|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 9:10 pm
 |
|
|
|
Isho Von Ra I live in Australia & I sleep well because I know people here can’t go down to the local K-mart to buy a firearm to go out to gank people. Here in Australia if a person is walking down a street with a baseball bat & the police stop him/her & ask what are you carrying it & the person reply with “person protection” they will arrest (for carrying a weapon) you & seize the bat. I person agree with them about this, for the reason that ‘personal protection’ mean you are planing to you the objet as a weapon & therefore planing to use it to harm people. Now I am also for people having firearm as tool of the trade, like a farmer using a rifle for pest control. But ‘person protection’ is a lame reason to have & use firearms. Now take a few example stated before like the mother & child. Without firearms being legal, the mother may get shot or intimidated (more likely because it’s a lesser crime) the mother to hand over the money. With firearm being legal, the mother get shot in the head (the best way to stay alive is to shot her before she can shot you) before she can the firearm out of wherever it is stored. In short she is more likely to die if firearm are more legal. As for 9/11 if people could take firearm onto plain so would the terrorist, & as that would go the first shot would be to decompress the plane air to suck people out of the plane. Wait till the decomposition start to slow down & then shot anyone whom is still alive, take over the plane & fly it into whatever you want. In short the terrorist have more control over the situation if firearm are more legal.
Personal protection is the only reason to posess weaponry, shooting animals means you're too lazy to make adequate fencing, you'd rather take lives, to kill, than expend a little energy to do something correctly.
Criminals will always have guns, I know people who have large collections of illegal weaponry. They will be more likely to attack when they know their victims will be unarmed and powerless.
If a man is attempting to rape a woman at gunpoint, she should shoot his F***ing head off. Both of 'em.
Also in your first refutation, you're assuming that the intruder would make no noise, that no alarm would go off, no glass would break, not even the tiniest out-of-the-ordinary noise to alert her intution. Well, in that case she's screwed whether she's got a gun or not. More likely she'll hear something, maybe try to call the police (because they'll get there in under the 5 minutes or so it will take the intruder to kill and rob her rolleyes ...) without a gun she can only sit and await her fate, with one she can get him before he preforms the coup de gras on her.
As for the terrorist theory, did the terrorists outnumber the other passengers? No? Well then why the hell wouldn't the other passengers shoot them before they could get away with anything?? Mythbusters scientifically disproved the gunshot-depressurization bit already. |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:22 am
|
|
|
 |
The majority of people won't go out to buy a gun to intentionally kill someone anyway.
If you buy a firearm & you are not willing to use it to kill people (like your attacker) the firearm will not protect you in any way shape or form. If you are buying/carrying a firearm to ‘protect you’ you are INTENTIONALLY buying/carrying it to kill people.
Personal protection is the only reason to possess weaponry,
Personal protection is the main reason people buy ‘legitimate firearms’, but 9 time out of ten that firearm will not protect the person from harm because they have not got the firearm ready in time to use it, or they don’t have the will to use it to kill.
Shooting animals means you're too lazy to make adequate fencing,
I guessing you have never been on a farm before, most fences are 6 wire fences on some farm have a 10,000km+ perimeter mean that the fence is just a border & the cost would be prohibitive at best to make rabbit & other vermin proof.
You'd rather take lives, to kill, than expend a little energy to do something correctly.
I myself don’t need a gun to protect myself, I have myself to protect myself & the will to kill, that is all I need. A pen (& a list of other assorted good including my hands) in my pocket can be use to kill an attacker if I need it to. If someone attack me with a firearm & has not killed me with it before I could do anything, I have the knowledge that they do not have the will to kill to me.
Criminals will always have guns,
In Australia most crim outside a major crime network have a hard time getting their hand on firearm to the point where they just don’t use them for crime. This is also because the police have different response to armed-robbery vs robbery, they will hunt down a armed robber over normal robber.
I know people who have large collections of illegal weaponry. They will be more likely to attack when they know their victims will be unarmed and powerless.
So you know people who use illegal weaponry to attack powerless victims.
If a man is attempting to rape a woman at gunpoint, she should shoot his F***ing head off. Both of 'em.
The only reason she should not kill him is that she should be aloud to whip him to death in a public place for all to see.
Also in your first refutation, you're assuming that the intruder would make no noise, that no alarm would go off, no glass would break, not even the tiniest out-of-the-ordinary noise to alert her intution. Well, in that case she's screwed whether she's got a gun or not. More likely she'll hear something, maybe try to call the police (because they'll get there in under the 5 minutes or so it will take the intruder to kill and rob her.) without a gun she can only sit and await her fate, with one she can get him before he preforms the coup de gras on her.
I was assuming a mugging. I never have known of a robbery of a house while the house was occupied because most robbers strike house when they are unoccupied, this might be a bit different in the USA due to there lacks firearm laws. If I did have an intruder the combo of LED torch & bokken will work happily.
As for the terrorist theory, did the terrorists outnumber the other passengers? No? Well then why the hell wouldn't the other passengers shoot them before they could get away with anything?? Mythbusters scientifically disproved the gunshot-depressurization bit already.
They said it on Mythbuster therefor it must be true, it’s not like they got stuff wrong before. I haven’t seen that episode yet so I don’t know how they prove it but in both cases (able to or enable to depressurize) the terrorists is still dancing in the endzone if people aloud firearm on an airplane. Terrorists don’t need to outnumber the rest, just good planing. Like a set of sawn-off shotgun that would clean house, it just like shooting duck in a barrel. If I was on a plane with terrorist, the last thing I would need is some dumbass who think he the hot s**t firing away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:21 pm
|
|
|
|
Isho Von Ra The majority of people won't go out to buy a gun to intentionally kill someone anyway. If you buy a firearm & you are not willing to use it to kill people (like your attacker) the firearm will not protect you in any way shape or form. If you are buying/carrying a firearm to ‘protect you’ you are INTENTIONALLY buying/carrying it to kill people. Personal protection is the only reason to possess weaponry, Personal protection is the main reason people buy ‘legitimate firearms’, but 9 time out of ten that firearm will not protect the person from harm because they have not got the firearm ready in time to use it, or they don’t have the will to use it to kill. Shooting animals means you're too lazy to make adequate fencing, I guessing you have never been on a farm before, most fences are 6 wire fences on some farm have a 10,000km+ perimeter mean that the fence is just a border & the cost would be prohibitive at best to make rabbit & other vermin proof. You'd rather take lives, to kill, than expend a little energy to do something correctly. I myself don’t need a gun to protect myself, I have myself to protect myself & the will to kill, that is all I need. A pen (& a list of other assorted good including my hands) in my pocket can be use to kill an attacker if I need it to. If someone attack me with a firearm & has not killed me with it before I could do anything, I have the knowledge that they do not have the will to kill to me. Criminals will always have guns, In Australia most crim outside a major crime network have a hard time getting their hand on firearm to the point where they just don’t use them for crime. This is also because the police have different response to armed-robbery vs robbery, they will hunt down a armed robber over normal robber. I know people who have large collections of illegal weaponry. They will be more likely to attack when they know their victims will be unarmed and powerless. So you know people who use illegal weaponry to attack powerless victims. If a man is attempting to rape a woman at gunpoint, she should shoot his F***ing head off. Both of 'em. The only reason she should not kill him is that she should be aloud to whip him to death in a public place for all to see. Also in your first refutation, you're assuming that the intruder would make no noise, that no alarm would go off, no glass would break, not even the tiniest out-of-the-ordinary noise to alert her intution. Well, in that case she's screwed whether she's got a gun or not. More likely she'll hear something, maybe try to call the police (because they'll get there in under the 5 minutes or so it will take the intruder to kill and rob her.) without a gun she can only sit and await her fate, with one she can get him before he preforms the coup de gras on her. I was assuming a mugging. I never have known of a robbery of a house while the house was occupied because most robbers strike house when they are unoccupied, this might be a bit different in the USA due to there lacks firearm laws. If I did have an intruder the combo of LED torch & bokken will work happily. As for the terrorist theory, did the terrorists outnumber the other passengers? No? Well then why the hell wouldn't the other passengers shoot them before they could get away with anything?? Mythbusters scientifically disproved the gunshot-depressurization bit already. They said it on Mythbuster therefor it must be true, it’s not like they got stuff wrong before. I haven’t seen that episode yet so I don’t know how they prove it but in both cases (able to or enable to depressurize) the terrorists is still dancing in the endzone if people aloud firearm on an airplane. Terrorists don’t need to outnumber the rest, just good planing. Like a set of sawn-off shotgun that would clean house, it just like shooting duck in a barrel. If I was on a plane with terrorist, the last thing I would need is some dumbass who think he the hot s**t firing away.
1. Who says you have to purchase a firearm for the express purpose of killing someone? It's only for killing a potential attacker, one that you don't know if they'll materialize or not. You need a license for a concealed firearm anyway. What about target shooting? The gun's main purpose would be for sport, the second for self-defense.
2. This is a fact that I'd like to see some proof of.
3. Vermin can include deer that can jump said fence.
4. Unless of course they have the advantage of surprise, then you're still kinda screwed.
5. Australia is a different country from the US. Drugs are illegal and people still get them. Where there's a demand there's a supply, no matter the law.
6. She wasn't saying that at all.
7. The Eigth Amendment of the US Constitution guards against cruel and unusual punishment, so that wouldn't happen anytime soon. Therefore blowing the would-be rapist away is a much easier thing to go with.
8. Most do, but there is always the possibility that you could come back to the house while they're robbing it. And a bokken doesn't seem like such a great weapon for use indoors, or at least confined spaces. A handgun still works better. mrgreen
9. In the US, those "dumbasses" are US Air Marshals who are trained for that sort of thing, and they're the only ones allowed to carry a weapon on the plane.
Even without guns, the fact remains that crime still exists in Australia as it does here, so getting rid of guns won't really reduce crime. I'll stick by this statement: guns cause crime like flies cause garbage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:57 pm
|
|
|
|
Isho Von Ra The majority of people won't go out to buy a gun to intentionally kill someone anyway. If you buy a firearm & you are not willing to use it to kill people (like your attacker) the firearm will not protect you in any way shape or form. If you are buying/carrying a firearm to ‘protect you’ you are INTENTIONALLY buying/carrying it to kill people.
Better to restrain than to hurt, better to hurt than to maim, to maim than to kill, better to kill than be killed
I am not Jesus, I am not Ghandi, and I have no interest in non-violent resistance to someone who wants to kill me, my love, my child, or my family.
Isho Von Ra Personal protection is the only reason to possess weaponry, Personal protection is the main reason people buy ‘legitimate firearms’, but 9 time out of ten that firearm will not protect the person from harm because they have not got the firearm ready in time to use it, or they don’t have the will to use it to kill.
If they don't use it than what's your qualm with them owning it?
Isho Von Ra Shooting animals means you're too lazy to make adequate fencing, I guessing you have never been on a farm before, most fences are 6 wire fences on some farm have a 10,000km+ perimeter mean that the fence is just a border & the cost would be prohibitive at best to make rabbit & other vermin proof.
So it's ok to take lives to protect food, but it is not ok to take a life to protect your own life? What a twisted world we live in. A farmer cannot shoot every single rodent/wolf/fox that comes near his farm, there are other ways to protect plants and livestock.
Isho Von Ra You'd rather take lives, to kill, than expend a little energy to do something correctly. I myself don’t need a gun to protect myself, I have myself to protect myself & the will to kill, that is all I need. A pen (& a list of other assorted good including my hands) in my pocket can be use to kill an attacker if I need it to. If someone attack me with a firearm & has not killed me with it before I could do anything, I have the knowledge that they do not have the will to kill to me.
Mhm, what about someone who does not have the physical strength to fight off an attacker? It's usually women that are raped and usually by men seeking a feeling of control over their victims. Fragile old widows are raped, you're saying my 71 year old grandmother should have the strength to kill a desperate young man with a pen?
Isho Von Ra Criminals will always have guns, In Australia most crim outside a major crime network have a hard time getting their hand on firearm to the point where they just don’t use them for crime. This is also because the police have different response to armed-robbery vs robbery, they will hunt down a armed robber over normal robber.
That doesn't change the fact that they have guns...
Isho Von Ra I know people who have large collections of illegal weaponry. They will be more likely to attack when they know their victims will be unarmed and powerless. So you know people who use illegal weaponry to attack powerless victims.
Yes. Your point? Sometimes he kills them in their sleep, there was one man once though, that had he pulled out a gun rather than a sword could have killed him first, he sensed his presence and had he been better armed he could have survived. (He's an assassin) Another of my friends used to deal drugs.
Isho Von Ra If a man is attempting to rape a woman at gunpoint, she should shoot his F***ing head off. Both of 'em. The only reason she should not kill him is that she should be aloud to whip him to death in a public place for all to see.
When was the last time you witnessed a public execution? I'm not about to lay down and let someone take by force the most sacred thing a human being posesses on your word that I'll get revenge. What if a woman gets pregnant by her rapist? In America, the federal abortion ban would force a 12 year old child (Perhaps raped while her father watched, gagged, bound, and helpless because he had to weapon to fight his much larger adversary with) to have a child.
Isho Von Ra Also in your first refutation, you're assuming that the intruder would make no noise, that no alarm would go off, no glass would break, not even the tiniest out-of-the-ordinary noise to alert her intution. Well, in that case she's screwed whether she's got a gun or not. More likely she'll hear something, maybe try to call the police (because they'll get there in under the 5 minutes or so it will take the intruder to kill and rob her.) without a gun she can only sit and await her fate, with one she can get him before he preforms the coup de gras on her. I was assuming a mugging. I never have known of a robbery of a house while the house was occupied because most robbers strike house when they are unoccupied, this might be a bit different in the USA due to there lacks firearm laws. If I did have an intruder the combo of LED torch & bokken will work happily.
In the case of a mugging it is better to just hand stuff over, but in the case of a house being broken into a robber might kill unexpected inhabitants to prevent an ID, especially if the intruder is a drug-addict breaking in for money, human life and penalty of law will be meaningless.
Isho Von Ra As for the terrorist theory, did the terrorists outnumber the other passengers? No? Well then why the hell wouldn't the other passengers shoot them before they could get away with anything?? Mythbusters scientifically disproved the gunshot-depressurization bit already. They said it on Mythbuster therefor it must be true, it’s not like they got stuff wrong before. I haven’t seen that episode yet so I don’t know how they prove it but in both cases (able to or enable to depressurize) the terrorists is still dancing in the endzone if people aloud firearm on an airplane. Terrorists don’t need to outnumber the rest, just good planing. Like a set of sawn-off shotgun that would clean house, it just like shooting duck in a barrel. If I was on a plane with terrorist, the last thing I would need is some dumbass who think he the hot s**t firing away.
Mythbusters have rarely gotten things wrong, unless you have a specific idea of what they might have done wrong.
Even when firearms are legal people have to know how to use them before they'll be issued a permit. How well planned do you think the hijacking was? -weighs options- Hm, crash into a fiery grave and burn to death, or maybe take a bullet in the arm because someon's adrenaline was too high and he missed a shot or two....Man certain death always versus possible life... stressed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:44 am
|
|
|
|
MsDevin92 I'm sorry, but it's totally pointless. The greedy guys just want to get at all the oil and business opportunities. I mean, authorities should definetley be organized against all the terrorism incidents, but going into a full-blown war sounds like way too much. We need to get some soldiers out in Darfur, where it'd really make a difference- I mean, those guys out there are practically under government-funded terrorism! They're basically having another Holocaust with all the Sudanese genocide going on over there...
Hmm, we either move troops from Iraq or Afghanistan over to Sudan and Darfur, which Iraq and Afghanistan need troops more than any area of the world, or we can start up the draft!
What we'd have to do with Sudan is just that: full-blown war. It's the only way to take control of a situation like that. We tried it before in Somalia, and ended up getting soldiers killed for no good reason because we tried a much smaller-scale conflict. Sudan would probably end up looking a lot like Iraq looks now, with a lot of insurgents invading the country. And with the way people b***h and moan about how things are going in Iraq, would you be willing to commit knowing full well that American lives would still be at risk?
Why is it that when the US uses its superpower might for its own interests we're the bad guy? Apparently we're only supposed to use force when other countries want us to use it. Is that all we are, the world's guard dog for other countries to use at their discretion rather than doing things of our own accord? Really we shouldn't have had to get involved in either Bosnia or Kosovo because that was Europe's problem, not ours.
And it's not like European countries lack military power. They could easily do something about Sudan if they wanted to, it's just they don't want to risk their countrymen's lives for something that isn't their problem. So their solution is "Let's have those blood-thirsty, oil-hungry American pigs do it, 'cause they love to fight and kill!" Simply put, Sudan is not top priority on our to-do list because we've got other matters to fix before we can even think about Sudan. If anythng, other countries in Africa should do something about Sudan because it's their problem, not our problem, and not even Europe's problem. People wouldn't give a rat's a** about Sudan if it wasn't for the genocide, and because it's genocide then I guess it has to take center stage above everything else, current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq be damned.
And I think you should study Saddam Hussein more. He wasn't a nice guy, either. His people could be taken off the street for no apparent reason other than suspision and be interrogated, tortured or killed because of a false accusation. If that isn't a gross violation of basic human rights then I don't know what is. You might want to look up stuff on the first Gulf War as well, if you're wondering why Some Iraqis don't trust us.
Really, to hear such things from you people that you'd rather pull out because things aren't going as how you think they should, or because you, who haven't looked at everything as to why we're in this war, and that American troops are dying for a "lie", you make me sick. You'd rather just take the easy way out so you don't have to deal with it every day. You leave now and all those soldiers who gave their lives were lost in vain. You think you can get whatever you want without working for it. Well I'm sorry but that's not how the world works, and it has never, ever worked that way. As far as I'm concerned it's people like you who will be the downfall of the United States from its top spot. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 9:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:47 am
|
|
|
|
Der Freischuetz Efstathios They're already lost in vain. Ah, another person who's simply given up. I don't care if you never supported the war in the first place, but that does not mean that you can't support the mission. You seem to think that it wasn't going to take too much effort to win this, but as you can see the partial effort that has been given is not enough, therefore we need to step it up.
Why would I support it?
It's like a guy slaps his wife so we burst into his house to beat him up even though we're getting closer and closer to beating our own.
It's her business to get out (Have a revolution) Not ours to interfere.
People talk about bringing freedom, while simultaineously curtailing our freedom here. There are grown adults who aren't allowed to marry each other because of a prevalent religion, schoolchildren are lied to because of this same religion, women make 75 cents to every man's dollar because of this religion, people do not have control other their own bodies because of this religion, we don't have the right to privacy when it comes to what occurs behind closed doors, medical records, the books we read or even our f***ing pee(drug tests that test spec for MJ and not dangerous drugs).
Victimless crimes are being prosecuted, innocent people are killed, thousands of children are starving.
Who are we to say they have problems?!!? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:44 am
|
|
|
|
Efstathios Why would I support it? It's like a guy slaps his wife so we burst into his house to beat him up even though we're getting closer and closer to beating our own. It's her business to get out (Have a revolution) Not ours to interfere. People talk about bringing freedom, while simultaineously curtailing our freedom here. There are grown adults who aren't allowed to marry each other because of a prevalent religion, schoolchildren are lied to because of this same religion, women make 75 cents to every man's dollar because of this religion, people do not have control other their own bodies because of this religion, we don't have the right to privacy when it comes to what occurs behind closed doors, medical records, the books we read or even our f***ing pee(drug tests that test spec for MJ and not dangerous drugs). Victimless crimes are being prosecuted, innocent people are killed, thousands of children are starving. Who are we to say they have problems?!!?
Oh, the "We're no better than they are" argument. So because we have some problems, which aren't anywhere near as bad as the problems they have, we don't have the right to give them a better way to live. Really I think you're taking the plethora of rights that you have, many more than anyone around the world has, for granted. You think that after 9/11 we'd keep the same amount of freedoms that we had previously? Gimme a break. There will never be a day when you have total and complete freedom. There is always a balance between freedom and security, and when something like this happens, the balance will shift more towards freedom. Of course you probably view 9/11 as the government's excuse to take away freedoms. But can you point out one case, just one case in particular where someone's rights were violated? Bush found a loophole to get the USAPATRIOT Act through, so therefore it's still legal even without the consent of the Supreme Court. Really is it so bad to give up a little privacy for the sake of your security? I guess it must be. Though with as free as we are you make it sound like we're slaves anyway. Maybe you'd prefer a totalitarian police state?
After what we did at the end of the first Gulf War, we had to go back. Bush 41 stated that all we would do in the Gulf War was expel Hussein's army from Kuwait, which we did. We had the opportunity then to remove him from power, but we didn't. Instead we encouraged the Shi'ites and the Kurds to rise up, but without our support they were simply crushed by the Iraqi army, and hundreds of thousands of people were victims of terrible torture, while our troops had to sit on the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border and watch these refugees come swarming in, mangled and beaten, and couldn't do a damn thing about it. I wonder why they don't trust us after we did that. This is our chance to make amends with them, to show them that we are with them this time, and all you want to do is get out because we don't have the right.
And whether you like it or not, this is a clash of civilizations with two separate and opposing views, and the only way to solve it is through bloodshed, to prove to one side that their ways are better than the other. Really with as bad as you say our qway of life is I'm sure the way of fundamental Islam is far worse, especially for you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 10:34 pm
|
|
|
|
We have less freedom than Canada and many countries in the E.U. We do not have more than everyone else in the world.
Americans are still a long way from free, security has nothing to do with it. Greed, ignorance and fear have everything to do with it.
If we have a problem with Theocracies, then why are we living in one?
I don't care if Hitler rose from the grave and started attacking America, people deserve freedom. Or does "inalienable rights" have a loophole in it?
You know perfectly well America didn't go into Iraq to help anyone. WMDs were fabricated as an excuse, when America could be fooled no longer they switched tactics, saying instead that Iraqis aren't evil with big bad weapons, but that they were helpless and oppressed. If that were true, then once Saddam was deposed there would be no more reason for us to be there, ding dong the witch is dead. But oops, we took the cap off of shook up soda, there's a civil war now, which still begs the question of what the Hell do we think we're doing there?
More people are dying now, and thousands of them are our own.
You act like Iraq is the only place in the world with war, torture, and oppresive rulers. It isn't, what about all the others?
I understand people saying we can't leave now, but we don't have the manpower to go through with it, we have to get out.
People are so freaking scared of planes getting hijacked, if anyone cared about Americans dying they'd outlaw cigarettes, not the right to doctor-patient confidentiality. About privacy in exchange for security, it's a load of B.S. We're not any safer now and everything America once stood for is getting hacked to pieces.
If Americans wanted to cure cancer (which only occurs in westernized societies) all they have to do is stop using toxic chems and gasoline, etc., but that's not gonna happen as long as people are making money off of it.
It's not that there is no ideological basis for the war, it's that the war is not being fought for those ideals.
Bashing someone's head in does not make you correct "War does not prove who is right, only who is left"
It's not going to solve anything, just kill a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
