Badnarik "Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target"

Originally posted by MrMarbles

No i didn't, i said i didn't want any guns, I did not specifically cite wanting the polcie or army to go without them.

Do you see what you just admitted too?

You said "I don't want any guns" but I also "do want the police and army to have guns." Well do you want some guns or no guns or just the secret police to come into your home and shoot you in the head because a tyrant decides you don't deserve to live?

Sorry, they are only designed to destroy life.

So you really think that guns were only designed to destroy life? What are bows and arrows or long saber type knives designed for? Maybe opening tin cans? What is the difference between being designed to destroy life and designed to protect life from being destroyed by knife wielding maniacs?

People kill guns but guns don't kill people.

With those skills, why waste your time shooting, why not become a surgeon or opera singer?

How about a woman protecting herself from being raped and knifed to death by a guy like you? Is that why you are against guns being manufactured?

But when you use a gun, someone dies, or is permantley inbjured, if you swim in a pool, with proper diligence you probably won't get your brains blown out.

Right in a pool you won't get your brains blown out but you will get your lungs filled with H2O and you can choke to death. With due diligence you won't get killed or kill with a gun in your possession either.

Do you prefer the latter or the former?
 
With those skills, why waste your time shooting, why not become a surgeon or opera singer?

I actually have a very good friend that is a surgeon that loves the sport. He is damn good too....comes in handy when some low life breaks into your house. Two to the chest and one to the head always leaves the bad guy dead.
 
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Swimming pools aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Without cars society, in at least NA, would crumble, and aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Bicicycles aren't designed specifically to kill people.

Knifes, well it will be knid of hard to eat meat without out one, but NA society dose eat to much anyway, so sure, outlaw knives.

This is ridiculous. First, people are just as dead whether they drown or whether they are shot or stabbed. Second, you really want to outlaw knives because people eat too much?!? You must think everyone in the world is unstable and ready to snap over the slightest thing. Third, guns are not designed only to kill people. Many guns are specifically made for hunting game, not people, though they could be used for either purpose - or should hunting be outlawed also?


Plus, I just don't want average joe to own a gun, you would still have police and the army to protect you. Besides the average street cop in england don't carry guns, and there is'nt thousands of people dying on the streets there.

Police can't protect everyone and can't always respond in time. What about rural areas where it takes 30-45 minutes for a policeman to respond? And the army cannot help you when it comes to domestic crime; posse comitatus laws prevent the army from doing law enforcement.
 
Do all these things, terrorists, murderous posses, secret police, etc., happen to you guys on a regular basis? If it did to me, maybe I would want to carry a gun. But they don't, so I don't need to.

Do you guys know the concept of a "arms race". Basically it means when nation X begins to produce more weapons then nation Y, nation Y begins to produce more aswell, completely counteracting the effects nation X where trying to make by producing more weapoms. This senario leads to enevitable to chaos.
Now nation X is the general public. The general public all acquire weapons, this makes nation Y, criminals, need more and bigger weapons to counter act that of the public.
If everyone has a gun, then bad guys will have shotguns, if everyone has shotguns, badguys will have machine guns, if everyone has machine guns, bad guys will have tanks, if everyone has tanks, bad guy will have missles, etc., etc., etc.
Next thing you know, everyone will have tactical nukes, and the world would be destoyed.

No guns, except for those whose job it is to keep order.
 
Originally posted by MrMarbles
Do all these things, terrorists, murderous posses, secret police, etc., happen to you guys on a regular basis? If it did to me, maybe I would want to carry a gun. But they don't, so I don't need to.

An armed populace prevents this kind of stuff from happening as often, much like washing your hands with soap prevents you from getting sick more often.

Do you guys know the concept of a "arms race". Basically it means when nation X begins to produce more weapons then nation Y, nation Y begins to produce more aswell, completely counteracting the effects nation X where trying to make by producing more weapoms. This senario leads to enevitable to chaos.
Now nation X is the general public. The general public all acquire weapons, this makes nation Y, criminals, need more and bigger weapons to counter act that of the public.
If everyone has a gun, then bad guys will have shotguns, if everyone has shotguns, badguys will have machine guns, if everyone has machine guns, bad guys will have tanks, if everyone has tanks, bad guy will have missles, etc., etc., etc.
Next thing you know, everyone will have tactical nukes, and the world would be destoyed.

A classic slippery slope fallacy. Most criminals are dettered by firearms. Ask yourself this question: would you rob a store or break into a house if you thought there was a good chance that the occupant was armed, whether it was with a shotgun, pistol, or rifle? I sure as hell wouldn't - and the only criminals that would consider it are those who are armed themselves. In many cases, those criminals are killed in the middle of their crimes.

No guns, except for those whose job it is to keep order.

An armed populace keeps order just fine in most cases.
 
Originally posted by MrMarbles

Do all these things, terrorists, murderous posses, secret police, etc., happen to you guys on a regular basis? If it did to me, maybe I would want to carry a gun. But they don't, so I don't need to.

Maybe you never heard of the Waco, Texas massacre when the US government attacked a compound with a wacky leader. It took our Reno storm troopers 51 days to burn out the men, women and children alive with both guns and tanks.

or

Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its Children

Students came out on the Kent State campus and scores of others to protest the bombing of Cambodia-- a decision of President Nixon's that appeared to expand the Vietnam War. Some rocks were thrown, some windows were broken, and an attempt was made to burn the ROTC building. Governor James Rhodes sent in the National Guard.

The units that responded were ill-trained and came right from riot duty elsewhere; they hadn't had much sleep. The first day, there was some brutality; the Guard bayonetted two men, one a disabled veteran, who had cursed or yelled at them from cars. The following day, May 4th, the Guard, commanded with an amazing lack of military judgment, marched down a hill, to a field in the middle of angry demonstrators, then back up again. Seconds before they would have passed around the corner of a large building, and out of sight of the crowd, many of the Guardsmen wheeled and fired directly into the students, hitting thirteen, killing four of them, pulling the trigger over and over, for thirteen seconds.

And on and on and on. Yes it does happen right here in these good ole USA.

Do you guys know the concept of a "arms race". Basically it means when nation X begins to produce more weapons then nation Y, nation Y begins to produce more aswell, completely counteracting the effects nation X where trying to make by producing more weapoms. This senario leads to enevitable to chaos. Now nation X is the general public. The general public all acquire weapons, this makes nation Y, criminals, need more and bigger weapons to counter act that of the public.
If everyone has a gun, then bad guys will have shotguns, if everyone has shotguns, badguys will have machine guns, if everyone has machine guns, bad guys will have tanks, if everyone has tanks, bad guy will have missles, etc., etc., etc.
Next thing you know, everyone will have tactical nukes, and the world would be destoyed.


Unfortunately this is civilization today and the absence of guns are not going to change human nature or mankind's desire of conquest and imperialism.

No guns, except for those whose job it is to keep order.

If those whose job is to keep that order are given a command to attack the unarmed with the intent to kill, then only the innocents will be slaughtered.

Your earlier post condemned any guns anywhere on earth and now you find it acceptable for police or armies to keep and bear arms.

You've come a long way baby....
 
Kent State, May 4, 1970: America Kills Its Children

So then why didn't anyone do anything about it? Aren't your trained militias there it stop is kind of power abuse. You want guns to overthrow your gov't when it is nessecary, yet nothing happened. They killed innocent students, where was the uprising?
 
There WAS an uprising and fortunately common sense prevailed BEFORE citizens had to resort to using weapons to protect ourselves. ( hint: the government KNOWS we have them for protection against this very thing )
 
We already have dynamite and Ricin, why aren't terroeists using them now?
They do use stuff like that. It might not be specifically dynamite, but they use stuff like C4, TNT, fertilizer bombs (like OKC), and other stuff.

They are much more affective then guns.
As far as killing lots of people goes, I would agree that explosives are more effective than guns. But I don't know about Ricin. It's good for assassinations by poisoning people but for killing lots of people, I don't think it's very useful.
 
Originally posted by MrMarbles
So then why didn't anyone do anything about it? Aren't your trained militias there it stop is kind of power abuse. You want guns to overthrow your gov't when it is nessecary, yet nothing happened. They killed innocent students, where was the uprising?

Actually the Branch Dividians did have a great deal of weapons. They used them and many of the government troopers were killed and wounded but after 51 days, instead of waiting for the people inside to get hungry, Janet Reno and Bill Clinton decided to use tanks and gases to bring down the walls and turn the place into a raging fire inferno.

If the Branch Dividians had no weapons, the ATF would have just gone into the compound to protect the inhabitants and probably shot them dead. A good example of what firearms can do when when attacked by your own United States government. A democratic government run by Bill Clinton and his lacky, Janet Reno who attacked American citizens.
 
Originally posted by tim_duncan2000

They do use stuff like that. It might not be specifically dynamite, but they use stuff like C4, TNT, fertilizer bombs (like OKC), and other stuff. As far as killing lots of people goes, I would agree that explosives are more effective than guns. But I don't know about Ricin. It's good for assassinations by poisoning people but for killing lots of people, I don't think it's very useful.

Ricin is best used to kill lots of people instead of a few
with guns.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...df+Ricin+poison+air+contamination+death&hl=en

It can be in the form of a powder, a mist, or a pellet or it can be dissolved in water or weak acid. Once ricin gets inside the cells of a person’s body, it prevents those cells from making the proteins they need. Without those proteins, the cells die; and eventually death may occur. Effects of ricin poisoning depend on whether ricin was inhaled, ingested or injected.

Death in mass is not limited to guns but without guns, as Dill says, our government has all of us at its mercy. Not a comforting thought that American's could be disarmed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top