| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Comments:
<0> I know a guy in the u.s with a ****ing arsenel..
<0> scares the **** outta me
<1> snoops: sure... You don't have to kill people, when you are hand-to-hand, know karate well, and the perp doesn't have a gun. 1) I'm not going to spend 5 years learning karate. 2) Criminals violating my rights give up their own rights. 3) Law-abiding citizens shouldn't be afraid for their safety, the criminals should be afraid for their safety. 4) The perp may have a gun, in which case, the best solution is to have a bigger gun.
<1> snoops: lemme ask you. Have you ever fired a gun?
<2> Listen, this argument isn't exactly going anywhere.. we both have very different views, and beliefs. I believe a society which uses the arm everyone, because then everyone will fear everyone else is the absolute wrong way to go.
<2> Nothing you can say will change my opinion.
<2> and yes I have fired a gun
<1> snoops: how many times?
<2> I don't keep count.
<1> over 10?
<2> *shrug*
<1> you know how many times you've fired a gun...
<1> how many trigger pulls?
<1> 100's? 1000's?
<1> 10's?
<2> under 100 I believe
<2> who knows, who cares
<1> snoops: OK. I'll start by saying that, yes, you are fully entitled to your opinion. I'll start by saying that I felt very similar to the way you do. I used to think that nobody should ever have guns and that they should all be taken away. What changed? I took 8 hours of firearms safety training. It was then that I learned how to responsibly control a weapon. After that point, I was no longer afraid of them. I know, with certainty, that
<1> prevent accidents, and place a bullet where I needed to; ethically and legally.
<1> And the ethically and legally part is: "enough force to stop the attack," not "kill the son of a bitch" as you may have suspected.
<2> in other news a grandmother shot two intruders with 1 shot of her magnum, which went through both intruders, just they weren't intruders, they were her grandchildren
<0> drumline_: but how many people own guns that will NEVER train on how to use them safely, how many nutters have guns who overreact and kill someone using unreasonable force?
<1> snoops: yep. That was an untrained grandmother. A stupid bitch that picked up a gun when she wasn't trained. Those are the idiots. The course I went through strictly forbid me from ever firing at shadows. Why? Because of the example you just cited. Shadows could be anybody.
<1> networkn: exactly. There are hordes of stupid idiotic gun owners that say, "Nobody should ever have to take a safety course." which, in actuality, is why so many people get killed accidentally. If the gun lobby would just wise-up, then all accidents would vanish.
<2> if someone 'needs a gun' for whatever reason..just because I disagree with it, doesn't mean I would stop people from getting them, however I feel the person who owns one is required to have the responsibility to have psychiatric ***istments and go through training, and refresher courses.
<2> all accidents would vanish? No way. Greatly reduced? Sure.
<0> drumline_: but the gun lobby WON'T wise-up and so its safer to ban automatic and ***ault weapons.. allow people who have not completed a training course to own 1 9mm pistol or smaller
<1> I can't tell you how important training is with guns. I can rattle off the 4 universal safety guidelines in my sleep. 1) All guns are always loaded until you have checked them YOURSELF. 2) Never allow the muzzle to cross the path of anything you are not willing to finally destroy. 3) Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. 4) Know what's in front of your target and what's behind your target(in case you miss or the bullet go
<2> in new zealand, the country I live, it's illegal to own a 9mm gun, even with a license..rifles you can own with a license..
<0> 1) say what now?
<0> snoops: where in nz are you?
<2> christchurch
<1> networkn: that wont solve anything. Criminals are the ones that you are giving the advantage to. Criminals will have the bigger guns.
<0> ah dude.. GO THE CRUSADERS!!!!
<2> yeah, good game that was
<2> :)
<0> drumline_: well less people will die overall, since criminals will always have bigger guns
<1> networkn: did you know that across the States that allow concealed carry in the USA, the people who have the higher crime rates are the people WITHOUT concealed weapon permits.
<2> does arms race mean anything?
<0> drumline_: every report can be twisted to read any way you like..
<0> I could find a report that says the opposite if I looked\
<1> networkn: no. Criminals nowadays simply shoot their victims as they are running off with their jewels. It's happening more and more. Criminals USED TO let their victims live.
<1> networkn: no you can't. go look it up for yourself.
<0> drumline_: those are relatively isolated compared to letting any halfwit have an ***ault rifle
<1> networkn: And examine the decrease in crime and the lack of "blood flowing in the streets" after each concealed carry law is p***ed.
<0> I used to live in Mt Pleasant, in CHCH
<2> ah, very nice place
<0> yah I miss chch a LOT
<1> networkn: just check it out for yourself... don't take my word for it. Crime decreases as more people have guns and the criminals don't know who is armed.
<0> crime might, the number of innocents dead never decrease
<1> networkn: how do you figure?
<2> fyi drumline_, nz has one of the lowest amount of killing another human in self defence/criminal activity with guns than any other country in the world
<0> stands to reason.. more untrained people with automatic uncontrolled fire, more dead innocents
<0> plus a lot of criminals actually know how to handle a gun, betcha they kill who they aim for..
<2> and we don't allow hand guns to be carried by anyone except police.
<0> even the police aren't allowed to carry without reason in NZ
<2> usa I believe is one of the highest for gun shot wounds
<1> networkn: well, I've already addressed that. Training. Deaths because of a lack of training is not something I'm willing to concede because I already admit that untrained people are the problem. Get people mandatory training; that's all.
<0> snoops: yup
<2> and death resultings from that
<0> drumline_: people won't do training
<1> snoops: how are your burglaries and robberies?
<1> networkn: mandatory.
<2> very low
<1> snoops: capitalism?
<1> communism? socialism?
<0> drumline_: if its a choice between no guns, and the chances of actually P***ING AND ENFORCING a law for mandatory training with guns, I know which I consider more viable.. you'd be thick to think any other way
<2> gotta go get keyboards..be back in 30
<1> networkn: ya see, no guns = more robberies. They tried that in England. It also = people aren't allowed to defend their property.
<0> no guns means they should spend the time and effort stemming the flow of weapons onto the streets for use with criminals
<1> networkn: example: older fellow in England got robbed 6 times by the same guys. One time, he waits for them and blows one of them away with his shotgun. Is this guy supposed to be burdened by hiring a security guard or even attempt to stop those guys with his bare hands? Should the law-abiding citizen be burdened because somebody else is violating his rights?
<1> networkn: now that guy is in jail for murder. And the murder took place IN HIS OWN HOUSE.
<2> check the new zealand crime and gun shot wounds per year drumline_
<1> England made YOUR CASTLE the CRIMINAL'S CASTLE too!
<0> thats something thats wrong with the justice system NOT the gun laws
<2> just to give you an indication that no guns does not have to mean more robberies
<1> snoops: what's your government like? Communism?
<0> socialists
<0> its horrible :)
<2> helen clark..
<0> GO HELEN... (and never come back)
<1> ...and let me remind you all. Hitler disarmed all jews before he sent them to death camps. Only the Jews that did not give up their arms put up a fight(and not much of one - only lasting a month before german troops, with rifles, were able to quell them).
<0> there is 1 letter that determines the difference betweem what helen thinks shes doing to the country and what I think shes doing.. she thinks shes running the country, I think she's ruining it :)
<1> When you have a disarmed populace, the people who have the arms can do what they want. This idea is BUILT INTO the USA constitution. "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
<1> I'll reiterate: "...shall not be infringed."
<0> drumline_: things have significantly changed since that document was written
<1> networkn: how long has it been since a government on this earth decided to kill it's own people?
<0> there was a very small population, crime rates grow every year.. situations changed
<1> networkn: actually... crime rates have gone down in states where there are more guns being carried.
<0> drumline_: sept 11 was the last time I saw the bush administration do it
<0> drumline_: co-incidence.. show me the stats..
<1> actually no... no coincidence. Happens every time. Crime goes down and DOES NOT go up like the naysayers warn.
<0> compare those to the numbers of innocents killed, gunshot wounds numbers etc etc
<1> networkn: there you go again with innocents killed. Training Training Training.
<0> its like when clark says she has lowered unemployment, and all she did was move long term unemployed to a sickness benefit
<0> drumline_: but the mandatory training thing will never get p***ed, so without that your numbers are irrelevant and our point is made
<0> criminals will still be able to get weapons that the general populace can't get, and therefore have an advantage
<0> mandatory training is a pipedream
<0> surely you must be able to see that
<0> having an opinion based on how it would be IF certain things that will never happen, occur, is pointless. deal with today
<1> networkn: as long as you have a pistol, the field is much more level.
<0> today it would be safer for everyone overall if guns were banned
<1> ...and pistol and training.
<0> mandatory training is a pipedream
<3> i think everyone should get shot in the face
<1> networkn: whatever. :)
<1> networkn: I'm speaking merely in terms of what would solve the problem.
<1> networkn: not what would actually fly as a result of the gun lobby. I know that they have their head up their *** on a few things.
<0> drumline_: where is the legislation to p*** that mandatory gun training ?
<1> networkn: read up
<0> its not even being drafted
<0> let alone seriously considered
<1> read up... I'm speaking in terms of what would address the problem.
<0> so therefore all of your opinion is based on something which is not viable
<0> its like saying, people wouldn't be obese if the goverment took away all fatty foods..
<1> networkn: um... you're severely overlooking the fact that banning all guns is not viable.
<0> that will never happen, whats the next best viable solution
<0> drumline_: you can ban them, not everyone will adhere to the rule, but they will be then criminals
<0> and use they money from the fines you impose, to hire more people to enforce the rule
<1> welp... that's where we end off.
<0> pretty straight forward
<1> So long as folks who agree with me are elected, any criminal that breaks down my door will not outgun me and I will be safer because of that. You might disagree, but that's your right.
<0> criminals will just get bigger guns.
<0> you'll always been outgunned
<1> bigger guns don't match a trained pistol shooter.
<0> and you might be the exception to the rule but more innocents will die that way
<1> networkn: how much firearms training have you gone through? how many trigger pulls do you have?
<0> a bazooka will always beat a shotgun.. every time
<4> Nuke ftw
<1> networkn: lol... . a criminal that breaks into my house is not going to bring a bazooka.. .that's funny. :)
<0> drumline_: i haven't, and I have no need to, because I support a population with no guns
<1> networkn: lemme guess, you've never fired a gun?
<0> drumline_: i was using an example about bigger not always better
<4> Only a stupid criminal would break into a house with people in it,
<4> I'd do it while you're gone and just take all your guns
<1> networkn: tell you what. I challenge you to take a safety course on guns and then be able to maintain your current stance. It will be more difficult for you, I guarantee.
<1> Number: that's why you carry one and keep the rest in a safe.
<0> no it won't because my stance has nothing to do with training
<0> it will make me a safer person IF I were to require a gun
<1> networkn: I say it does. You have no experience with guns, and thus, are afraid of them. Afraid of the unknown and your ability to control a lethal weapon. Get some control over the weapon and I guarantee your thoughts will change.
<0> I am NOT afraid of guns, I was raised on a farm, where guns were kept around, I have fired them, and I still hold my stance
<0> its not MY control I am concerned about
<1> networkn: I'm not talking about firing them. I'm talking about training with them.
<1> and you admit to being safer if you had one.
<0> i know some gun carrying criminals.. they would outgun a cop most times I'd bet.. they train too
<0> I can't compete with that
<4> How exactly does making it easy for people to get guns make it safer for everyone ??
<0> nor do i wish to
<0> Number17: exactly
<1> networkn: "Dial 911 and die" http://www.jpfo.org/Dial911.htm
Return to
#hardware
or
Go to some related
logs:
in da club-arabic remix
#beginner
oblivion merchandies
#computers
#sendmail
#computers
kostenets mirc
#politics
tcl scan hex
#politics
|
|