The Thread Formerly Known As: Kerry Found...

[Hazard]

Liberals on: Gun Control
Ban firearms, this way only criminals will have them! A fine analogy: People are driving 50 mph in a 25 mph zone. The liberal solution, lower the speed limit to 20.

You're wrong.

Anything to support that statment?

[Adron]

Anything to support that statment?

Yes. Look at countries where firearms aren't freely available. You'll find that most criminals don't have them, and the police do have them.

[Hazard]

So, you're saying that if you ban firearms social problems will disappear? You're saying that we should rely on the police for the sole source of our protection?

[Adron]

So, you're saying that if you ban firearms social problems will disappear? You're saying that we should rely on the police for the sole source of our protection?

I did not produce the first statement. I support the second statement to some degree. You should rely on the police as your main source of protection. Freely available guns make things worse. Freely available guns enable lunatics to slaughter people on a large scale. Freely available guns enable the shootings you have had in schools. Freely available guns increase the violence you have to expect in your society and in your neighbourhood.

[Adron]

Oh, I'd like to add this:

I have 26 years experience living in a place where guns aren't freely available. In this time, I have not seen a gun in the hands of someone who wasn't supposed to have one. I have not seen a gun fired outside a shooting range.

I have seen police with guns.

I have seen military with automatic rifles.

I have seen hunters with hunting rifles.

I have seen guns at a shooting range.


Now, tell me of your experiences with guns?

[Hazard]

You should rely on the police as your main source of protection.

When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence."

Freely available guns make things worse.

An easy victim or an armed citizen? Wouldn't you rather keep an attacker guessing? Studies have shown that even an irrational person acts rationally in purusit of an irrational goal.

Freely available guns enable lunatics to slaughter people on a large scale.

And what happens when guns aren't freely available? Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit? Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder? Does the word "holocaust" mean anything to you?

Freely available guns enable the shootings you have had in schools.

That is a perversion of the truth, such weapons used in those shootings were illegally obtained.

Freely available guns increase the violence you have to expect in your society and in your neighbourhood.

In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people. Consider the following:

Which house do you think an intruder would go for?

[Zakath]

Conservative beaurocrats simply can't be trusted. They really have proved it, I'm afraid. Extreme leftists can't be trusted either, but I find that far fewer "Democrats" tend towards the far left of the political spectrum than "Republicans" stand solidly on the far right.

Conservatives have a horrible track record with money. I'm sorry, but no matter how you shake it, the last presidential term has destroyed the US economy. The last Republican president we had before the current regime destroyed the economy, too! It almost single-handedly lost him the 1992 election.

The conservative resistance to concepts like universal health care flies in the face of facts. Countries WITH comprehensive national health care plans cover more people and pay less money to do it.

Conservatives have irrationally supported big business as long as they possibly could, until public opinion turned so far against them that it became unsafe. Who did Ken Lay and his compatriots at Enron give large amounts of money to? Yes, the conservatives.

I've yet to hear one conservative attack the current free trade system. I'm sorry, but no matter where you stand on trade competition, it's not difficult to see that the current setup doesn't work.

And finally, can the "liberal media lies" crap. The current REPUBLICAN administration is the one that's dealt out the biggest portfolio of lies in recent memory. What's more, most of the major media are run by corporations now, so the idea that they have some sort of leftist agenda...well, let's see some proof.

[Adron]

When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence."

When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with a gun in his hand, you're likely to get wounded. When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with an empty hand, you're likely to be able to evade him.

You lose.

An easy victim or an armed citizen? Wouldn't you rather keep an attacker guessing? Studies have shown that even an irrational person acts rationally in purusit of an irrational goal.

An armed robber or a non-armed robber? Wouldn't you rather pick the non-armed one?

You lose again.

And what happens when guns aren't freely available? Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit? Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder? Does the word "holocaust" mean anything to you?

I didn't know the jews ever had guns. Obviously, it didn't keep them from getting killed. If the guns got taken away from them and they got shipped off to their camps, the guns obviously didn't help them. But thanks for providing a real example of when guns did not prove helpful.

Once more, you lose.

That is a perversion of the truth, such weapons used in those shootings were illegally obtained.

The ability to obtain those weapons stems from the large amount of weapons in circulation. If all those weapons had been in the hands of police officers or safely locked away, the shootings would not have happened.

See, you lose.

In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.

In other countries, which I can speak of with experience of, invasions into your home are very uncommon. As are guns are even more uncommon.

Lose again, eh?

Consider the following:

Which house do you think an intruder would go for?

That looks so very american. The repeat offense intruder goes for the house on the right, since that's where he lives. Criminals want guns, so there's no way he lives in the house on the left.

Any further stupid questions?

[Hazard]

When a threat to your safety comes from a hostile human, it is unrealistic to expect that an assault would be postponed long enough to let you call for help. "Excuse me, Mr.Attacker, I need to call my local police officer and ask for his presence."

When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with a gun in his hand, you're likely to get wounded. When a threat to your safety comes from a drunk human with an empty hand, you're likely to be able to evade him.

You lose.

That same drunk could come with a knife. Should we ban knives? That same attacker could come with a pipe bomb. Should we ban the sale of anything that could be used to make explosives? I'd prefer to take out the attacker before he gets the jump on me, wouldn't you?

An easy victim or an armed citizen? Wouldn't you rather keep an attacker guessing? Studies have shown that even an irrational person acts rationally in purusit of an irrational goal.

An armed robber or a non-armed robber? Wouldn't you rather pick the non-armed one?

You lose again.

Robbers will be armed through illegal arm sales with or without gun laws, why don't you realize that? Why would a criminal follow gun control laws? Hes a CRIMINAL.

And what happens when guns aren't freely available? Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit? Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder? Does the word "holocaust" mean anything to you?

I didn't know the jews ever had guns. Obviously, it didn't keep them from getting killed. If the guns got taken away from them and they got shipped off to their camps, the guns obviously didn't help them. But thanks for providing a real example of when guns did not prove helpful.

Once more, you lose.

The last time the government was trusted to keep order unarmed millions died. This became known as the holocaust. Had the jews been armed, they would have had the opportunity to fight back.

That is a perversion of the truth, such weapons used in those shootings were illegally obtained.

The ability to obtain those weapons stems from the large amount of weapons in circulation. If all those weapons had been in the hands of police officers or safely locked away, the shootings would not have happened.

See, you lose.

Quite simply they recieved the weapons through irresponsible parents.

In other countries, especially those which have recently outlawed armed self-defense (such as England), home invasions are on the rise. Their criminals have nothing to fear from the law-abiding people.

In other countries, which I can speak of with experience of, invasions into your home are very uncommon. As are guns are even more uncommon.

Lose again, eh?

So how do you explain the trend in England?

Consider the following:

Which house do you think an intruder would go for?

That looks so very american. The repeat offense intruder goes for the house on the right, since that's where he lives. Criminals want guns, so there's no way he lives in the house on the left.

You're catagorizing gun owners as criminals. Thats the stupidest perversion of the idea of the picture I've ever heard. You're telling me that as a rapist hell bent on commiting your crime you would enter the house on the right to search for a victim?  Guns are a useful tool.

Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.

[Adron]

That same drunk could come with a knife. Should we ban knives? That same attacker could come with a pipe bomb. Should we ban the sale of anything that could be used to make explosives? I'd prefer to take out the attacker before he gets the jump on me, wouldn't you?

Knives are banned in public places already. Pipe bombs are banned. Sales of things that can be used to easily make explosives are restricted and require a license to purchase. Producing or possessing explosive devices without a license is illegal.

Guns used defensively don't work because: If guns are free, the attacker has a gun too. He knows he'll be attacking, is prepared and kills you before you get your gun out. If you attempt to take him out first, you're the attacker and get the electric chair for murder.

Robbers will be armed through illegal arm sales with or without gun laws, why don't you realize that? Why would a criminal follow gun control laws? Hes a CRIMINAL.

Robbers are typically not armed, no. You're theorizing, I'm speaking from experience (no, not personal experience, statistics).

The last time the government was trusted to keep order unarmed millions died. This became known as the holocaust. Had the jews been armed, they would have had the opportunity to fight back.

According to you, the jews were armed. When the government wanted to kill them, they first disarmed them, then killed them. Simple. Guns won't protect you from the government, because the government can outpower you any time they like anyway. What you may be able to do is get yourself killed. Think Waco.

Quite simply they recieved the weapons through irresponsible parents.

Correct. Most people *are* stupid and irresponsible. That's why you don't want them to have guns. Letting stupid and irresponsible people have guns will lead to tragedies.

So how do you explain the trend in England?

I'll have to refer you to Arta for that. I don't live in England. Do you?

You're catagorizing gun owners as criminals. Thats the stupidest perversion of the idea of the picture I've ever heard. You're telling me that as a rapist hell bent on commiting your crime you would enter the house on the right to search for a victim?  Guns are a useful tool.

Yes, that's a good categorization. It has a very good correlation, assuming non-police, non-military, in my environment. And in your environment, as soon as the gun control laws are implemented, they will be criminals there as well. Until then, they are criminals-to-be. Either because of their own intentional actions, or because of the neglect that will let their guns get into the wrong hands.

Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.

I am looking at facts. You're the one sitting there with closed eyes, repeating your gun propaganda. I know from personal experience that having gun control laws works just fine. What better facts could I be looking for?

And I don't read much liberal media. My opinions are my own. Feel free to for each answer I have given you point out the "incorrect fact" behind it, and I might reconsider my opinions.

edit: grammar + final word

[Grok]

What you may be able to do is get yourself killed. Think Waco.

and Ruby Ridge.

Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.

It is commonly viewed as knowing you have a weak position when you argue not against the facts, but against the source of the facts.

[Hazard]

That same drunk could come with a knife. Should we ban knives? That same attacker could come with a pipe bomb. Should we ban the sale of anything that could be used to make explosives? I'd prefer to take out the attacker before he gets the jump on me, wouldn't you?

Knives are banned in public places already. Pipe bombs are banned. Sales of things that can be used to easily make explosives are restricted and require a license to purchase. Producing or possessing explosive devices without a license is illegal.

Guns used defensively don't work because: If guns are free, the attacker has a gun too. He knows he'll be attacking, is prepared and kills you before you get your gun out. If you attempt to take him out first, you're the attacker and get the electric chair for murder.

Oh wow, its illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. Its illegal to commit the robbery in the first place. The majority of weapons used in an illegal action are illegal weapons! If you take away the guns they will simply go to something else!

Guns defensively don't work? Thousands of people in the USA annually use their firearms as protection, and they save their lives and the lives of children. If a burglar entered my house, he'd be staring down a Winchester .12 gauge or a Browning .308. Pretty good deterrent don't you think?

Robbers will be armed through illegal arm sales with or without gun laws, why don't you realize that? Why would a criminal follow gun control laws? Hes a CRIMINAL.

Robbers are typically not armed, no. You're theorizing, I'm speaking from experience (no, not personal experience, statistics).

So, you would rather risk it? Just, hope that the criminal isn't armed? What if the intruder is a rapist who is in your home to rape and murder your family and he is armed? I'm sure you'll make a good witness at the trial of the murder of your family, Adron.

The last time the government was trusted to keep order unarmed millions died. This became known as the holocaust. Had the jews been armed, they would have had the opportunity to fight back.

According to you, the jews were armed. When the government wanted to kill them, they first disarmed them, then killed them. Simple. Guns won't protect you from the government, because the government can outpower you any time they like anyway. What you may be able to do is get yourself killed. Think Waco.

I wonder where we would all be if the founding fathers of the United States had believed as you did. Since resisiting the government will just get you killed. Did you forget that whole American Revolution thing, when a power of farmers and peasants restisted an empire? Who won that war by the way? The fact is that the government was entrusted as the sole protector of lives. That turned out real well. Lets say that there is an armed intruder in your home. You call 911. The police are speeding towards your house at 80 mph. Personally, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards the perp at 800 mph.

Quite simply they recieved the weapons through irresponsible parents.

Correct. Most people *are* stupid and irresponsible. That's why you don't want them to have guns. Letting stupid and irresponsible people have guns will lead to tragedies.

Training and teachings are neccessary, I never said that they weren't.

So how do you explain the trend in England?

I'll have to refer you to Arta for that. I don't live in England. Do you?

No, I count on international research.

You're catagorizing gun owners as criminals. Thats the stupidest perversion of the idea of the picture I've ever heard. You're telling me that as a rapist hell bent on commiting your crime you would enter the house on the right to search for a victim?  Guns are a useful tool.

Yes, that's a good categorization. It has a very good correlation, assuming non-police, non-military, in my environment. And in your environment, as soon as the gun control laws are implemented, they will criminals there as well. Until then, they are criminals-to-be. Either because of their own intentional actions, or because of the neglect that will let their guns get into the wrong hands.

A responsible gun owner will never have the problem of a firearm ending up in enemy hands. As far as gun control by the government is concerned, all I can see is "Molon Lave" or "Come and Get Them". Fortunatly, the government has no right to take my firearms. I have the HUMAN RIGHT to protect myself and my family.

Take a look at some of the facts rather than accept the liberal media bias you are reciting to me.

I am looking at facts. You're the one sitting there with closed eyes, repeating your gun propaganda. I know from personal experience that having gun control laws works just fine. What better facts could I be looking for?

You're giving me the same run around I get from all firearm proponents about how they are a liability and only used for evil. Too bad you all cannot see firearms as a useful tool. What is the difference between freedom and slavery? A musket.

[Adron]

Oh wow, its illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. Its illegal to commit the robbery in the first place. The majority of weapons used in an illegal action are illegal weapons! If you take away the guns they will simply go to something else!

I'm not saying it's illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. I'm saying it's illegal to carry a knife or bomb. Just like it's illegal to carry a gun. Carrying a *weapon* is illegal, be it knife, gun, bomb, whatever.

Guns defensively don't work? Thousands of people in the USA annually use their firearms as protection, and they save their lives and the lives of children. If a burglar entered my house, he'd be staring down a Winchester .12 gauge or a Browning .308. Pretty good deterrent don't you think?

Some get killed as well. When the armed robber enters your house and you bring out your gun, you get shot dead. There's no greater reason you should be able to kill him than for him to be able to kill you. When you add in the likeliness of there being multiple robbers, a whole gang of them, the chances of your survival are dropping rapidly. You might as well shoot yourself already and save them the trouble. Ah, finally a good use for you gun. Go ahead.

So, you would rather risk it? Just, hope that the criminal isn't armed? What if the intruder is a rapist who is in your home to rape and murder your family and he is armed? I'm sure you'll make a good witness at the trial of the murder of your family, Adron.

You're the one suggesting that everyone should be armed. Do you want the criminal to be armed or not? Your choice is for the criminal to be armed. Mine is for the criminal not to be armed. I want to point out here, that as a responsible citizen, you're storing your gun locked away so your children can't get to it, even if they come into your bedroom while you're asleep. You thus have no chance to get your gun out quickly. The robber is standing at the bottom of your bed, pointing his gun at you. You're dead meat.

The fact is that the government was entrusted as the sole protector of lives. That turned out real well. Lets say that there is an armed intruder in your home. You call 911. The police are speeding towards your house at 80 mph. Personally, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards the perp at 800 mph.

As the scenario above showed, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards you at 800 mph. Because either you're irresponsible and storing the gun where it is accessible, then you get the school shootout, or you're responsible, and then the gun is of no use to you.

Training and teachings are neccessary, I never said that they weren't.

Ah, now, this is such a great idea. Everyone being responsible with their guns. Yes, that's a perfect idea. At least good enough that it should be included in your armed robber self defence scenarios.

No, I count on international research.

Ah. Could you please point me to the original unbiased source of your information, since it's not your personal experience?

A responsible gun owner will never have the problem of a firearm ending up in enemy hands. As far as gun control by the government is concerned, all I can see is "Molon Lave" or "Come and Get Them". Fortunatly, the government has no right to take my firearms. I have the HUMAN RIGHT to protect myself and my family.

No, you have no human right to carry a gun. Hopefully you'll soon come to realize that. Preferably before you look out at the world from behind bars.

You're giving me the same run around I get from all firearm proponents about how they are a liability and only used for evil. Too bad you all cannot see firearms as a useful tool. What is the difference between freedom and slavery? A musket.

Yes, that is so true. Muskets is what enabled slavery.

And no, I'm not saying firearms can only be used for evil. Police need firearms. They keep them accessible when they need them, and they watch their firearms. What I'm saying is that firearms don't belong with the general population, where they will either be abused or not useful.

[Banana fanna fo fanna]

Conservatives have a horrible track record with money. I'm sorry, but no matter how you shake it, the last presidential term has destroyed the US economy. The last Republican president we had before the current regime destroyed the economy, too! It almost single-handedly lost him the 1992 election.

Now, let's just conveniently forget about the Gulf War and when a couple of planes destroyed an icon of the American economy while already entering a recession.

[Hazard]

Oh wow, its illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. Its illegal to commit the robbery in the first place. The majority of weapons used in an illegal action are illegal weapons! If you take away the guns they will simply go to something else!

I'm not saying it's illegal to use knives and bombs in robberies. I'm saying it's illegal to carry a knife or bomb. Just like it's illegal to carry a gun. Carrying a *weapon* is illegal, be it knife, gun, bomb, whatever.

No its not. Carrying a concealed firearm with a liscence is perfectly legal, and it is always legal to carry a knife.

Guns defensively don't work? Thousands of people in the USA annually use their firearms as protection, and they save their lives and the lives of children. If a burglar entered my house, he'd be staring down a Winchester .12 gauge or a Browning .308. Pretty good deterrent don't you think?

Some get killed as well. When the armed robber enters your house and you bring out your gun, you get shot dead. There's no greater reason you should be able to kill him than for him to be able to kill you. When you add in the likeliness of there being multiple robbers, a whole gang of them, the chances of your survival are dropping rapidly. You might as well shoot yourself already and save them the trouble. Ah, finally a good use for you gun. Go ahead.

Some get killed, true. Many thousands defend themselves. Who would you rather be? I welcome the chance for a whole gang. My shotgun holds 8 rounds, and my .308 holds five. I only need one per person. The liklihood of having your gun taken from you and used against you is slim to none.

So, you would rather risk it? Just, hope that the criminal isn't armed? What if the intruder is a rapist who is in your home to rape and murder your family and he is armed? I'm sure you'll make a good witness at the trial of the murder of your family, Adron.

You're the one suggesting that everyone should be armed. Do you want the criminal to be armed or not? Your choice is for the criminal to be armed. Mine is for the criminal not to be armed. I want to point out here, that as a responsible citizen, you're storing your gun locked away so your children can't get to it, even if they come into your bedroom while you're asleep. You thus have no chance to get your gun out quickly. The robber is standing at the bottom of your bed, pointing his gun at you. You're dead meat.

You're dead armed or not if there is a robber at the base of your bed. I prefer to go down fighting. You can't keep criminals from being armed Adron. Get over it. Legal or not they will get firearms.

The fact is that the government was entrusted as the sole protector of lives. That turned out real well. Lets say that there is an armed intruder in your home. You call 911. The police are speeding towards your house at 80 mph. Personally, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards the perp at 800 mph.

As the scenario above showed, I would count on the bullet rocketing towards you at 800 mph. Because either you're irresponsible and storing the gun where it is accessible, then you get the school shootout, or you're responsible, and then the gun is of no use to you.

My gun is locked and accessible, and I can get to it in an extremely brief time in case of emergency.

Training and teachings are neccessary, I never said that they weren't.

Ah, now, this is such a great idea. Everyone being responsible with their guns. Yes, that's a perfect idea. At least good enough that it should be included in your armed robber self defence scenarios.

You object to somebody shooting an attacker in self defense?

No, I count on international research.

Ah. Could you please point me to the original unbiased source of your information, since it's not your personal experience?

As could you point out yours?

A responsible gun owner will never have the problem of a firearm ending up in enemy hands. As far as gun control by the government is concerned, all I can see is "Molon Lave" or "Come and Get Them". Fortunatly, the government has no right to take my firearms. I have the HUMAN RIGHT to protect myself and my family.

No, you have no human right to carry a gun. Hopefully you'll soon come to realize that. Preferably before you look out at the world from behind bars.

So you're saying that I have no right to protect myself from those who are armed with guns? That makes sense. What do you think? That we should all just be friends?

You're giving me the same run around I get from all firearm proponents about how they are a liability and only used for evil. Too bad you all cannot see firearms as a useful tool. What is the difference between freedom and slavery? A musket.

Yes, that is so true. Muskets is what enabled slavery.

If you'll recall, war ended slavery.

And no, I'm not saying firearms can only be used for evil. Police need firearms. They keep them accessible when they need them, and they watch their firearms. What I'm saying is that firearms don't belong with the general population, where they will either be abused or not useful.

Not be useful? Why don't you tell that to the founding fathers of the United States. Yea... their use of firearms sure proved to be anything but constructive. The general population sure screwed up with their use of firearms didn't they? Why don't you tell that to the millions who have been saved because they have armed themselves. Why don't you try telling that to those unfortunate enough not to have been armed. The general RESPONSIBLE population has the human right to protect themselves from the evils in society. People need firearms too. Basically you're saying that a woman who is about to be raped should just call for help, instead of stopping her attacker. The cops should be there in a few minutes right? Until then she should just roll the dice and take her chances, hopefully he will be a nice rapist and wait until help arrives. What dream world do you live in Adron? You must take the protection of yourself and the people you love into your hands. My home is guarded. You want to know the international sound for "Get the FUCK out"? It's the sound of a shotgun round being loaded into the chamber. Don't tread on me.