Fool, I made none of these claims. Note that I did mention that many people can and do own and use guns sensibly. The problem is you can't assume that all people will. Look around at various drivers as another example of irresponsibility. Many people are idiots/unstable/etc and the availability of a gun and all the power the person will get/feel when he or she has it pointed at someone can be enough to tip them over the edge and commit some horrific crime.
Like I said, check the figures then come back to me if you feel you have a case strong enough to deny that guns cause otherwise avoidable deaths.
We have armed police in the UK and they don't abuse it at all. If it is neccessary to defend yourself against the law enforcement agencies then that surely would be a governmental issue which would require immediate resolution in order to prevent civil war.
Thank you for answering my question...
These elections seem to work so well across the entire globe. When someone gets elected everyone just leaves it at that and there is peace and equality in that country.
heh.
So the only reason the police in the US don't do things such as put guns to your head and rob you is because you have your own gun and might shoot them?
Your logic is flawed. Like I said, we have no problem with the armed police in the UK/Europe. We don't need to own guns to get protection from the police.
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: ifesfor
:Q
Here is one who might do crazy thing if anger goes up!
I feel the same way. If someone breaks into my house, they deserve what's coming to them.
And what they'd have coming to them if they broke into my house is a nice tight pattern of 00 buckshot.
Originally posted by: KC5AV
Originally posted by: rbloedow
Originally posted by: ifesfor
:Q
Here is one who might do crazy thing if anger goes up!
I feel the same way. If someone breaks into my house, they deserve what's coming to them.
And what they'd have coming to them if they broke into my house is a nice tight pattern of 00 buckshot.
And you'd have a truly unique wallpaper pattern.
- M4H
No, you miss the overall point. Look beyond the immediate reality you live in for a second.
The first step in taking over a society is to disarm the populace.
We don't live in a stable society. There are parts of it that are stable, but considering the entire thing as stable is foolish and short sighted.
That was 1700 on the phone, they want their mentality back...
I know no-one who owns a gun. Very, very few people in the UK do. Our government hasn't 'taken us over'.
Finally, saying "look beyond reality" speaks volumes about from where your opinion stems.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 53,160
- 47,368
- 136
I agree. I just felt like playing the devil?s advocate this morning.
?To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.?
-Alexander Hamilton
The man certainly had a point on several levels.
I agree with you loic, his logic is flawed.... has anyone ever heard of the ban on guns that went on in Australia? You were forced to turn in your guns... so all the LAW OBEYING citizens turned their guns in, while the criminals kept their guns... obviously. So now let's say you're a criminal and you go to rob someone, wouldn't you feel much more safe knowing this law obeying citizen didn't have a gun and you did?
That's just what happened... death due to gun went down... but the crime rate accellerated an incredible rate.
My gun is to keep me from getting robbed, even if it is a 12 gauge.
My gun is to keep the government out of my house... if you don't know what I'm talking about, let's talk about the revolutionary war.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
Okay. Lets put this in the mythical context of some third world country that nobody likes... Lets say... Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan secretly amasses a huge invasion force and stages a surprise attack on Europe. Europe gets steamrolled because they have to bring their militaries to bear against the invaders, which takes mad time.
On the other hand, if they'd decided to assault the United States, chances are that an invasion force wouldn't get more than 30 miles inland simply because of the density of "gun-owning freaks"
It wouldn't be a fun battle, what with most of the defensive force wielding pathetic .22's and 9mm's, but for sheer numbers, the US military wouldn't be able to do much more than pound on the invaders with aircraft because it'd be over so damn fast. This is why the US Military is primarily concerned with offensive roles and specialized (air and space) defense, which are roles which the general militia cannot carry out (and coincidentally why we're getting our ass handed to us sitting still in Iraq, because our military was not built for on-site defense). Our defensive force is our general population. That's just one of the eleventy billion reasons we Americans will not give up our right to bear arms. It may seem far fetched, but so does nuclear war.
Oh, and for the record, most of us are not obsessed with them, even those of us that own many of them. We just won't sit idly while crybabies take away the only defense we have.
On the other hand, if they'd decided to assault the United States, chances are that an invasion force wouldn't get more than 30 miles inland simply because of the density of "gun-owning freaks"
It wouldn't be a fun battle, what with most of the defensive force wielding pathetic .22's and 9mm's, but for sheer numbers, the US military wouldn't be able to do much more than pound on the invaders with aircraft because it'd be over so damn fast. This is why the US Military is primarily concerned with offensive roles and specialized (air and space) defense, which are roles which the general militia cannot carry out (and coincidentally why we're getting our ass handed to us sitting still in Iraq, because our military was not built for on-site defense). Our defensive force is our general population. That's just one of the eleventy billion reasons we Americans will not give up our right to bear arms. It may seem far fetched, but so does nuclear war.
Oh, and for the record, most of us are not obsessed with them, even those of us that own many of them. We just won't sit idly while crybabies take away the only defense we have.
Speaks volumes about where my opinion stems? So when you don't have anything relevant to post you just dance around the topic and then "attack" my mentality.
So when the nazi's disarmed the population, that was the 1700s? The communist revolution in the USSR must have taken place in the 1700s too. Please stop posting, you have no idea what you're talking about.
The UK govt owns you, always has, always will. There is no need to "take over" a population of sheep. So go eat your bangers and mash and give praise to the queen.
<--- This American owns +1 guns as of last saturday. Picked up and Ithica Model 37(pump shotgun)
Specop 007
Diamond Member
- Jan 31, 2005
- 9,454
- 0
- 0
In a country with gun owners you have citizens.
In a country where guins are forbidden by the government, you have subjects.
Its that simple
In a country where guins are forbidden by the government, you have subjects.
Its that simple
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter