The Official Gun Control Debate thread

[QUOTE=Jer;1244163]Well, why didn't you say so? Once you become a victim you have every right to pass legislation on things you know very little about.:rolleyes2 Another great emotion-driven arguement - she lost her husband and is therefor infallible. If you argue against her you are some sort of heartless monster.



Instead of a bazillion page shitshow of sane people trying to reason with ignorant, emotionally charged gun ban nuts QUOTE]

Alright dipshit. Are you capable of carrying on a debate without resorting to the same pedantic bullshit? I'm flattered you didn't use 'douche' in a response, nice work, musta been tough.
What isn't emotional about the "I need a gun to defend myself and mah childrun from the criminals" and the "We need more armed people in schools to protect our kids" (Won't someone please think of the children!) arguments. I don't know if anyone remembers the "Bear Patrol" in The Simpsons, but it kind of rings a bell with me.
Emotions are ok, little buddy, its alright to cry. Fear is an emotion. Fear is what seems to the driving force behind much of the pro gun argument on this thread. I'm ok with that are you?

I'm not a gun ban nut. I may be ignorant in the exact terminology used to differentiate a semi-auto rifle from an assault weapon, but I'm comfortable with that. Why don't you try to answer some of the questions I've asked in earlier posts?
All I'm trying to do here is explain the reasons why I think some more regulation of firearms isn't a bad thing. I AM NOT ARGUING IN FAVOR OF TAKING AWAY YOUR GUNS! Did that sink in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jer

Embassador DeSadsky said they could no longer keep up in the Space Race, The Arms Race and the Peace Race. That's why they developed the Doomsday Machine.

---

One of the greatest movies of all time!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Raising the stakes doesn't work?!?

Look at a current map of the world. You will see America on that map. You will not see the Soviet Union.

Tell me again what doesn't work?

---

what brilliant reasoning. ask again later, meat. regardless of what's left on the map, i hope you're not too comfortable with your sense of victory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brice618

I was about to point that out meatpuppet, it obviously worked out. No one nuked anyone and like MP said no more soviet union...


Truckeelocal not only a more powerful but a good economic engine based on freedom and little interference by the government. Thats the way we want to keep it. That applies to every part of government. We want to remain free.

---

oh my. this is so rich. thank you, brice. enjoy the hard landing. hopefully you and meatpuppet are close enough you'll be able to comfort each other.

Brice and MeatPuppet, I wasn't aware that the US's ever-increasing ICBM arsenal was the catalyst for the demise of the USSR. Huh. You learn something new every day.

OK, if that example didn't work, what about "Axis of Evil"-type countries raising the stakes to protect themselves. Let's take Iran or North Korea as examples. Put yourself in their shoes - they want to increase their feeling of personal protection by developing a nuclear arsenal. Is that a good thing? It levels the playing field in a similar fashion (with higher stakes) to everyone carrying guns. From their perspective they're the good guys and you're (we're) the bad guys. They just want to be able to protect themselves. Is that OK?

Snow Dog, thanks. Didn't know that.

By that reasoning you should have no problem with us being in Iraq. I mean we're just trying to keep the guns out of the bad guys hands. Whether they have them or not is not the issue obviously.

I am all for keeping the guns in the hands of the good guys and out of the hands of the bad guys. A ban on guns is not the way to do that in America. The idea is that an emotive response to people who do stupid things only hurts the people who are doing the right thing. You have to be rational about things like this.

I'm tired of this thread for today ... I'm sure I'll be back tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

Brice and MeatPuppet, I wasn't aware that the US's ever-increasing ICBM arsenal was the catalyst for the demise of the USSR. Huh. You learn something new every day.

OK, if that example didn't work, what about "Axis of Evil"-type countries raising the stakes to protect themselves. Let's take Iran or North Korea as examples. Put yourself in their shoes - they want to increase their feeling of personal protection by developing a nuclear arsenal. Is that a good thing? It levels the playing field in a similar fashion (with higher stakes) to everyone carrying guns. From their perspective they're the good guys and you're (we're) the bad guys. They just want to be able to protect themselves. Is that OK?

Snow Dog, thanks. Didn't know that.

---

A planet capable of destroying itself is a polite planet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brice618

By that reasoning you should have no problem with us being in Iraq. I mean we're just trying to keep the guns out of the bad guys hands. Whether they have them or not is not the issue obviously.

---

I have a massive problem with Iraq. Whether or not they had WMDs is a major issue - it was the whole premise for the invasion of a sovereign country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brice618

I am all for keeping the guns in the hands of the good guys and out of the hands of the bad guys. A ban on guns is not the way to do that in America. The idea is that an emotive response to people who do stupid things only hurts the people who are doing the right thing. You have to be rational about things like this.

---

Here's a common potential scenario as I see it. Some good guy or girl carries a handgun. They have a faultless past and a bright future. One day they get upset (relationship, work stress, whatever) and start waving it around for attention, never intending to actually do anything with it. Everyone else, who're also good people, pulls out their handguns and mows the good guy down. Self defense, right? The thing is, lots of people call out for attention at some stage in their life. E.g. people self-harm, or pretend to attempt suicide with no intention of succeeding. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but shouldn't have to pay with their life for those mistakes.

What I'd prefer is for there to be no guns. Obviously unrealistic. Reducing the pool of guns would be a start. But it's not my country so my opinion is just that - an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowtron

A planet capable of destroying itself is a polite planet!

---

Heh. Polite in Roo's sense of the word, sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

OK, if that example didn't work, what about "Axis of Evil"-type countries raising the stakes to protect themselves. Let's take Iran or North Korea as examples. Put yourself in their shoes - they want to increase their feeling of personal protection by developing a nuclear arsenal.

---

Not true. N Korea is posturing, nothing more. They are misbehaving so that they can be bribed back into behaving with concessions. It has worked for them.

Iran is a different case entirely. They may actually want a nuke, they may be trying to pick a fight with the West. Time will tell.

Quote:

---

Is that a good thing?

---

For them, yes. For America, no.

Quote:

---

It levels the playing field in a similar fashion (with higher stakes) to everyone carrying guns. From their perspective they're the good guys and you're (we're) the bad guys. They just want to be able to protect themselves. Is that OK?

---

As I stated above, they don't "just want to protect themselves" but for the sake of argument lets say they do. Is that OK?

Iran holds values that are in direct conflict to our own, and they would force their values on us, and everyone else if given the chance so, no, it's not OK.

If this heads off into a political discussion, I'm out. I'm here to talk about gun control issues, nothing else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

If this heads off into a political discussion, I'm out. I'm here to talk about gun control issues, nothing else.

---

thanks for not stopping sooner. your obviously keen understanding of foreign affairs is highly enriching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Not true. N Korea is posturing, nothing more. They are misbehaving so that they can be bribed back into behaving with concessions. It has worked for them.

Iran is a different case entirely. They may actually want a nuke, they may be trying to pick a fight with the West. Time will tell.

---

And in Iraq's case, they denied having WMDs. There were no concessions granted to appease them. And they weren't trying to pick a fight IMHO. But we invaded anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Iran holds values that are in direct conflict to our own, and they would force their values on us, and everyone else if given the chance so, no, it's not OK.

---

We hold values that are in direct conflict to theirs, and I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised if GWB would love to force our values on Iran if he were able. Thankfully I don't think he/the American military has the chance given the strain on resources. I'd love to believe public sentiment would prevent him doing so too, but I'm not so sure. So would it be OK to invade Iran if the chance were there?

Sorry for the hijack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

Here's a common potential scenario as I see it. Some good guy or girl carries a handgun. They have a faultless past and a bright future. One day they get upset (relationship, work stress, whatever) and start waving it around for attention, never intending to actually do anything with it. Everyone else, who're also good people, pulls out their handguns and mows the good guy down. Self defense, right? The thing is, lots of people call out for attention at some stage in their life. E.g. people self-harm, or pretend to attempt suicide with no intention of succeeding. Everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but shouldn't have to pay with their life for those mistakes.

What I'd prefer is for there to be no guns. Obviously unrealistic. Reducing the pool of guns would be a start. But it's not my country so my opinion is just that - an opinion.

---

You're not American. You didn't grow up with guns in your culture like they are in America. I just caught that while I was reading your second paragraph. I was going to ask you, but you said as much in your last paragraph.

Your scenario sounds very Euro. Are you European?

I'm going to say this as politely as possible...your scenario, and thus your objections, are absurd, at least to the ears of someone like myself who grew up in America. You are welcome to your opinion, but my opinion is that you are completely out of touch with American culture. The idea of someone waving around a gun for attention...:nonono2: Doing something like that will get you dead, and everybody knows it.

What you described is called "assault with a deadly weapon". It's a very serious offense. If somebody(cop or private citizen) shot that person on the spot, in all likely hood it would be considered a justifiable shooting, especially after recent events. If the person survived the arrest, they would be looking at jail time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

You're not American. You didn't grow up with guns in your culture like they are in America. I'm going to say this as politely as possible...your scenario, and thus your objections, are absurd, at least to the ears of someone like myself who grew up in America. You are welcome to your opinion, but my opinion is that you are completely out of touch with American culture.

---

what about all the folks who grew up in "America" who think you're loony, meat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

And in Iraq's case, they denied having WMDs. There were no concessions granted to appease them. And they weren't trying to pick a fight IMHO. But we invaded anyway?

---

Go dig up the terms of the agreement that Saddam signed to end the Gulf War in 1991. Then see how many of those terms he violated, and how long it took us to do anything about it. We should have removed him in 1994. He did it to himself.

GWB is an idiot for everything that came out of his mouth leading up to the invasion. I'm amazed he can manage to dress himself everyday without screwing it up.

Quote:

---

We hold values that are in direct conflict to theirs, and I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised if GWB would love to force our values on Iran if he were able. Thankfully I don't think he/the American military has the chance given the strain on resources. I'd love to believe public sentiment would prevent him doing so too, but I'm not so sure. So would it be OK to invade Iran if the chance were there?

Sorry for the hijack.

---

No problem.

I didn't vote for GWB and I don't like him. In fact, the longer he is in office, the less I like him. I'm done with the political topic.

I'm Australian. I didn't grow up with guns, but I've shot occasionally, mainly with hunting weapons and only once with a handgun. The scenario I mentioned wasn't a reflection on current American society, it was what I would imagine could potentially happen in a society where everyone carried guns.

BTW, the idea that a private citizen can legally and justifiably shoot anyone is crazy to me. But yeah, I'm not American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Go dig up the terms of the agreement that Saddam signed to end the Gulf War in 1991. Then see how many of those terms he violated, and how long it took us to do anything about it. We should have removed him in 1994. He did it to himself.

---

Yes! If removal was the objective it should've been done in Gulf War I. Saddam made an offensive action and removal was arguably justifiable. Gulf War II shouldn't have happened at all IMHO. Failure to comply to the terms of a particular agreement should not result in invasion. Otherwise there is a very long list of countries that should be invaded.

Anyway, back on topic:

http://movies.clevver.com/MoviePics/628.jpg

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/media/image...m/cradle01.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

Yes! If removal was the objective it should've been done in Gulf War I. Saddam made an offensive action and removal was arguably justifiable. Gulf War II shouldn't have happened at all IMHO. Failure to comply to the terms of a particular agreement should not result in invasion. Otherwise there is a very long list of countries that should be invaded.

---

justifiable? ain't empire grand?

My sarcasm meter's broken, but if you're serious and you want an explanation here you go: if a country declares war, annexes another, invades another, etc, the leader and the inhabitants should be prepared to defend their actions with their life. E.g. if an ending to Gulf War I involved a targeted missile strike with Saddam at the centre, that would've been a justifiable action of war IMHO (I don't know the legalities). The flipside of this is that I feel that GWB, my PM, Tony Blair, etc and all the inhabitants of our countries should have also been prepared for and unsurprised by the ultimate escalation - their/our "removal". Of course, one of the only things GWB could have been relatively assured upon was his personal safety given the inequality of the two forces. That's not to say a non-conventional attack couldn't have threatened our nations/leaders (e.g. 9/11).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

My sarcasm meter's broken, but if you're serious and you want an explanation here you go: if a country declares war, annexes another, invades another, etc, the leader and the inhabitants should be prepared to defend their actions with their life. E.g. if an ending to Gulf War I involved a targeted missile strike with Saddam at the centre, that would've been a justifiable action of war IMHO (I don't know the legalities). The flipside of this is that I feel that GWB, my PM, Tony Blair, etc and all the inhabitants of our countries should have also been prepared for and unsurprised by the ultimate escalation - their/our "removal". Of course, one of the only things GWB could have been relatively assured upon was his personal safety given the inequality of the two forces. That's not to say a non-conventional attack couldn't have threatened our nations/leaders (e.g. 9/11).

---

yes, well, legality has never impeded the u.s. when we take it upon ourselves to act in the best interests of, um....

but thanks for the "explanation." good to see you're on board.

Well, I wouldn't be surprised if it would be legal to have done something like that. In fact under my limited understanding pretty much everything in war is fair game until someone becomes a POW and then they have limited rights under the Geneva Convention, like the rights of the guys at Guantanamo, uh ... yeah.

Anyway, regardless of the motivation for the war, I agree with MeatPuppet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

GWB is an idiot for everything that came out of his mouth leading up to the invasion. I'm amazed he can manage to dress himself everyday without screwing it up.

---

I'm a fan of Sun Tzu's Ping Fa. Looking at wars and battles in hindsight commonalities can be found in the victors. GWB has managed to violate many of Sun's precepts and it shows. The war sucks and we've already lost.

Any more SFW pictures of girls with guns please?

COOL - Toby the Clueless Austrailian and spook the America Hater taking up almost an entire page!! This is officially the most ridiculous thread ever. I'll get those doors open if it hairlips everybody at Bear Creek!

Well, you could put me on ignore too, Jer. If it makes you feel better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

Well, you could put me on ignore too, Jer. If it makes you feel better.

---

Fuck that! I just took my buddy spook off ignore. The only reason I go online is for shit like this. I smell a big fat commie rat!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toby

BTW, the idea that a private citizen can legally and justifiably shoot anyone is crazy to me. But yeah, I'm not American.

---

No it's not... My stuff is more important that your life:nonono2: :nonono2: :nonono2: .