow? a bow and arrow? nail gun? stapler? straw?

 

[DaBoneHead]

Demon,

I think those that argure for/against gun control refer mainly to handguns, with assault rifles as a secondary topic. But that is just my perception.




My own feelings (as I have stated before in other threads) is to enforce existing gun laws, before enacting new ones. It doesn't make sense to introduce new laws without giving teeth to the existing ones.

 

[classy]

Bober
You are a joke. lol!!!!!!!!!
What you need a gun to make you feel safe?
Facts???????? Did you say facts? Fact, is most people are robbed when not home. Fact, most gun owners have their very own weapons used against them in robbery. I could come with many.
But I have couple of questions for you genius.
If owning a gun is just about freedom as you and this nut who wrote the article believe.
When is freedom to expensive?
How many more innocent people have to die before you believe something has to done?
100,000 more maybe 250,000 more???? hmmmmmm
Maybe it will take one of your family.
When is freedom a license to kill or watch other die?
Is Freedom also without responsibility?
I have the freedom to drive 100 mph if I want, but there are laws to prevent me from driving in a way where I could become a danger to others.
Should not a gun, which is made to destroy, also not be governed by laws sufficient enough to protect others?
How many sympathy cards do you send to someone's family when they are killed by gun in which it could have been prevented?
How much money do donate to a victim's family?
A simple background check could probably save a 100 lives year maybe.
I had to wait till I was 18 to drive and 21 to drink. Is it too much to ask someone to wait 30 days for a thorough check to be done before you give them a gun?
I'll let you decide while you sit there like clown clutching your precious gun. What are you crime fighter or something? Paranoid? Weak self-image?
What because you own a gun your a big man now huh?
One last fact!
Fact you guys don't need all these guns.
And just think of all lives that have been saved because of stricter drinking and driving laws. And guess what everyone is still enjoying their freedom. Do you think its possible that maybe, just maybe, a few more stiffer laws couldn't do the same, save lives, when it comes to guns.
Anyone who believes in freedom without responsibility is a fool.

 

[Czar]

classy

Great post a little harsh but thats just what they need to hear

 

[classy]

Thank You Czar. They need to hear truth.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm the joke? I'll let you in on a secret. People here are laughing, but it's not at me. You can't even form a coherent sentence.

<< What you need a gun to make you feel safe? >>

Nope, but that's not the point. I want to own a gun, why should I not be allowed to?

<< Facts???????? Did you say facts? Fact, is most people are robbed when not home. Fact, most gun owners have their very own weapons used against them in robbery. I could come with many. >>

But you haven't. So until you have your words are better suited for wiping my ass with than giving any credence to.

<< But I have couple of questions for you genius. >>

Why thank you for noticing.

<< When is freedom to expensive? >>

Never. When freedom is too expensive, you can count on it being lost.

<< How many more innocent people have to die before you believe something has to done?
100,000 more maybe 250,000 more???? hmmmmmm
Maybe it will take one of your family. >>

Unfortunately innocent people will die. But should it be a few thousand from a handful of criminals or should it be millions from a corrupt government?

<< When is freedom a license to kill or watch other die? >>

Who said anything about a license to kill? We're only talking about the freedom to own firearms. Owning guns does mean you have to kill.

<< Is Freedom also without responsibility? >>

No, I'm all for responsibility. I think we should lock violent criminals up forever. It's the gun-grabbers that want to let them out of prision to lock up pot smokers.

<< I have the freedom to drive 100 mph if I want, but there are laws to prevent me from driving in a way where I could become a danger to others.
Should not a gun, which is made to destroy, also not be governed by laws sufficient enough to protect others? >>

Yep, there are limits to how you use your car, but they don't threaten to take away your car. There are also limits to how you use a gun, you're not allowed to shoot anybody with it except for in self defense. Beyond that why shouldn't we be able to own them and do with them what we please?

<< How many sympathy cards do you send to someone's family when they are killed by gun in which it could have been prevented?
How much money do donate to a victim's family? >>

None, it's not my problem. Nobody sent me money when my cousin fell in a swimming pool and drowned. Should we eliminate swimming pools?

<< A simple background check could probably save a 100 lives year maybe. >>

Probably. Maybe. Those are lame opinions. Let's see some facts little boy.

<<
I had to wait till I was 18 to drive and 21 to drink. Is it too much to ask someone to wait 30 days for a thorough check to be done before you give them a gun? >>

Nope, I have no problem with background checks. I had one done on me before I was allowed to purchase my handgun. But gun-grabbers won't be happy until guns are banned completely.

<< I'll let you decide while you sit there like clown clutching your precious gun. What are you crime fighter or something? Paranoid? Weak self-image?
What because you own a gun your a big man now huh? >>

Wow, you really put me in place. Seems to that you're the paranoid one, you don't want let me own a gun. Do you think I'm going to hunt you down?

<< One last fact!
Fact you guys don't need all these guns. >>

You don't even know the meaning of the word fact. What you just said is an opinion, dipsh!t. Come back when you're no longer in diapers.

 

[Mill]

I don't like guns. Guns scare me. Unloaded guns scare me. I have been robbed at gunpoint.

I am against gun control. Guns are here for a reason. The correlation about guns and genocide is very true. Unarmed people are easy targets. In Vietnam the U.S. had the numerical superiority, the air superiority, the naval superiority, the training superiority, the weapons superiority, the technological superiority. Why could they not win? The Vietmanese were armed and did not want to be controlled by what they thought was the wrong thing.

You anti-gun people scare me. Do you want my car, my animals and my friends too? I would rather an innocent person die this year, than have 20 million die in the next 15 years.

Go ahead and flame me for living in the South. I expect it. I am unbiased when it comes to guns. They scare the beejesus out of me, but I feel that we need them.