First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
The 2nd Amendment
57 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / U.S.
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

azrael910 wrote:

If that's not good enough for you, let's take a look at one of the original founding father's thoughts on the matter.

""Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man"

- Thomas Jefferson


there is no better way to say it
1322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/15/07
Yep, yep! I just don't know why I didn't type that, instead I was typing like an idiot. Which I rarely do!
1734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Melbourne
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

azrael910 wrote:


echo123456 wrote:
On this topic, you have been vehemently arguing that guns don't kill people, but the person does. That may be true, but consider how having a gun, will make killing so much easier and thus increasing the chances of murder or manslaughter.

But, have you ever considered this: What kind of savage and barbaric society, requires a gun JUST so that it's citizens can be safe? What kind of society implements laws that basically allows criminals to freely purchase the weapon they're going to use against the law? What kind of society tries to justify that everyone carrying a gun will be safer? (don't even bother trying to argue this point because no one's as naive as some :phew:). The bottom line is, in a functioning society, where people are civilised and respectable, guns is pointless. So maybe the real solution for you, is not buying a gun, but moving to a place where people are not like barbarians of the dark ages. And the thing about blasting some guy with a shotgun because you met an armed criminal who's going to shoot your face, um if that's actually going to happen... get out of your country, it sounds like a shit hole not suitable for living.


the problem is your concept requires an ideal enlightened society - and i agree, if we all lived in sir thomas moore's utopia, there wouldn't be a need for firearms. but we don't. humans are imperfect and (guess what) barbaric in nature.

also, the key word is LEGALLY purchasing a firearm. criminals will always be able to obtain firearms regardless of the laws (like how i mentioned violent crime has increased in england since firearms were banned), all gun control does is keep firearms out of law abiding citizen's hands.


It's not so Utopian actually, because most places in the world, guns are not legally available, and thus things like school shootings and accidents don't happen. What i was trying to show was that if you need a gun at your side just to feel safe then chances are, your society isn't safe, in Australia, i can walk down the street without worrying about getting shot because i looked at some one, nor am i afraid that at night my house will be peppered with gunfire because a criminal wants my TV. Why? because generally, people aren't criminals-at least over here.
Your point about criminals gaining a firearm is valid, however what i'm implying is that a criminals' ability of gaining a firearm will at least be hindered hence less likely the chances of them obtaining it. Think of it this way, if a man wanted to kill somebody because the other guy stole his girlfriend (note he's not some gangster criminal, just an infuriated man) then without the ability to purchase a firearm, it makes his job harder, hence he may be discouraged or even won't do it. A classic example of this, is when a few years ago, a man was dumped by his girlfriend, he felt betrayed so he went to her house to kill her with his shotgun. So he knocks on the door, and as soon as the door was opened, he opened fire, however to his shock the person he shot was neither his ex, or the new bf. But it was his ex's sister. I guess what i'm saying is, the possession of a firearm legally, is more dangerous because it increases the chances of shooting it.
Besides, firearms aren't for decoration, their designed to shoot and kill.
70639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

azrael910 wrote:

Let's take a look at it instead regurgitating what your professor told you.


...it's after midnight and I really don't care.

I was interpreting the second in light of the first. That the second phrase is neccesary for the first and you really ought to look at the whole purpose if you want to take that approach... but I can't summon enough energy to care about it.

Anyone that wants to talk about the ECHR I'm all ears.

*falls asleep*
1734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Melbourne
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

Mondo09 wrote:

^^^^^ You really know your stuff man. I'm also noticing no one trying to argue with you. :lol:


If he has a valid point, naturally no one would argue.
1322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

echo123456 wrote:


Mondo09 wrote:

^^^^^ You really know your stuff man. I'm also noticing no one trying to argue with you. :lol:


If he has a valid point, naturally no one would argue.


Just wish others who are all for gun control would get and understand this though.

70639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

coreyb49127 wrote:

ok what is the ECHR?


The European Convention on Human Rights.
1734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Melbourne
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

Mondo09 wrote:


echo123456 wrote:


Mondo09 wrote:

^^^^^ You really know your stuff man. I'm also noticing no one trying to argue with you. :lol:


If he has a valid point, naturally no one would argue.


Just wish others who are all for gun control would get and understand this though.



I don't agree to the right to bare arms.
I'd like to remind people of historiography, Jefferson who is obviously once president will no doubt support this constitution purely because well...he's part of the leadership who first came up with that policy.
Just like how a Nazi will commend his own party and justify persecution of the Jews.
1734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Melbourne
Offline
Posted 11/15/07
My point is, it's a biased view.
1197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
77 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/15/07
The US constitution and it's various tedious amendments are of little importance to most of the people of the world .
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

Tyrfing wrote:


azrael910 wrote:

Let's take a look at it instead regurgitating what your professor told you.


...it's after midnight and I really don't care.

I was interpreting the second in light of the first. That the second phrase is neccesary for the first and you really ought to look at the whole purpose if you want to take that approach... but I can't summon enough energy to care about it.

Anyone that wants to talk about the ECHO I'm all ears.

*falls asleep*


...doesn't bother reading the post, doesn't bother responding. gives a half-assed explanation and declares "i don't care" ...'nuff said.


echo123456 wrote:

It's not so Utopian actually, because most places in the world, guns are not legally available, and thus things like school shootings and accidents don't happen. What i was trying to show was that if you need a gun at your side just to feel safe then chances are, your society isn't safe, in Australia, i can walk down the street without worrying about getting shot because i looked at some one, nor am i afraid that at night my house will be peppered with gunfire because a criminal wants my TV. Why? because generally, people aren't criminals-at least over here.
Your point about criminals gaining a firearm is valid, however what i'm implying is that a criminals' ability of gaining a firearm will at least be hindered hence less likely the chances of them obtaining it. Think of it this way, if a man wanted to kill somebody because the other guy stole his girlfriend (note he's not some gangster criminal, just an infuriated man) then without the ability to purchase a firearm, it makes his job harder, hence he may be discouraged or even won't do it. A classic example of this, is when a few years ago, a man was dumped by his girlfriend, he felt betrayed so he went to her house to kill her with his shotgun. So he knocks on the door, and as soon as the door was opened, he opened fire, however to his shock the person he shot was neither his ex, or the new bf. But it was his ex's sister. I guess what i'm saying is, the possession of a firearm legally, is more dangerous because it increases the chances of shooting it.
Besides, firearms aren't for decoration, their designed to shoot and kill.


School shootings and violent crimes DO happen in the rest of the world, it just so happens that the US has the largest and most pervasive news media around so anything that happens here, you hear the loudest. There are actually quite a few stories of school shootings being stopped in progress by firearm owners, but those oddly never make it on the news.

It's funny that you say most people in austrailia aren't criminals when one of the first western uses for the continent was a penal colony. Not that that invalidates what you say, I just find it ironic.

You're falling prey to the popular international notion that we here in the US live in fear and violent crime abounds. This is only remotely accurate in large ubran areas, typically poor ones. Not that violent crime never happens outside of these areas, it just isn't near as common as people assume. Also, did you know that the most violent cities in the US have the harshest gun laws? By your logic, they should be the safest areas. Cities with the laxest gun laws should be rampant with crime, but they're not. This demonstrates that the accessibility to firearms has nothing in common with their use for violent crimes.

Impromptu violent crimes have always happened and will always happen. They simply involve the most common weapon of this day and age. Removing the current weapon of choice won't do anything to change their presence.

Yes, guns are designed to shoot and kill. That's the general idea. I really don't see the point of stating that.
2903 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / wE gEt HyPhY iN d...
Offline
Posted 11/15/07
hmmm.. that original admendment was the sole purpose for hunting at the time they thought about it.... but seeing how guns are used today at home.. eh.. i dont think its right anymore lol so in my words i think they shold make another admendment banning guns.... but yeah.. not like we hunt for animals in the big city o_0
70639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

azrael910 wrote:

...doesn't bother reading the post, doesn't bother responding. gives a half-assed explanation and declares "i don't care" ...'nuff said.


Grammar helps.

And I did at least try to respond, don't cock a snook at me.
70639 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

coreyb49127 wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
honestly this is an informal argument who cares about fucking grammar


I'm going to assume that you are talking about me (Or perhaps I just don't want to look 28 posts up) but a certain amount of grammatical accuracy when:

1. The lack of it interferes with understanding
2. When you are trying to interpret law.
7147 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / 中国
Offline
Posted 11/15/07

Tyrfing wrote:


azrael910 wrote:

...doesn't bother reading the post, doesn't bother responding. gives a half-assed explanation and declares "i don't care" ...'nuff said.


Grammar helps.

And I did at least try to respond, don't cock a snook at me.


after taking the time to write a well reasoned thorough response to your post, forgive me if i take offense at a haughty arrogant half assed response.

nitpicking my grammar after the content and quality of my posts in this discussion is just absurd... i just decided to give as much thought to my response to you as you gave to me.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.