|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
You have yet to answer my question
You have yet to answer mine. Would you like to see a nuclear bomb in the hands of every citizen in the US? If not why not?
Would you like to see every citizen armed with a tank and a helicopter gunship? If not, why not.
Thanks,
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
 Re: Home Protection  [Re: Xlea321]
#1119647 - 12/07/02 10:16 AM (22 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
It seems as if our gun-control debate is spilling over into two seperate
threads.
You have yet to answer my question
You have yet to answer mine. Would you like to see a nuclear bomb in the hands of every citizen in the US? If not why not?
Would you like to see every citizen armed with a tank and a helicopter gunship? If not, why not.
I answered this question in the "Bowling for Columbine" thread. However, I
will copy and paste my answer and put it in this thread as well.
Begin paste:
There is not a legitimate use for an F-16 or an attack helicopter, by a normal
citizen. However, there are uses for firearms by normal citizens. I believe it is an
essential right for the law-abiding section of the populace to have access to
REASONABLE weapons, so that if a circumstance were to arise, they would be
able to protect themselves.
End paste:
RandalFlagg
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
|
your wasting your time on Alex...he will never answer your questions....
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
 GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1124337 - 12/09/02 09:06 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
"Try to grasp the fundamental principle here. Tools do not kill humans. HUMANS kill humans. Some use poison to kill others, some use edged weapons, some drown others, some use bludgeons, some use swords, or arrows, or darts, some use ligatures, some use firearms, some use bombs, some run others over with a vehicle, many use no weapons at all other than their hands and feet."
Who makes guns pinky? little fluffy bunnies from out of space?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
#1124344 - 12/09/02 09:09 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
the need and desire for guns is the mark of those still stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder.
I say to all those of us above - Stamp on their fingers hard!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
#1124357 - 12/09/02 09:14 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I forgot to mention paranoia. You get involved in funny little ego loops and you just gotta have a gun man!! in case of -insert paranoid delusion here -
The truly free know how ludicrous this really is.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
#1124375 - 12/09/02 09:25 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
the need and desire for guns is the mark of those still stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder.
Ah...The compulsion to ridicule and patronize those that happen to not to
be as "enlightened" as you think you are. Does it smell like "arrogant liberal" in
here to anybody else?
It is my opinion that responsible people need to have access to guns for
protection, because those that are stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary
ladder tend to break into our homes, rob us, rape us, and murder us.
Why do you engage in one sentence posts that have no meaning, instead
of exploring a very complicated issue in-depth, as you should?
RandalFlagg
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1124596 - 12/09/02 10:58 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Would you be glad to see everyone in america given a nuclear bomb? If not, why not?
a) No one has the right to be given anything, be it a nuclear bomb or a screwdriver.
b) Not everyone in America owns a firearm, nor is it likely that everyone ever will own one.
c) Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) such as nuclear bombs are correctly considered by the international community to be in a category separate from firearms for a legitimate reason -- they are by their nature incapable of being used selectively, hence are inappropriate as tools for individual self-defense.
I realize you won't answer the following question, because you never answer questions that show your position to be an untenable one, but I will continue your reductio ad absurdium chain of questions from another thread. I apologize for not cutting and pasting it verbatim, but I can't recall in which thread it appears, so I will paraphrase it as accurately as I can:
You asked in another thread something along the lines of
Would you like to see everyone in America given a nuclear bomb? No? How about an F-18? Or an assault helicopter, or a tank, or an artillery piece or a missile launcher, etc.?
If you answered no to all of the above, how can you logically support giving everyone a firearm?
Why stop there, Alex? Why not continue working your way down the chain? I now ask you:
If you think it is wrong for private citizens to own firearms, (and you obviously do) do you think it is wrong for an individual to own a crossbow? A longbow? A TASER? A stungun? A blowpipe? A javelin? A sword? A machete? A knife? A cudgel? MACE or pepper spray?
If not, why not?
Note that in England all of the above have been outlawed. In the eyes of English legislators it is no longer merely a war on firearms, it is a war on the right of individuals to defend themselves from predators. The English government believes that individuals who defend themselves from predators are criminals, as numerous prosecutions (and the harshness of the accompanying prison sentences) have illustrated unequivocally. English citizens must rely on The State to prevent bodily harm from being inflicted on them by others.
There would be far less crime in a society where every adult citizen were permanently armed. The armament need not necessarily be a firearm -- a stun gun capable of rendering a human instantly unconscious at a distance for five minutes or so would suffice.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1125024 - 12/09/02 01:31 PM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
hence are inappropriate as tools for individual self-defense.
Hold on, for the last 6 months you've been insisting the populace needs to be armed to defend itself against tyrants or "invasion". 38 specials arn't going to do the job. Surface to air missile launchers WOULD be a deterrance to any tyrants. Have the courage of your own convictions.
Note that in England all of the above have been outlawed.
We can still buy knives in england. You cut bread with them.
English citizens must rely on The State to prevent bodily harm from being inflicted on them by others.
You fail to explain how making sure every yahoo in the country is packing heat would prevent bodily harm. 14000 gun deaths a year in the US, 14 in the UK. Clearly there arn't many "predators" using guns in the UK.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1125267 - 12/09/02 02:50 PM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
As predicted, you failed to answer the question. Why am I not surprised?
However, as always, I will address all of your points.
Hold on, for the last 6 months you've been insisting the populace needs to be armed to defend itself against tyrants or "invasion".
First of all, that wasn't me claiming that, although I do agree with others in this forum who feel it is an important component of the right to self-defense. If one has the right to try to prevent a criminal from initiating force against oneself, it follows that one also has the right to prevent a jackbooted SS thug or an invading soldier from doing so. As for protecting against an invasion, that is mainly the job of the military. Individuals can (and do) assist in the defense, of course.
38 specials arn't going to do the job. Surface to air missile launchers WOULD be a deterrance to any tyrants. Have the courage of your own convictions.
Clearly SAMs are not particularly hard to come by, judging from the estimates of the number of loose ones floating around in various places in the world. At any rate, seizing an armory outright is possible to accomplish by a group armed with nothing more than rifles, and robbing one is even easier.
We can still buy knives in england.
Oh, they haven't got around to outlawing breadknives yet? Only clasp knives and sheath knives have been outlawed so far? Give it another year or two, then.
You fail to explain how making sure every yahoo in the country is packing heat would prevent bodily harm.
Simple. Each time a predator tries to harm a peaceful individual, he is incapacitated, then packed off to prison. In the case of those intended victims who are less than perfect marksmen, the predator may even be killed, boo hoo hoo -- heaven forbid Ted Bundy's first victim had killed him! That would have put a real dent in the True Crime book sales.
14000 gun deaths a year in the US, 14 in the UK.
And 6 in Switzerland, which has a gun in almost every household.
Clearly there arn't many "predators" using guns in the UK.
The term "predator" includes more than murderers. It is not necessary to fire a gun to victimize an innocent with it; brandishing a gun in the face of a completely unarmed individual is a pretty effective way of assuring compliance. An armed criminal may rape and rob at will with no fear of retaliation.
I read in a back issue of The Economist that there are currently an estimated 3 million unregistered handguns in the hands of English criminals, with thousands and thousands being smuggled into the country on an ongoing basis. The numbers are not firm of course -- merely extrapolations from seized shipments. If the same percentage of smuggled guns are seized as heroin and cocaine, the figure of 3 million may even be on the low side.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
|
well randall, before you remark on my one sentence posts perhaps you should keep up with the other 2 or 3 threads regarding the issues of guns where I made my points at great length.
The need to categorize people with silly labels such as "arrogant liberal" is also a hallmark of the dying paradigm. Its nice and easy to categorise people isnt it?
I never said I was enlightened - you did. But i know that i can live my life without the need of resorting to barbaric measure to try and "protect" myself. I dont need to explain why this is so, thats just the way it is. And if I get shot? so what.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
|
I forgot to mention paranoia. You get involved in funny little ego loops and you just gotta have a gun man!! in case of -insert paranoid delusion here ="because those that are stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary
ladder tend to break into our homes, rob us, rape us, and murder us. "
Thanks Randall!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1125626 - 12/09/02 04:30 PM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons.
Randall thinks that becasue he isnt an idiot no accidents would occur whilst he was in control of a gun! wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it.
Silly, sillly, silly.
I dont care - you'll only shoot yourselves anyway. Thats the beauty of the group mind.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
#1126843 - 12/09/02 09:40 PM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
The need to categorize people with silly labels such as "arrogant liberal" is also a hallmark of the dying paradigm. Its nice and easy to categorise people isnt it?
It is easy to categorize people when they seem to make every effort to fit into the
category in question.
I never said I was enlightened - you did. But i know that i can live my life without the need of resorting to barbaric measure to try and "protect" myself. I dont need to explain why this is so, thats just the way it is. And if I get shot? so what.
If you and the rest of the English population wish to live like that, go ahead. I
certainly hope what has happened in your country never happens in mine.
Freedom does bring about danger. When people are free to do things, sometimes
people will get hurt because of the actions. This is life. Life would be very safe if
we were all confined to cells, and never allowed out. But, would the lack of
freedom make life worth living? As citizens of a democracy, we have to decide
what amount of freedom, and what amount of safety we want in our lives.
And, hopefully we will be able to properly balance the two.
When we are discussing whether a tool should be legal or illegal, we have to
carefully weigh every possible aspect of every possible avenue of action.
Yes, guns are used in a lot of violent crimes. Guns do cause a lot of problems.
But, I still think their legal use by responsible people, is of enough importance
to warrant having to deal with some of these problems. Much like having the
freedom to drive places in your car, exposes you and everyone else to possible
danger, but the benefits outweigh the risks.
Here are my gun opinions in a nutshell:
1. Why guns should continue to be legal in America
-Sporting reasons
-Protection reasons
-When someone wants to kill somebody, it is the fault of the person that
commits the crime, not the tool itself. Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal
building in Oklahoma. He used fertilizer and deisel fuel. Should we ban these
things(which have legitimate uses) because of the actions of a criminal? When
we consider guns, I think we need to punish the actions of criminals, while
protecting the rights of peaceful law-abiding gun-owners who had nothing
to do with any crime.
-There are legal things in this country which kill many more people than guns.
Are you going to outlaw cars next?(which result in at least fifty-thousand
deaths a year) Tobacco(kills about half a million a year)? Fatty Food(kills
at least a million a year)? As I said before, in a democratic society, you must
make decisions that limit people's freedom in order to serve public safety.
Some decisions are easy to make, such as prohibiting a persons freedom
to murder someone else. Some are not so easy to make, because the thing
that is in danger of being outlawed has valid uses.
2. Why the banning of guns in America would not work
-There are too many guns circulating and being owned by people. If you were
to make manufacturing of guns illegal, and seize all the guns that you could on
top of that, there would still be a shitload of guns out there.
-Criminals are criminals because they don't obey laws. Do you think they will
care if a ban on guns is passed? They don't obey any of the laws we have
now, what makes you think they will obey this new one? The only people
who would be affected by a ban on guns are law-abiding citizens who
will be stripped of a valuable protection tool.
-Any person with a brain realizes that when you make something illegal that is
in demand, bad things happen. A violent underground takes over the
manufacture and trade of the thing in question. The price goes up, quality is
oftentimes suspect, and people get killed in battles to control the market. This is
prohibition. This is exactly what has happened with drugs.
These are not elaborated on as well as I would like, because I have to still go
through a shitload of "Political Forum" threads. God, I spend hours on here. I need
to get a life...
RandalFlagg
Edited by RandalFlagg (12/09/02 10:18 PM)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
#1126973 - 12/09/02 10:14 PM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I forgot to mention paranoia. You get involved in funny little ego loops and you just gotta have a gun man!! in case of -insert paranoid delusion here ="because those that are stuck on the lower rungs of the evolutionary
ladder tend to break into our homes, rob us, rape us, and murder us. "
To understand that crime exists, to be wary of it, and to want to protect myself
from it....makes me paranoid??? It sounds more like common sense than paranoia
to me.
RandalFlagg
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: GazzBut]
#1127261 - 12/09/02 11:35 PM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Gazzbut writes:
Randall thinks that becasue he isnt an idiot no accidents would occur whilst he was in control of a gun! wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it.
Gazzbut thinks that because he isn't an idiot no accidents would occur while he was in control of an automobile. I wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it.
Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons.
I'm glad to see you (unlike a certain compatriot of yours) acknowledge the logic of my argument. Why then do you support your government's systematic disarmament of its constituents? This would seem a glaring contradiction.
pinky
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1127332 - 12/10/02 12:03 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Why am I not surprised?
Because you only see what you wish to see?
I will address all of your points.
Where? In another thread? You didn't address them in this one.
Clearly SAMs are not particularly hard to come by, judging from the estimates of the number of loose ones floating around in various places in the world.
This is utterly irrelevant. Should americans be allowed to buy SAM's in stores or not? If not, why not. Reading comprehension...
Only clasp knives and sheath knives have been outlawed so far?
You mean knives with no other use but killing people? You can't cut bread with clasp knives.
And 6 in Switzerland, which has a gun in almost every household.
Still 14,000 in the US tho.
btw, try comparing like cultures. The US and Britain have similar cultures. One has gun control, one doesn't. One has 14,000 deaths a year, one has 14.
heaven forbid Ted Bundy's first victim had killed him!
Ted Bundy was american. What happened to your idea that having legal guns means rape doesn't exist? In fact, wait a minute, america tops the league in serial killers! Some theory.
3 million unregistered handguns in the hands of English criminals, with thousands and thousands being smuggled into the country on an ongoing basis
Most of which are re-activated handguns which have an excellent chance of blowing your hand off if you fire them. Most burglars in the UK have never seen a gun in their lives. I can't remember the last time a rapist carried out an attack with a gun over here.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 10 months
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Xlea321]
#1127608 - 12/10/02 01:32 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Where? In another thread? You didn't address them in this one.
I addressed every point in the post of yours I replied to. Please point out which one you feel I missed and I'll repeat my reply to make it easier for you.
Should americans be allowed to buy SAM's in stores or not? If not, why not.
In my opinion, no, since they are not required for defense against anything other than aircraft. If things ever reach such a state that the American government is using aircraft to attack its own citizens, I fully support the right of Americans to seize SAMs from existing armories inside America, or to purchase them on the international arms market.
Now it's your turn. Should Americans be allowed to own crossbows or stun guns or swords or javelins, etc.? If not, why not?
You mean knives with no other use but killing people? You can't cut bread with clasp knives.
I have carried a clasp knife for decades, and use it on almost a weekly basis for something or other, including, on occasion, cutting bread on a camping trip. It's not my preferred implement for cutting bread, but it gets the job done. I have never killed anyone with it.
The US and Britain have similar cultures.
That's not what you and Gazzbut have been claiming. You are both inordinately proud of the fact that English culture is different from American culture.
However, for once you have actually hit the nail on the head. Statistics indicate unequivocally that Americans on a per capita basis are more prone to commit homicides than are the Swiss or Canadians or English, guns or no guns, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions in threads that I KNOW you have read. If you remove ALL gun deaths in America, INCLUDING suicides and accidental deaths, from the annual total, the homicide rate is STILL multiples of the homicide rate in almost any other country. Even Michael Moore pointed that out (though he certainly didn't dwell on it) in his latest movie. Clearly there is more going on in America than the availability of firearms.
One has gun control, one doesn't. One has 14,000 deaths a year, one has 14.
Gee, Alex, have you already forgotten your proud boast that even BEFORE the draconian post-war disarmament of the English there were almost no gun deaths in England? You must remember that post -- you tried to use it to claim that the sharp jump in England's crime rate after the latest round of legislation in 1997 had nothing to do with gun confiscation, but was instead related to some economic measures or something.
Ted Bundy was american.
Jack the Ripper was English.
What happened to your idea that having legal guns means rape doesn't exist?
I never said that, Alex. Reading comprehension is an important skill. I did say "There would be far less crime in a society where every adult citizen were permanently armed. The armament need not necessarily be a firearm -- a stun gun capable of rendering a human instantly unconscious at a distance for five minutes or so would suffice.
Note the phrases "FAR LESS crime", "EVERY adult" and PERMANENTLY armed.
In fact, wait a minute, america tops the league in serial killers!
Almost none of whom used guns. Most American serial killers use strangulation as their preferred method of killing. Let's outlaw pantyhose and clothesline!
And England (according to UN figures) now tops the league in every other category of crime save homicide and rape, although the gap in the rape statistics is steadily narrowing. The rate of muggings in London is now six times higher than that of New York.
Most of which are re-activated handguns which have an excellent chance of blowing your hand off if you fire them.
Wrong. Most of which are new firearms smuggled in from the continent. England is a lucrative market for gunrunners -- ask the Belgians.
By the way, how is it possible for there to be more than a million and a half (in other words, more than 50% of 3 million) "reactivated" handguns in England, when the legislation demanded the confiscation of starter pistols, air guns, and even "replica" guns? It seems unlikely the legislation would have allowed anyone to keep a "deactivated" handgun. Also, you recently claimed that before your government completely disarmed the law-abiding populace in 1997 there were only 140,000 guns in England, and the "vast majority" of those were rifles kept at shooting clubs. Are you now claiming that somehow the populace managed to keep a million and a half handguns with their firing pins removed hidden from the authorities? If so, it would seem a lot of law-abiding citizens opposed your government's legislation.
Even if this WAS the case, where did the other million and a half handguns come from? They must surely be recent imports if there were only 140,000 guns in England pre-1997. Who is buying those imports; law-abiding citizens or criminals?
Most burglars in the UK have never seen a gun in their lives.
I find that hard to believe, but I will concede that it could be POSSIBLE. I see no way of proving that one way or the other. What's your point?
I can't remember the last time a rapist carried out an attack with a gun over here.
Don't you read your own newspapers? However, even if you have never read of such a thing happening, it doesn't negate my point. A rapist doesn't NEED a gun if he is assured by his government that his victim is unarmed. A breadknife will do the job of terrorizing his prey quite handily.
pinky
--------------------
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1127641 - 12/10/02 01:44 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
err talk about putting words into my mouth!!
where did I say "Gazzbut thinks that because he isn't an idiot no accidents would occur while he was in control of an automobile. I wonder how many other people have said that and lived to regret it."
I certainly dont agree with that. I know cars are dangerous, but that is not their purpose. A gun is fulfilling its destiny when it kills someone. If you cant see the difference yourself im not going to wear out my keyboard explaining it to you!
Your logic is flawless - to prevent acts of violence we should all be carrying weapons. - Obviously this was said with an amused look of disbelief on my face! The logic is so flawed it doesnt really merit being labelled as logic. I think you knew that though!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 10 months, 29 days
|
Re: Home Protection [Re: Phred]
#1127649 - 12/10/02 01:46 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
PLEASE STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH - I HAVE NEVER SAID I AM INORDINATELY PROUD OF ENGLISH CULTURE.
ITS ALL THE SAME TO ME - WESTERN IMPERIALISM
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
CBD Concentrates 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder 
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
Northernsoul
wilshire
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
Poid
Xlea321
Lana
Andy21
Pandeist