Right to Bear Arms

@Limey no, there is a line between responsible gun use and irresponsible gun use. Im not going to debate this with you if you are going to use first grade logic, bring this to somebody else. Im simply stating that "A good guy with a gun is the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun". Guns are effectively tools and in the hands of a good guy they are good(and vice versa). Im not here to debate the obvious, guns are used to kill people, but what you do not mention is that they often save lives too. A gun can stop a crime without the need to take anybody's life just by being there this is inarguable.

Masta Shef wrote:@Limey no, there is a line between responsible gun use and irresponsible gun use. Im not going to debate this with you if you are going to use first grade logic bring t to somebody else. Im simply stating that "A good guy with a gun is the only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun". Guns are effectively tools and in the hands of a good guy they are good(and vice versa). Im not here to debate the obvious, guns are used to kill people, but what you do not mention is that they often save lives too. A gun can stop a crime without the need to take anybody's life just by being there this is inarguable.

I'm arguing about the necessity of the 'tool', intentions and character irrelevant, and how allowing the 'good people' to have weapons is also benefiting 'bad people. Additionally, as a tool commercially available, I think it exacerbates people's risks susceptibility to fatal developments.

LimeyPolo wrote:

andrew wrote:Eaustin, let Limey debate, he wanted one. That debate was with you and mboddz, not him.

Limey, if someone threatens you, he OBVIOUSLY doesn't give a shit about your well being, and unless you are armed, or know how to defend yourself otherwise, you are not in the position of power. The person threatening is, and that is bad news for you.

You don't shoot them in the face, you warn them, and if necessary you shoot them hopefully somewhere that is not fatal. Your intention is to defend yourself, not kill someone.

Also keep in mind the person is not innocent. So defending yourself is completely justified.

So, a threat to you can lead to a capital punishment, personally enforced? What about disputes in which both people are threatening each other?I think any involvement of firearms as 'defense' during these situations = highly unnecessary, provoking far worst results, if a bear is not attacking you or a thug intent on murder (quite rare).

This is the " guns don't kill people, people kill people" card.

Both sides can threaten each other, and cause each other harm, without the use of guns.

Example: Domestic violence

Husband and wife argue
Husband gets mad, grabs a knife and kills her
Was there a gun involved?



If he had a gun, he would have probably used it if he had the intention to kill. Both ways had the same result, it isn't even about the gun, its about the person in possession.
Homicides won't stop if gun laws become stricter. You could ban guns completely and homicide rates will not go down (in fact, they may even go up because less people will be able to defend themselves).

As for the capital punishment bit you typed.
If someone were to get mugged, or someone broke into a persons home, would you rather an innocent person be killed, or a criminal? Because some situations may escalate to that.

Also, bears will attack if they are hungry, or if you are in their territory/near the bears cubs. Not only if threatened.

andrew wrote:

LimeyPolo wrote:

andrew wrote:Eaustin, let Limey debate, he wanted one. That debate was with you and mboddz, not him.

Limey, if someone threatens you, he OBVIOUSLY doesn't give a shit about your well being, and unless you are armed, or know how to defend yourself otherwise, you are not in the position of power. The person threatening is, and that is bad news for you.

You don't shoot them in the face, you warn them, and if necessary you shoot them hopefully somewhere that is not fatal. Your intention is to defend yourself, not kill someone.

Also keep in mind the person is not innocent. So defending yourself is completely justified.

So, a threat to you can lead to a capital punishment, personally enforced? What about disputes in which both people are threatening each other?I think any involvement of firearms as 'defense' during these situations = highly unnecessary, provoking far worst results, if a bear is not attacking you or a thug intent on murder (quite rare).

This is the " guns don't kill people, people kill people" card.

Both sides can threaten each other, and cause each other harm, without the use of guns.

Example: Domestic violence

Husband and wife argue
Husband gets mad, grabs a knife and kills her
Was there a gun involved?



If he had a gun, he would have probably used it if he had the intention to kill. Both ways had the same result, it isn't even about the gun, its about the person in possession.
Homicides won't stop if gun laws become stricter. You could ban guns completely and homicide rates will not go down (in fact, they may even go up because less people will be able to defend themselves).

As for the capital punishment bit you typed.
If someone were to get mugged, or someone broke into a persons home, would you rather an innocent person be killed, or a criminal? Because some situations may escalate to that.

Also, bears will attack if they are hungry, or if you are in their territory/near the bears cubs. Not only if threatened.

Crimes, brutal homicides to trivial thefts, won't ever be entirely prevented, of course, although reduction is viable and the objective of any nation. People do not require a firearm to defend themselves, in my opinion, and it may only create (or contribute, sociologically) worst conditions for their theoretical 'defense'.

Any sensible - relative to their morally questionable 'standards' to be competent - criminal will have a firearm as their tool to mug someone (fear of death, coercion into submission) or to protect themselves whilst engaging in burgularly. Frankly, if they extremely feared death or prison, I do not believe they'd pursue highly hazardous actions.

@Limey, Certainly you would not drive drunk(hopefully), despite the fact that it it is against the law and extremely dangerous people still do.---- The problem is not a gun problem or a goverment problem, it is a people problem we are dealing with. Outlaw being stupid and dangerous.

Masta Shef wrote:@Limey, Certainly you would not drive drunk(hopefully), despite the fact that it it is against the law and extremely dangerous people still do.---- The problem is not a gun problem or a goverment problem, it is a people problem we are dealing with. Outlaw being stupid and dangerous.

You understimate the effects of firearms on people's mind, perhaps, and the situations to which they lead.

Again it is the person problem you are refering to.

P.S. I am so fucking done with this thread i proved my point. If you cant understnand it,it's not my problem.

I'll still respond if you bring up something that hasn't already been brought up

Masta Shef wrote:Again it is the person problem you are refering to.

P.S. I am so fucking done with this thread i proved my point. If you cant understnand it,it's not my problem.

Agree with it? I can't, just no (justly so). I think the firearms are irresponsible too and not merely a 'tool'. But, if weapons are responsible with the correct people, I think I have the responsibility to own automatic rifles- maximizing any chance of self-defense (thus survival) if the criminal has a light machine gun.

LimeyPolo wrote:

Masta Shef wrote:Again it is the person problem you are refering to.

P.S. I am so fucking done with this thread i proved my point. If you cant understnand it,it's not my problem.

Agree with it? I can't, just no (justly so). I think the firearms are irresponsible too and not merely a 'tool'. But, if weapons are responsible with the correct people, I think I have the responsibility to own automatic rifles- maximizing any chance of self-defense (thus survival) if the criminal has a light machine gun.

I can't officially hate Russia or China because they know how to quell uprisings. Damn well.

Limey, just saying right now, guns are what prevent and wins battles. It is a need out of necessity, not volition and I guarantee you these riots would be quelled if your police had the simplest of firearms readily available.

As much as your side of the argument wants to, you cannot change human behavior. Humanity will keep its hostility no matter what happens. Remember this. Conflict is inevitable. Ignoring it is a problem on a level far beyond the conflict itself.

As a quote from O'Reilly, "The criminals have the guns England, you can't protect yourself with a rake."

You will NEVER stop the black market firearms trade. Your police which aren't even armed with firearms are underequipped and begging to be overrun by an angry mob.

I'm cool with gun laws as long as they don't take and take away my homemade ones, which are all perfectly legal under the current state laws. Mostly.

I'm really more against gun rights, but I wasn't there when they signed The Bill of Right so I should keep my mouth shut on this one our forefathers are the ones that created the bill but since then there has been more positive and negitive uses for weapons so I really wouldn't know what to say about it