GUN banned no more.
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
posted on August 20th, 2008, 11:57 am
I mean I could say I agree with you, if guns never existed, we would be phenomenally better off. The problem is that never happened, and there really is no turning back. The issue which you seem to have the biggest problem is armed Civilians. I mean, I know better then to think the Government can protect me 100% of the time, Katrina proved that beyond a doubt. If you're comfortable depending solely on the police for protection, that's fine, more power to you.
Out here, cops are few and far between. It once took an ambulance 15 minutes to get here when one of us thought we were having a heart attack. I don't believe I will depend my safety completely on the local government.
Out here, cops are few and far between. It once took an ambulance 15 minutes to get here when one of us thought we were having a heart attack. I don't believe I will depend my safety completely on the local government.
posted on August 20th, 2008, 8:46 pm
Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on August 20th, 2008, 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have no clue what to say... other than a ton of faulty logic still does not make a good argument. 3 and a half minutes on google PD just goes to show that you don't even read the articles you posted. On that note...
(These are the sites you posted as evidence)
Third site: Citizens Defend Themselves With Guns
Not only do the sources not exist anymore, but the site is an NRA site. Great nonpartisanship there PD.
First Site: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Guns Save Lives. Again, partisan, and ... ironic. One of the National Parks that is being petitioned against for resticting weapons (and there are NRA protestors on site) is .... Martin Luther King Jr. Park. Hmmmm... figure it out yourself. ...not to mention the irony that the NRA wants to allow concealed guns, but has not said anything about allowing knives in buildings such as the Sears Tower (or in airplanes/airports for that matter... gee that goes over well). Once you allow one type of weapon, you must allow all otherwise the very act becomes unconstitutional. Turn that over for a bit, won't you?
I'm not sure PD that you have read the arguments in that wonderful site that was posted here in these forums: Second site: Just For Skeptics
...but it is a prime example of faulty logic. On the one hand, we have one person writing that "Shouldn't We Repeal The Gun Laws... If It'll Save A Single Child?" (Just For Skeptics: Shouldn't We Repeal The Gun Laws... If It'll Save A Single Child?) but yet another states that "The truth is that in 1999, 31 children younger than 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Any death is tragic, but with 90-some million Americans owning guns and about 40 million children younger than 10, it is hard to think of any other product in the home that represents such a low risk to children. Indeed, more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets. (Just For Skeptics: Does News Coverage Endanger Lives?)
These are obviously direct contradictions. Pretty much every argument on that site contradicts another (this is just one example). Furthermore, if we carry the above example any further we end up with an argument like this: thermonuclear weapons can't be all that bad, because we've only killed 300,000 people with them, whereas rifles have killed a hundred million. I know PD, you've stated once that you can't compare these two types of weapons, but you then lay your "firm truths" on a comparison between bows and arrows and AK-47's. What is the basis of these comparisons? That one weapons kills slightly less than the other so they can be compared? A tactical nuke can be made to only kill a few dozen people, just like a spray of gunfire. Does that justify a comparison? Similarly, just because one tool kills less than another does not make it any less of a threat... when you brought up cars killing people, you basically suggested that cars are tools for killing, like guns. Please prove that to me. ...and in case people aren't aware: most weapons that are recognized as having as a sole purpose to be a weapon (switchblades, any knive above a certain length and breadth, crossbows etc) ARE REGULATED. In my own home town, bows are illegal to own for example. Again your comparisons must be null and void, not to mention unwaranted and stated without the slightest bit of corroborative evidence.
If you outlaw a comparison such as mine, your argument and everyone else's (so far) must be null in this regard too. Nevertheless, none of you will listen to me now (just as you haven't responded to my arguments in the past) because you don't want to bother to read ... but at least contrive your arguments with some common sense (by the way, where are all the cold hard facts that have been promised repeatedly, but never given?).
Clearly, if any of the very few more reasonable characters on this thread are to be convinced, someone will have to spend the time (oh no!) to actually give credible evidence. (In other words, for those who still believe that I'mForGuns.BecauseI'mAGunManufacturer.AndI'llLoseMyJobOtherwise.org is a great site to showcase statistics, keep spewing insults)
...because I am so utterly cynical as a result of the inaneness of the last 3 pages, I don't believe anyone will do so. Please prove me wrong. Likewise I doubt anyone will see this statement and tell me they saw it because they won't read more than 5 sentences (or maybe they will skim it and think they know what I am saying). Again, please prove me wrong.
I would finally like to ask why people always assume that only "criminals" use illegal weapons and why only "civilians" use legal weapons and not the other way around.
(These are the sites you posted as evidence)
Third site: Citizens Defend Themselves With Guns
Not only do the sources not exist anymore, but the site is an NRA site. Great nonpartisanship there PD.
First Site: RealClearPolitics - Articles - Guns Save Lives. Again, partisan, and ... ironic. One of the National Parks that is being petitioned against for resticting weapons (and there are NRA protestors on site) is .... Martin Luther King Jr. Park. Hmmmm... figure it out yourself. ...not to mention the irony that the NRA wants to allow concealed guns, but has not said anything about allowing knives in buildings such as the Sears Tower (or in airplanes/airports for that matter... gee that goes over well). Once you allow one type of weapon, you must allow all otherwise the very act becomes unconstitutional. Turn that over for a bit, won't you?
I'm not sure PD that you have read the arguments in that wonderful site that was posted here in these forums: Second site: Just For Skeptics
...but it is a prime example of faulty logic. On the one hand, we have one person writing that "Shouldn't We Repeal The Gun Laws... If It'll Save A Single Child?" (Just For Skeptics: Shouldn't We Repeal The Gun Laws... If It'll Save A Single Child?) but yet another states that "The truth is that in 1999, 31 children younger than 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Any death is tragic, but with 90-some million Americans owning guns and about 40 million children younger than 10, it is hard to think of any other product in the home that represents such a low risk to children. Indeed, more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets. (Just For Skeptics: Does News Coverage Endanger Lives?)
These are obviously direct contradictions. Pretty much every argument on that site contradicts another (this is just one example). Furthermore, if we carry the above example any further we end up with an argument like this: thermonuclear weapons can't be all that bad, because we've only killed 300,000 people with them, whereas rifles have killed a hundred million. I know PD, you've stated once that you can't compare these two types of weapons, but you then lay your "firm truths" on a comparison between bows and arrows and AK-47's. What is the basis of these comparisons? That one weapons kills slightly less than the other so they can be compared? A tactical nuke can be made to only kill a few dozen people, just like a spray of gunfire. Does that justify a comparison? Similarly, just because one tool kills less than another does not make it any less of a threat... when you brought up cars killing people, you basically suggested that cars are tools for killing, like guns. Please prove that to me. ...and in case people aren't aware: most weapons that are recognized as having as a sole purpose to be a weapon (switchblades, any knive above a certain length and breadth, crossbows etc) ARE REGULATED. In my own home town, bows are illegal to own for example. Again your comparisons must be null and void, not to mention unwaranted and stated without the slightest bit of corroborative evidence.
If you outlaw a comparison such as mine, your argument and everyone else's (so far) must be null in this regard too. Nevertheless, none of you will listen to me now (just as you haven't responded to my arguments in the past) because you don't want to bother to read ... but at least contrive your arguments with some common sense (by the way, where are all the cold hard facts that have been promised repeatedly, but never given?).
Clearly, if any of the very few more reasonable characters on this thread are to be convinced, someone will have to spend the time (oh no!) to actually give credible evidence. (In other words, for those who still believe that I'mForGuns.BecauseI'mAGunManufacturer.AndI'llLoseMyJobOtherwise.org is a great site to showcase statistics, keep spewing insults)
...because I am so utterly cynical as a result of the inaneness of the last 3 pages, I don't believe anyone will do so. Please prove me wrong. Likewise I doubt anyone will see this statement and tell me they saw it because they won't read more than 5 sentences (or maybe they will skim it and think they know what I am saying). Again, please prove me wrong.
I would finally like to ask why people always assume that only "criminals" use illegal weapons and why only "civilians" use legal weapons and not the other way around.
posted on August 21st, 2008, 12:22 am
Not going to pretend I actually sit there for hours and read over the sources, nor pretend I decided to read your rant, as more then 2 paragraphs is frankly a waste of time, nor do I expect any of them to be perfectly nonpartisan. This is a political issue, and I can either go look for a liberal source which somehow says THEY are right, or find a conservative source which also says IT is right. I mean I know what I believe, and I think it's right. I'm sure you think stealing our weapons is right as well, if that's what you believe, more power to you I guess...
posted on August 21st, 2008, 12:34 am
They way he fracased it may not have bean sensitive but what me and him are saying-are very similar.
How can one think a world with out guns is one they would like to see but not willing to do any thing about the guns that are here? Some things missing in your commitment.
How can one think a world with out guns is one they would like to see but not willing to do any thing about the guns that are here? Some things missing in your commitment.
posted on August 21st, 2008, 8:00 am
Last edited by Casper on August 21st, 2008, 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
first off find one post in this thread or the other... um, 2 (i guess) that says i stated facts, or posted articles. the entire time i was simply pointing out my perspective.
i think we should just forget about this thread. we've been posting the same arguments the entire time & still we get nowhere, & the flaming is the only thing that will come out of this when it's all said & done.
i have my opinion, everyone else has theirs, & noone has budged an inch. lets put this thread down while we can still walk away on friendly terms. or can we can still discuss this thread in a civil manner that doesn't repeat the same song.
----edits
i'm tired & my grammar sucks right now
i think we should just forget about this thread. we've been posting the same arguments the entire time & still we get nowhere, & the flaming is the only thing that will come out of this when it's all said & done.
i have my opinion, everyone else has theirs, & noone has budged an inch. lets put this thread down while we can still walk away on friendly terms. or can we can still discuss this thread in a civil manner that doesn't repeat the same song.
----edits
i'm tired & my grammar sucks right now
posted on August 21st, 2008, 3:38 pm
O resignation and cineziom abound. Its to hard it take to much work we should just dig a hole and put our heads in it. You mite wont to give up be for the end result what ever it may be I give up when I die. I know what my life is for "offering possibilities". Life is to short and tricky to go it alone when we give up we abandon some one or some thing I am not giving up!
posted on August 21st, 2008, 9:06 pm
it seems you've all given up, but just haven't realized it yet. i look back & i see for the most part it's just the same argument over & over. that's not a debate. that's the most boring game of ping-pong ever played, & i find ping-pong in itself vary boring when i’m not totally hammered drunk.
posted on August 21st, 2008, 10:12 pm
Well fortunately the burden of proof isn't on us, it's on the anti Civilian gun owners, as almost every state and city in the US has no problem with firearm ownership by individuals. Seeing as how no one has really given any actual proof to show firearms being more troublesome in society then their worth, I feel more confident in our rights then ever. I guess I'll put this to rest for myself then.
posted on August 22nd, 2008, 12:13 am
How gave up? If you are posting here posting from ether pro or anti guns then you have not.
If I have not relisted it yet I have not given up.....
I will not give up of people its all we have.
Well you just posited PD world with out guns would be beater... So you see it too.
If I have not relisted it yet I have not given up.....
I will not give up of people its all we have.
Well you just posited PD world with out guns would be beater... So you see it too.
posted on August 22nd, 2008, 12:16 am
True, a world without guns would be better, but we're about 10 centuries too late for that realization to ever be effective. So we will have guns, and we will continue to construct more. I'm not a absolute gun nut, I'm just a realist.
posted on August 22nd, 2008, 12:56 am
i'm not a gun nut either, i don't even personally own a firearm (i do own 2 swords and 2 knives). but they do have their usefulness. and banning guns will not solve the problem. that's all i'm going to say. i've posted my opinion more times then necessary, and i doubt it will change anytime soon, nor do i think anyone else’s will.
posted on August 22nd, 2008, 11:12 am
Why can we not have guns? Its a chose, You act as if it is some thing that only a dream. What would have happened if mahatma mohonduse gondiy had said the British are here there is nothing I can do.
I'm just a realist Your chose is what makes it real. You act as if its some thing out side of you that controls the world. You are more powerful then you see your self right now.
I'm just a realist Your chose is what makes it real. You act as if its some thing out side of you that controls the world. You are more powerful then you see your self right now.
PREATOR DEFIANT wrote:True, a world without guns would be better, but we're about 10 centuries too late for that realization to ever be effective. So we will have guns, and we will continue to construct more. I'm not a absolute gun nut, I'm just a realist.
posted on August 22nd, 2008, 11:30 am
Last edited by PREATOR DEFIANT on August 22nd, 2008, 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Lol, you act as if we can take the hundred million or so firearms of the world and just destroy them all. Keep dreamin buddy, I'll remain here in the real world with my arsenal.
posted on August 22nd, 2008, 12:07 pm
We can.
What would happen if martin loather kink had said I have a dream that all people needed a new couch.
It 1st starts with a dream the next step is to make it real. There is only one world with that we live in to gather.
What would happen if martin loather kink had said I have a dream that all people needed a new couch.
It 1st starts with a dream the next step is to make it real. There is only one world with that we live in to gather.
posted on August 22nd, 2008, 12:19 pm
This isn't some issue where people automatically think it's wrong, like AIDS.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests