If each of us carried a gun . . . . . . we could help to combat terrorism

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I can sort of understand the reasoning behind this idea...

But it remains that terrorism isn't really that much of a threat to warrant everyone being armed.

Unless a gun can protect you against these things, just to mention a few:

* Lightening strikes

* Auto accidents

* Electric shock

* Spiders, snake, and ant bites (perhaps someone could shoot at them?)

* Heart attack

* Pneumonia

* Slipping on a bar of soap in the shower

All of these things are far more likely to kill you than a terrorist attack.




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I wasn't really pointing out any particular group (just a vague hazy group). I know that people who want guns can easily get them through non-legal means. I'm just a silly idealist who wishes there wasn't a need for widespread gun use in the first place. Guns have a single purpose, to fire a projectile that's capable of harming or killing. Whether you use it to protect your loved ones or to harm others, the intent is irrelevant to the function of the tool.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 


Not to assume you're one of those anti-gunners or anything but I think it's funny to stats like "you're more likely to slip on soap than be attacked" to defend disarmament when stats like "youre more likely to slip on a bar of soap than be shot" are used to debunk the anti-gunners constant fear of guns shooting themselves and flocks of stray bullets homing in on babies heads.

Whichever serves your particular cause I guess.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DemonicAngelZero
 



I'm just a silly idealist who wishes there wasn't a need for widespread gun use in the first place.


That would indeed be a somewhat better world. Sad part is that we would only result to using another object to take the place of the gun. But I do understand where you are coming from.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Im in favour of allowing non-leathal weapons available to the general public but not guns. A guns purpose is to kill, plain and simple.

Take for example a kubotan which is a hand held stick for want of a better description. This type of weapon should be allowed in the UK really, however UK law dictates that being caught with one already means you have intent to use it - and its normal practice for the police to automatically assume you are going to go out of your way and attack someone with it!

Now I know its possible to kill someone if you hit them in the right places with a Kubotan but with the correct training you would target the areas of the assailant that would only incapacitate, giving you time to escape.

I would definately agree that in Britain self-defence laws really need a re-think.




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by warrenb
 


I am with warren on this...the true terrorists are TPTB..lets clean house



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Well to be honest, I come from a country that has rather strict gun control - even so, I probably wouldn't want to own gun, personally, but that doesn't make an 'anti-gunner'.

But you state that everyone being armed would stop terrorism?

What about Iraq - everyone seems to be armed there, from the soldiers themselves, to the insurgents, to the grandmothers.

Terrorism still exists quite extensively in that country, and I just fail to see how objects that are designed to kill people would keep those nasty terrorists away.

And you say that I'm using statistics for my own secret cause or motives, IE, taking your gun away? Well, those are just the facts - a gun will probably not save you from killer bees.

Let's take 9/11 for an example - are you suggesting that airlines allow everyone to carry a gun onboard their planes?

Do you really think that's a feasible option?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Well, I can only speak about my experience of people and I honestly think that the only result of more guns would be more shootings.

Any English town or city after midnight on a weekend, the usual kebab shop scuffle - instead of the punch in the face for looking at someone it would be a bullet in the head.

Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all....



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Jkd Up
 
I agree with you 100%



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 

Yes.If the passengers on the airliners that fateful day of 911 had weapons,,,I dont think the trip to the twin towers would have been possible,,,I think lives would be saved each day,granted there could still be innocent people hurt but Im sure the number would be far fewer than those now killed each day.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bnmssnit
 


But the terrorists would have also had guns, not just the box cutters on the day - either way, it'd end up being a shoot-up onboard the plane.

Airline hostesses maybe should maybe get the guns



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
I am in no way opposing gun ownership, but if you think carrying a gun is going to stop "terrorism", you are silly.

If someone is willing to die for their cause, what good does a gun to you?


you can shoot them in the head, from a distance, when they expose their vest of bombs. IF they run in holding guns, you can use your gun to shoot 3 of them in the head



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mattguy404
 
Yes,the terrorist had box cutters and the passenger had nothing.Even if everyone had guns the numbers of non terrorist gun toters would have far outweighed the terrorist.That would have been a democratic answer! The majority of the people could have overruled!



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:50 AM
link   
"If each of us carried a gun . . . . . . we could help to combat terrorism "

There is one very simple flaw with that concept. It assumes that each of "us" is a completely sane and mentally well balanced individual who would NEVER use a firearm against another human unless it were in self-defence.

In the real world, hand everybody a gun and terrorism will be the least of your worries where an increase in murders is concerned.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
If someone is willing to die for their cause, what good does a gun to you?


I am also willing to die for a cause which is to save innocent people so give me a gun and run for cover! thank you!

[edit on 10-12-2008 by ahnggk]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bnmssnit
reply to post by mattguy404
 

Yes.If the passengers on the airliners that fateful day of 911 had weapons,,,I dont think the trip to the twin towers would have been possible,,,I think lives would be saved each day,granted there could still be innocent people hurt but Im sure the number would be far fewer than those now killed each day.


Possibly. That is...if all those guns going off didnt punch a bunch of holes in the cabin, cause depressurization and start ripping apart from said depressurization, or bullets hitting fuel lines and causing sparks and blowing the whole thing right out of the sky.



If there is a terrorist attack, its not gonna happen with a line of terrorists running down the street wearing turbins and scarfs over their faces yelling Allah and aiming AK-47's down main street USA. Its gonna happen with the size and severity of what occured on Sept. 11, 2001, or bigger and no gun is going to prevent it.

Im a gun advocate, but how about everyone start being more realistic and practical than adventurous and rediculous and just use a dose of common sense.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 10-12-2008 by RFBurns]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi

Originally posted by Pjotr

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

I get what you're saying but I dont see how being defenseless in a room full of defenseless people waiting for somebody to kill me hoping for somebody to save me is better than being being armed in a room of armed people all seeing a criminal bust through the front door.


Sorry to interrupt, but it IS better "being defenseless etc." because I wouldn''t mind stopping/disarming a man with my empty hands in a room full of people. I WOULD mind doing that in a room full of people WITH arms. Because then I would be sure one idiot would shoot me in the back. My eyes would have to be everywhere in that situation.

People are nuts or a just an inch away from it. Don't arm them.



Why in Gods green earth would you try to kung fu an armed man when there are other people in the room with guns who would just shoot him? Seriously read stuff before posting it.


I can read, no problem. I will explain my point: In a room full of armed people you will never know who is who and what side they are on. It is the Wild West, nothing else.
Most people don't know what to do in ANY situation. Giving them guns won't change that in a good way.
So I will better "nuke" or kung fu anyone unexpectedly then drive around in a tank. Then you are a target for sure.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bnmssnit
reply to post by mattguy404
 
Yes,the terrorist had box cutters and the passenger had nothing.Even if everyone had guns the numbers of non terrorist gun toters would have far outweighed the terrorist.That would have been a democratic answer! The majority of the people could have overruled!


Surely if everyone on a plane carries a gun, I would find another terrorist method to stress my point. This discussion is so lame, sorry.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:09 AM
link   
I'm not sure if any members active in this thread are familiar with BattleField 2, CounterStrike or Call of Duty. These 3 games demonstrate (theoretically) just how dangerous guns are in the hands of the untrained.

For example if a newbie (someone inexperienced) were to log onto a server with seasoned pro's (Mumbai shooters) they are usually so overwhelmed they end up shooting there teammates or themselves.

Seems like a slippery slope to me, I'm glad to live in Ontario, Canada where the majority of the population is unarmed.

Peace



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRealDonPedros
 


A good analogy, but unfortunatley in real life, you cant respawn.




Cheers!!!!




top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join