What would you do in this situation?

Is about all I have to say to that response...Don't personally think it's even worth responding to.....

But I must

How in any logical way does showing how criminals will still get guns while law obiding citizens turn into 'economics'?

Yes with the restrictions being put on gun ownership already you are somewhat correct, so then you agree with me give the citizens exactly what the military has

Seriously though you'd rather have the citizens have no chance than even a 5% chance. Unless the military came on a full out extermination of it's citizens, I highly doubt they'd simply roll over the entire US as you make it sound..Look at iraq for example, we have many more citizens, citizens with some pretty nifty weaponry, ex military members, and current military members alike would defect in such an instance....It would end up a guerilla war from hell.

 

This what you stated and everything in this statement is related to economics such as customer base, high profit and the fact that guns would illegaly be sold in far more extensive way as today.

What make you come to this conclusion that is by the way very unclear for a native english speaking person. Sorry to say this and there is no hate behind this comment but i have a feeling you have been drinking again.

 

I'm sorry but this something we will never be able to agree upon (not that this is entirely neccesary off course ) just like the heroine discussion that i partially disagreed with you.

still friends

 

Edz, I think that your whole approach to problems is from the perspective of what society should be like completely ignoring the fact that the reality of things is very different. If you can guarantee me that there won't be any guns in your country, go ahead and outlaw them. If you can't then you may want to rethink about what is the best way to deal with things as they actually are

 

Cowboys and Indians.

BANG BANG

 

Economics to the extent that it will still happen, they will still get guns. Do you disagree with this? I do not argue on the point of economics for the reason not to ban guns, it's a simple fact that you can't explain away!

No drinking #1
You're acting as if economics is the underlying reason I would not be against guns being banned, which it is not, it's the fricken US constitution.

Never mind that I'll play your game. It has nothing to do with clear economics it's a simple fact of you take something away it creates CRIME if you wish to call that economics feel free to do so, it however is not a cut and dry case of economics, nor is it my reasoning. Ban liquor = crime, ban prostitutes = crime, ban drugs = crime, ban guns = crime...What do you not get about this?

Furthermore if you're going to take an economics approach to it, then I guess you'd rather have the criminals in charge of this 'economics' than law obiding citizens...there realy is no way out of it from what you've stated, sorry it's been fun but it's now over. Thank you for playing the game.

 

There will always be guns being it illegal or legal tied to profession or sports but giving every citizen the right to hold a firearm that has no criminal record and is over for instance 21 is not my idea to deal with things in the best way.

But that's mine point of view and oppinion and who has the final say so who is wrong or right? No one right?

Who really has the allknowing answer to this dilemma? What to you is the right view and for others the wrong doesn't mean you have the absolute answer and neither do i

 

I once saw McGauvyer make a gun out a can that band-aids come in, some nails, and I think a banana peel.

 

Good idea, but if I was a criminal in Europe, I'd prefer the easier way and wait for my buddies to come back from Russia with something more efficient.

 

I would probably jump up and do something, and take complete control of the situation.

As I play SWAT on occasions, I am pretty good at being a superhero team leader. hahahaha.

They are drunk, so their vision is impaired and they aren't 100% in control of themselves, so I'd do a super kung fu kick and knock one out, and then use the guy i've just knocked out as a super weapon, and spin him around until he knocks the others out.

I would then call my fellow SWAT team and order them to 'OPEN & CLEAR' and 'Arrest the suspects!' whilst I sat and calmed down the scared staff and 1 other customer. We'd sit drinking coffee, eating donuts and they'd praise me for being the 'Kung-Fu Kitty' and i'd get a medal for bravery. And maybe a mention in the local paper. 'Kung Fu Kitty saves the day'

 

Now we're back on topic lol

 

Ahh... conflict is a natural part of being humans.

Yes, cowboys and Indians. Or, Germans and Brits. Or Indians and Pakistanis. Hell, pretty much anyone and anyone.

Small arms (i.e. firearms) just have that wonderful property of adding some degree of equality into the situation.

All men (and women) are created equal. Samuel Colt made it so. With the invention of reliable personal firearms, the smallest woman is now the equal of the largest brute.

Without firearms, the biggest baddest guy always wins. With firearms, we're all equal. This equality leads to relatively more peace.

Or, as the man says, "An armed society is a polite society."

Firearms are the civilized persons response to brute force.

Now, in Edz defense, the Dutch are some of the most peaceable people on the planet and if anyone doesn't need firearms -- it's the Dutch. Hell, a real Dutchman wouldn't shoot anyone because bullets are too expensive.

However, I do remember my co-worker Ewout who was beaten horribly at a bus stop in Eindhoven. If his attacker had worried that he might have been armed, his attacker most likely would not have attacked him. But, his attacker knew that Ewout was defenseless, so there was absolutely no motivation for him not to beat the living crap out of Ewout. Ewout didn't even need to have a firearm to have benefitted from firearms. Ewout would have benefitted simply because the possibility of his having a firearm would create a doubt in his assailants mind.

Instead, Ewout was nearly beaten to death because his own government doesn't trust him enough to allow him to posess the tools to defend himself.

Isn't that nice?

 

or maybe they would have thought
"he may have a gun, I'm not going to take any chances and shoot him first"
Then Ewout would have been dead.

 

There's a large difference in defending yourself and a government executing a person that could possibly be innocent 25 years after the supposed crime was committed - being from texas, I'm sure you would make such a comparison

Probably because America doesn't stand for courage and honor, just look at how many Iraqi civillians have been killed and how many American's civil rights have been violated

 

You need 3 guns to defend yourself? I mean on the forums you come across as a person I'd like to beat the crap out of so I can only assume you must be 10 times worse in person, but I still think you'd be able to defend yourself with one. Besides you can sleep safer at night. They killed Tookie.

I find it funny that you speak so much about human life yet you have multiple guns. You seem more the type of person that would try to defend themselves with hugs and rainbow kisses.

As far as America is concerned, people like you are what's wrong with it. Stop whining and complaining and leave already.

Nice to see you think guns should just be in your hands and we shouldn't even have a military.

 

Hey.. if I wants to kill someone then it doesn't matter if that person holds a gun or not. I can just wait until that person is unprepared. I don't think that man will be able to pick up his gun after a few shots in the neck anyway.

 

hrblcantra would've beaten them with his massive manhood, then served coffee to all he orphans and freed the slaves.

 

will spencer wrote:

Good point there Will

Yeah right, latehorn made the right repsonse to this

Latehorn wrote:

Will spencer wrote:

So everybody should be strapped in public like Lucky Luke?

 

ha ha ha ha ha.

That is so true.

 

Who said guns are only for defense? Going to the shooting range and having a couple hours of stress relief with friends is quite fun. Having a hand gun in the car and one at home is overkill?

You act like everyone who owns a gun wants to run around killing people. Another one of those incorrect stereotypes you hold. Being able to defend yourself and loved ones from attack has nothing to do with how I value human life.

I would only kill a person when absolutely neccessary, where as the things I've commented on here ( the iraq war, government killing machine (the death penalty) ) are not neccessary and have put the value of human's lives to the lowest level possible.

When did I say we should have no military. Just more of your bull shit comments.

Murder Rate:
the rate of United States is highest among all developed countries, at 5.5 per 100,000 (2004).

We live in the country with the highest murder rate of all developed countries, and there's something wrong with me having a gun to defend myself ?