Again....But it's never the guns!

[Creed of Heresy]

Well y'all have fun with this, uh..."discussion." I'm having no further part in it.

[Shell B]

What I am arguing is that eliminating all citizen gun ownership is bad.

And what I'm not seeing is any reason why you think that is so.


The chart stands. The Founding Fathers knew what they meant by a well-regulated militia.

They did not mean every shithead walking around blasting whatever the fuck he felt like.

And . . . again . . . I am not advocating every shithead walking around, blah, blah, blah. That is also not reality, but a version of reality that would suit the argument you are making.

Wow, someone actually asked for a reason instead of bringing up the NRA. Because there are a lot of responsible people out there who own guns that are under constant lock and key. Those people can use those guns for hunting, self defense, just in case, whatever the fuck they want. Why? Because they are responsible, not the one in who the fuck knows how many thousand or even million that go off and commit a gun crime. Note that I say crime. Saying "such and such number of people are shot" does not even come close to telling me how many of them were shot illegally.

---

Well y'all have fun with this, uh..."discussion." I'm having no further part in it.

It's not even close to that bad. Min and I are always vitriolic and, as for everyone else, that aren't being nearly as bad as some other threads. Why do you care?

[Autumnlicious]

Well y'all have fun with this, uh..."discussion." I'm having no further part in it.

It's not even close to that bad. Min and I are always vitriolic and, as for everyone else, that aren't being nearly as bad as some other threads. Why do you care?

Because he could contribute little to the discussion after a while, other than "feel bad for me, I can't stand ignoring this thread without announcing my grace's departure".

[Darth]

The fact is that everything I've suggested is that guns don't kill people; Americans do. Even though countries like Switzerland have alarmingly high gun possession rates, they seem to have far fewer murders with guns than we do; in fact, in 2006 the entire Swiss nation had a total of 34 gun-related homicides. The US? 12,632. Hell, in my home state of Illinois alone there were 625. Hell, in Chicago there were 373.

Probably the Swiss actually know how to use their guns and respect them for what they are. Different lifestyles necessitate the need for different things, in practise guns don't have a place in our cities. That's not to say they can't be used in war, in hunting and in sport - but that's a far cry short of carrying them in society and public use. Something like 80-90 yanks a year die in hunting accidents. That just goes to show that even with their indended use the yanks don't know how to use the guns properly!

As I understand it: the swiss train every man (and any woman who wants to do it) who is found suitable to be part of their army*, (else you have to do community service/pay more tax or something) which explains the high gun ownership rate, the government actually gives them their gun. The training lasts a year (though not all at once I don't think). They all learn how to shoot.

Switzerland has france to it's west, germany to it's north, italy to it's south and austria (and liechtenstein) to it's east, it's easy to see how this policy came about and why they might take it seriously.

Wikipedia says switzerland has 8million people, lets look at deaths and gun crime per capita, ay? My quick math (360mil/8mill = 45 times more people. 34 deaths x 45 = 1530 deaths if switzerland had as many people as the US, still doing a lot better than the US, but saying they only had 34 seems like cheating.

And to be fair I do know switzerland has a rather high suicide rate...

[Creed of Heresy]

It's not even close to that bad. Min and I are always vitriolic and, as for everyone else, that aren't being nearly as bad as some other threads. Why do you care?

Because he could contribute little to the discussion after a while, other than "feel bad for me, I can't stand ignoring this thread without announcing my grace's departure".

How mature of you, Moros. Where exactly did it sound like I was asking ANYONE to feel bad for me? I depart threads all the fucking time without announcing it even though I'll still keep reading up on the discussion if it's interesting at all.

If you would like an explanation as to why I have no desire to contribute anything further, it's because these particular threads do not actually go anywhere once it reaches the strawmen. I've simply said my piece; I agree with strict regulations on firearm possession, usage, and sale, I am against the outright banning, and that's all there is to it.

If someone would like to discuss with me why any of those are bad, I'd be more than glad to do so. Unless someone else has a catty, childish remark to make about me?

Addendum: I'm not so much pissed off at the vitriol; I've been here almost a year now; I'm used to the climate. I'm irritated that the conversation is stagnating and kind of just dipping into "I slap you, you slap me." I like drama as much as the next forum-goer but sometimes it starts to chap my ass a bit, y'dig?

[Kousbroek]

.... Lost case ...

Seriously? That is your response to me pointing out that you moved the goalposts? Great argument, bro.

No i didn't.
And it wasn't an argument but a response to your remark that civilians should be armed to defend themselves from a tyrant.
That tyrant can only be your own government and if that is the case, well one can only conclude that there is some terribly wrong over there.

By the way, it's lost cause, dumbass.

Vergeeft u mij alstublieft voor deze enorme blunder.
Hoe kan ik zo dom zijn om de prachtige engelse taal zo te misbruiken...

Btw i prefer Mr dumbass you silly girl.

[Tiberius]

That tyrant can only be your own government and if that is the case, well one can only conclude that there is some terribly wrong over there.

...and that tyrant was their own government. They used to be British citizens, and the tyrannical government was the British Empire, not allowing them representation whilst still taxing them.

The founding fathers realized that things could get out of hand again, so they made it so that ordinary citizens could take up arms against the government if they needed to. That is the entire point of the amendment, and why it still stands today.

If your government starts oppressing you, you have the right to fight back against your oppressor. The second amendment means that your government can't try and bully you into submission by hoarding all the guns.

[Kousbroek]

That tyrant can only be your own government and if that is the case, well one can only conclude that there is some terribly wrong over there.

...and that tyrant was their own government....

Thx for the history lesson but that was back in the 18th century ... and i'm getting sick of all that stupid founding fathers bullshit.
In a modern day society there is no room for armed civilians and anyone who thinks otherwise is either paranoid or just out of his right mind ( or both ).
But keep on defending 'the right to bear arms' so we can wait for the next 'i took my mommy's gun to school and killed everyone in sight' incident.
Maybe the next one can go for 30 kids, i mean 20 ... with an assault rifle... what a looser and a poor shot.....

[LastPoet]

Thx for the history lesson but that was back in the 18th century ... and i'm getting sick of all that stupid founding fathers bullshit.
In a modern day society there is no room for armed civilians and anyone who thinks otherwise is either paranoid or just out of his right mind ( or both ).
But keep on defending 'the right to bear arms' so we can wait for the next 'i took my mommy's gun to school and killed everyone in sight' incident.
Maybe the next one can go for 30 kids, i mean 20 ... with an assault rifle... what a looser and a poor shot.....

That is an appeal to emotion, since you are using the tragedy to support your argument. I think banning guns to civilians completely wouldn't be a good thing, think about military dictatorship.

Civilians should have guns under a good regulation, I think that is a good middle ground.

[Tiberius]

Thx for the history lesson but that was back in the 18th century ... and i'm getting sick of all that stupid founding fathers bullshit.

I know it was in the 18th century. The second amendment was included so that if needed, citizens could revolt against their government again. That provision is still needed IMO, as it should be in any government. Any government has the ability to fall to corruption and become oppressive.

In a modern day society there is no room for armed civilians and anyone who thinks otherwise is either paranoid or just out of his right mind ( or both ).

Say that to the civilians who just retook their countries from dictators in the Arab Spring. If you think that the world is perfect, or that any government on this planet is perfect and cannot become oppresive, then it is you that is out of his right mind.

But keep on defending 'the right to bear arms' so we can wait for the next 'i took my mommy's gun to school and killed everyone in sight' incident.

Sorry, but there is a big difference between owning a gun and using one to commit mass murder. What we can do to limit the number of these incidents is do better background checks on people who want guns, and focus a lot of effort on the recognition and treatment of mental disorders.