Who doesn't want You to have Guns? Frightened Cowards and "The Man"

page: 3
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
We can all agree there are scenarios in which guns can be used for the greater good and those in which they are used for nothing more than malice, but if they weapons where to be taken off the market this would ensure a much safer society for future generations, sure there will still be gun violence from the criminals able to get there grubby hands on them but death rates will be much lower and civilians will have weight taken off there shoulders in the safe knowledge that less people are armed.




posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


I have one for you.

Let's say Mr. Sean48 is sleeping at home in his unlocked house, which he publicly advertizes on the internet, and suddenly someone feels like walking in with a loaded glock and taking whatever they feel like.



Relax man, you can keep your guns.

I don't think guns should be taken away, AS I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY,

It only concerns me , everyday citizens packing on the street.

Protecting your home , property, let the chips fall on who ever enters.

Why is this hard to grasp?



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by daeoeste
 


Many thanks, and i'm looking into your links now. I'll swallow my pride here as i am starting to understand as to why owning a gun to protect your home/family is important and i guess these worries are not on my head as i live in the U.K.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


And if you are attacked on the street? Seems to me my body and life are about the most valuable possessions I will every have.

People (meaning law-abiding citizens) do not carry firearms to start a fight or assault someone. They are carried to protect your body and life from harm, and in many cases prevent assault.

This is without opening up the "to defend against tyranny" can of worms...



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
reply to post by Sean48
 


And if you are attacked on the street? Seems to me my body and life are about the most valuable possessions I will every have.

People (meaning law-abiding citizens) do not carry firearms to start a fight or assault someone. They are carried to protect your body and life from harm, and in many cases prevent assault.

This is without opening up the "to defend against tyranny" can of worms...


As another poster has said , I don't reside in the US , we don't kill each

other , and have no need to carry guns.

To all you US guys , lock and load, if you need to.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Everton
It's just my opinion I haven't come on here to cause a stir, i just dont see how being in possesion of a firearm is in any way going to advantage the owner. I've seen alot of youths who get ahold of them just to look "cool" and for street cred but then later on life end up turning it on civilians. I live in the U.K and have spent time in many rough areas and have rarely heard of guns being used in self defence, every time it crops up in the news it's about some poor guy losing his life because some neaneanderthal has got his hands on a weapon and is more than likely to weak to fight with his fists, but i know it's alot different in the states and i will research this.


Oh how to answer this with meaning. The guy gets robbed by the street punk
cause the punk has got the gun and not the other way round.
Criminals have guns. In the UK good guys can't.
Bad guy wins. I am pretty sure that's what you just said.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

As another poster has said , I don't reside in the US , we don't kill each

other , and have no need to carry guns.

To all you US guys , lock and load, if you need to.



Are you claiming to live in a mythical fantasy land, or merely the only nation on earth with 0 murders in the last year?

Wait there isn't one...


And when push comes to shove you say this is an "American" issue, if that is the case why are you so interested in this thread?

I myself see self defense as a universal right to all of the creatures of the earth. Every creature, humans to micro organisms will fight for their survival until the very end with whatever means they have.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
WOW! lots of crazy anti gun talk in here. Guns are a natural right. Why would they be a natural right? Because guns are ubiquitous and we have a natural right to defend ourselves.

Besides being able to defend ourselves, we have to be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannous government.

Sure ignorant people get a hold of guns and think that a bullet is the best way to solve a problem. Some people go crazy and drowned their kids in lakes and bathtubs.

So should we outlaw water, or tubs, maybe kids, or even parents.

I sleep with a loaded AK47 next to my bed, and any intruder that comes in unannounced will not have the opportunity to sue me for damages.

Look at how well the gun free zones have worked. Since no one has a gun it's a turkey shoot. You don't see many people going to shoot up the local gun club do you?



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder


And when push comes to shove you say this is an "American" issue, if that is the case why are you so interested in this thread?


I took the "unpopular" side , and asked what I thought was a valid question.

If this was meant to be a circular meeting with members gratifying each other

then i am in the wrong spot..



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Not the case and also not what i was saying, it's rare for a "bad guy" to get away with robbery let alone armed robbery. In the U.K there is no reason to feel the need to be in possesion of a fire arm but i know its different in alot of other countries. If i was robbed by an armed thug tomorrow i wouldn't run out and get a gun for protection because what is the likely hood it would happen again?



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sean48

I took the "unpopular" side , and asked what I thought was a valid question.

If this was meant to be a circular meeting with members gratifying each other

then i am in the wrong spot..


But when I asked you to defend your stance on physical assaults on the physically impaired I got silence from you.

When I pressed the simple issue of self defense you claimed this was a concern for "Americans".

I will never tell anyone not to voice their opinions.

However you seem to be jumping from having a strong opinion towards one side to claiming this is not an issue for an outsider to comment on.

You can't have it both ways, if you state an opinion I may just ask you to back it up.

I am still curious about your stance on the physically impaired defending themselves, as well as defending oneself when outside the home. I ask because you seem most concerned with "masculinity" issues of some owners, and common citizens carrying arms publicly.

Please I am truly curious.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Everton
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Not the case and also not what i was saying, it's rare for a "bad guy" to get away with robbery let alone armed robbery. In the U.K there is no reason to feel the need to be in possesion of a fire arm but i know its different in alot of other countries. If i was robbed by an armed thug tomorrow i wouldn't run out and get a gun for protection because what is the likely hood it would happen again?


Not likely, but it does happen.I bet this woman is glad she did not entertain this same argument.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 02/21/09 by daeoeste]



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by daeoeste
 


ereugo




posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder


But when I asked you to defend your stance on physical assaults on the physically impaired I got silence from you.

When I pressed the simple issue of self defense you claimed this was a concern for "Americans".

I will never tell anyone not to voice their opinions.

However you seem to be jumping from having a strong opinion towards one side to claiming this is not an issue for an outsider to comment on.

You can't have it both ways, if you state an opinion I may just ask you to back it up.

I am still curious about your stance on the physically impaired defending themselves, as well as defending oneself when outside the home. I ask because you seem most concerned with "masculinity" issues of some owners, and common citizens carrying arms publicly.

Please I am truly curious.


I didn;t purposely try to avoid your question, I was responding to a few posters at 1 time, I'll do my best now.

Physical assaults on physically impaired, we may have to redo this one, because I'm unclear if you mean like wheelchair, or amputee's.....

I wasn't aware there was more of a likelyhood of incidents in that group,

and don't see why they should have a gun , as opposed to others.

I used the masculinity example, in response to the title of the thread.

No gun = Coward

Gun = Masculinity

People are telling me that innocent people wont get shot , that was my only

concern with sliding back to "Wild West" days.

I never said Gun Ownership is wrong, at home.

(sorry for slow reply, business phone ringing)



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Sean48
 


But I should tell that I have carried before, in the past. The specific gun was a 5 shot .22 LR made by North American Arms. You would know it or can find it as a "belt buckle gun" link

Self-defense? I could do more with a punch or just throwing the thing at you in both damage and accuracy. The best description of telling where the bullet was going was "away".

It did serve two purposes however, deterrence for the fact that it was a real gun that could (although statistically improbable that it would hit unless pressed against someone) hit someone.

And for only being a .22, was rather loud when fired. (very high velocity rounds=more powder=more bang)

Seriously, you would be more lethal with a shoelace wrapped around your hands as a garrote. But I carried a lot of cash outdoors (gas station attendant that pumped the gas) and an attention gathering deterrent fit the bill for protection. I sold that gun for exactly what I paid for it (about $100 at the time) after I quit that job.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Everton
reply to post by Pointman111
 


Your right i wont need a weapon, i can handle myself without one. It's a shame i cant say the same about these gun slingers who pop a bullet into somebody just for throwing a punch or calling them a name. You shouldn't live in the mindset thinking you need a gun for protection.


Well usually when some person wants to start someone its really for no reason whatsoever (ive been assaulted at train stations) now usually people gang up on people in GROUPS!



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Pointman111
 


It's a shame these thugs felt the need to assault you, they are both petty and cowardly. They tend to attack in groups as they know one on one they wouldn't be able to take you on, we need harsher sentences for these people and one thing i do wish we could adopt from the U.S.A over here in England is the punishment system, a life sentence over here is more than often 15 years of which they tend to wriggle out of due to human rights.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Everton
No country should have the public being eligible to access firearms in my opinion. Reason being is they cause harm/distress/souring crime rates and murder. Being armed to protect yourself is a silly idea, just use common sense and avoid gang infested streets at night. I dont see what good can possibly come from owning a weapon.


You get an award. The most idiotic thing I have read so far today. Let me tell you, I was on the Fox news website today.

Seriously. You can prove the opposite of your statement by looking at the UK, its crime rate while guns were legal, and now.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436

Originally posted by Everton
No country should have the public being eligible to access firearms in my opinion. Reason being is they cause harm/distress/souring crime rates and murder. Being armed to protect yourself is a silly idea, just use common sense and avoid gang infested streets at night. I dont see what good can possibly come from owning a weapon.


You get an award. The most idiotic thing I have read so far today. Let me tell you, I was on the Fox news website today.

Seriously. You can prove the opposite of your statement by looking at the UK, its crime rate while guns were legal, and now.


lol now in the UK its all about getting stabbed am I right?



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.

www.homeoffice.gov.uk...

Without a reasonable excuse guns shouldn't be used by anybody.From all the posts in this thread i understand vulnerable families in deprived areas who are subjected to gang violence in the area being armed and those who are disabled and are prey for burglars. What i still dont understand is young men and women who are easily influenced being able to get there hands on them, for the ones who have minds like sponges it may not take much to influence them to take out there weapon on unwilling civilians.





new topics
top topics
 
42
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join