jbark said:
it's ok...i was the same way when i was your age.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
What is your viewpoint on Guns?
- Thread starter Phantastica
- Start date
it's ok...i was the same way when i was your age.
benzyme said:jbark said:
it's ok...i was the same way when i was your age.
You livin' backwards lil boy?
jbark said:benzyme said:jbark said:
it's ok...i was the same way when i was your age.
You livin' backwards lil boy?
no way... i speak from experience, kid.
in fact, i guarantee you...i've lived in more places than you; that includes affluent areas, and ones where you wouldn't feel safe (places without extensive social programs
). I wouldn't question the choice/right of the inhabitants of either side of the socio-economic spectrum to possess a weapon for home defense.
benzyme said:jbark said:benzyme said:jbark said:
it's ok...i was the same way when i was your age.
You livin' backwards lil boy?
no way... i speak from experience, kid.
in fact, i guarantee you...i've lived in more places than you; that includes affluent areas, and ones where you wouldn't feel safe (places without extensive social programs
I have lived in 8 countries and 32 apartments/houses/dives/shelters (only counting those I lived in more than 3 months), so you'd have to have moved quite a bit to beat me!!
JBArk
actually yeah...i've moved 14 times, and went to 6 different colleges.
you'd think someone who's lived all over the place would understand why in some places,
owning a gun is a way of life, and a means of protecting one's self, loved ones, and property.
you'd think someone who's lived all over the place would understand why in some places,
owning a gun is a way of life, and a means of protecting one's self, loved ones, and property.
benzyme said:
Or have enough of a knowledgeable and experienced perspective to understand that sometimes the obvious solution creates the most problems.:d
i.e. Arm 'em and harm 'em.
JBArk
most problems?
again, another baseless claim.
in south tx, just about every ranch home is armed. you think those people cause problems?
they're law-abiding citizens. would you rather them be susceptible to home invasions by passing drug runners? what are the homeowners supposed to do, reason their way out of being killed?
again, another baseless claim.
in south tx, just about every ranch home is armed. you think those people cause problems?
they're law-abiding citizens. would you rather them be susceptible to home invasions by passing drug runners? what are the homeowners supposed to do, reason their way out of being killed?
So you disagree with this statement: the more people you allow to have guns, the more will die from guns? If so, our perspectives are too far off for this debate to even have any meaning. If not, then we agree on my fundamental point and the discussion is over. Either way, nuff sed.
Cheers,
JBArk
Cheers,
JBArk
again, thank you captain obvious
but that is not a valid argument in favor of banning guns.
people will use anything available to kill people. it's just human nature.
but that is not a valid argument in favor of banning guns.
people will use anything available to kill people. it's just human nature.
nuff sed then. We are in agreement. BTW, I never said I was in favour of gun legislation. I keep my views to myself, but just wanted some admission from you gun-toters that you are proponents of a violent point of view that ends in more net loss of life. Feels good to be in agreement. While this may be obvious to you, it clearly is not for a lot of posters here. So captain subtle sometimes needs to throw on the cape of captain obvious. :shock:
JBArk
JBArk
jbark said:
see, this is a very presumptuous statement, another sweeping generalization without merit. you have to at least provide sources for such claims for it to hold any weight.
another fallacious argument, because not every gun-toting american is blood-thirsty :roll:
benzyme said:
A) Sources? I did. Above. It is beyond my control if you ignore them.
B) "but that is not a valid argument in favor of banning guns." I assumed implicit in this was your answer to my question, and that we were in agreement. Hence i mentioned that I had never asserted that I was in favour of banning guns, but appreciated your concurrence, despite your assertion that, notwithstanding this agreement, "that is not a valid argument in favor of banning guns."
C) I have not once mentioned Americans, so your accusation is disingenuous.
JBArk
the sources you provided shows the obvious: the more guns out there, the more people are going to use them on other people
but it doesn't say the probability of any one person killing another with one.
you would be afraid of someone killing you with a legal, registered weapon? that makes you more paranoid than the people carrying legal, registered weapons. do you have enemies that carry said weapons?
most criminals use illegal weapons purchased off the black market.
prohibition is prohibition, so if you take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, criminals will still have guns, and they're still going to use them.
but it doesn't say the probability of any one person killing another with one.
you would be afraid of someone killing you with a legal, registered weapon? that makes you more paranoid than the people carrying legal, registered weapons. do you have enemies that carry said weapons?
most criminals use illegal weapons purchased off the black market.
prohibition is prohibition, so if you take away the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, criminals will still have guns, and they're still going to use them.
benzyme said:
In other words: "...you are proponents of a violent point of view that ends in more net loss of life."
I really fail to see how you can state the above then refer to my statement as presumptuous and a "sweeping generalization". Boggles the mind.
jbark said:
yes it is, because my point of view is not necessarily a violent one. I favor the legal ownership of firearms, that's it. Nowhere in my argument do I say I favor murder with guns.
another circular argument.
take away guns, and people will knive each other, or plant bombs.
you can kill lots more people with a bottle of aqua fortis (if you know what to do with it) than a firearm.
I don't favor this sort of behavior, but it's bound to happen regardless if people have guns or not.
I said it before and i'll say it again...it's just a function of the human condition
benzyme said:
That's an old tired argument AND a "sweeping generalization"! Do you have international knife and aqua fortis stats and sources to back that up? :d
JBArk
benzyme said:
Aint that the absolute truth.
When presented with a situation where rendering must happen, guns are often problematic, in many ways.
Some get much more satisfaction out of using their bare hands to strangle or beat the life out of another.
IMO
In America, guns should always be available for Americans who feel that they need one.
It should not be up to law enforcement or government to determine if the need is legitimate.
It should always be that American individuals right, as long as he is not a felon.
now see, that is reasonable.
I agree with this sentiment. it's a viewpoint many americans share, from both the moderate right and the moderate left: it's a libertarian take on the matter.
8)
I agree with this sentiment. it's a viewpoint many americans share, from both the moderate right and the moderate left: it's a libertarian take on the matter.
8)
cker
Rising Star
I think we should judge what someone does with a gun. Gun crimes are bad news. Irresponsible hunters are bad news. Allowing your gun to get into the wrong hands is bad news. Having a gun and not keeping it safely is bad news. There's a wide range of stupid things that can be done with a gun. The gun is neither smart or stupid. Stupid gun owners shouldn't own guns.
As far as getting rid of guns, there are 300,000,000 civilian guns in America. These guns will be around for a long time. Given the US Constitution's 2nd amendment language, they will be legal for a long time. Like it or not, the cat's out of the bag. America's got guns.
As far as getting rid of guns, there are 300,000,000 civilian guns in America. These guns will be around for a long time. Given the US Constitution's 2nd amendment language, they will be legal for a long time. Like it or not, the cat's out of the bag. America's got guns.