Hello There, Guest!

  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 
  •  
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fellow Gun Nuts
#21
ibofightback Wrote:I'd rather than intruder didn't have the gun in the first place. This is part of the catch-22 situation the US is in though, the gun supply is so large that implementing stronger controls would IMO indeed have little effect on criminals access to guns. If controls had been in place earlier that wouldn't be the case.

Which goes back to our other debate on limited liberties, to which we are diametrically opposed.

Quote:Personally I consider suicides and accidental gund deaths a bigger issue. If I recall correctly more than half of all suicides are firearm related and more than 2/3 of young peoples suicide. We're talking 15,000-20,000 deaths a year many of which would not have occurred. Some argue it makes no difference but I disagree with their statistical analysis.
Wait...Stop the presses.....IBOFB disagreed with a statistical analysis.....watch out folks..hell is going freeze over and we will be seeing pigs fly any moment now!!! HAHA...just kidding..I am sure there are plenty of examples of where you disagree.

I believe if people are committed to killing themselves...they will find a way, regardless of the gun laws. I am sure the last thing on their mind is "Gee, I wonder if this gun is illegal, or do I have a right to use this gun."

Quote:Sure, but that's not an issue for the US or most other countries. Heck ... the Iraqi populous was very heavily armed and it didn't stop the US! Come to think of it, didn't help much against tyranny either ...
That is because the US had a huge advantage over the Iraqis. However, there are still "freedom fighters" (outside of Al Qaeda) that believe they are fighting an occupying force. However wrong they may be.

Quote:Either way, there has been no real risk of a successful land invasion of the US for probably a century, so the idea an armed populace is needed for defence of country is to my mind ludicrous.

May be ludicrous to you...but is still a liberty we have and justly so!
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#22
TB 2 IBO Wrote:Which goes back to our other debate on limited liberties, to which we are diametrically opposed.


So you DO believe individuals should be allowed to own thermonuclear weapons if they want?

Quote:Wait...Stop the presses.....IBOFB disagreed with a statistical analysis.....watch out folks..hell is going freeze over and we will be seeing pigs fly any moment now!!! HAHA...just kidding..I am sure there are plenty of examples of where you disagree.

If the analysis is poorly done, it's poorly done - and it was poorly done by folk who clearly had an agenda.

Quote:I believe if people are committed to killing themselves...they will find a way, regardless of the gun laws. I am sure the last thing on their mind is "Gee, I wonder if this gun is illegal, or do I have a right to use this gun."

From personal experience I can tell you that you're wrong. And it's got nothing to do with the illegality or not, it's got to do with ease of access.

Quote:That is because the US had a huge advantage over the Iraqis. However, there are still "freedom fighters" (outside of Al Qaeda) that believe they are fighting an occupying force. However wrong they may be.

The US has a huge advantage militarily over everyone and has done for generations. The claim you need guns at home to deter invasion is ridiculous.

Quote:May be ludicrous to you...but is still a liberty we have and justly so!

There's no helping paranoia and fear I guess.
 Reply
#23
TB 2 IBO Wrote:..... CMF--Shouldn't be trashing anyone's country or constitution. If he wants to debate philosophical points regarding differences between his country and way of life with the US..then fine, but to blatantly say it is BS, is disrespectful.


TB2IBO - it was never my intention to trash anyone's country or constitution ! Confusedcratch:

What I did say was :

cmfitzg Wrote:In the UK we are shocked by deaths in our country from knives, guns (rarely) and other weapons but they are miniscule compared to the carnage wreaked in the US in the name of the Constitution. Pardon me but the Constitution in this case is b******s !

The final sentence was perhaps unnecessarily insulting and for that I apologise. My point was the use of the Constitution to justify the ownership of guns (and the resultant carnage) was misplaced and, in changed times, irrelevant.

As I said, no-one here is going to have their opinion changed but a further thought :

The last available figures for non-suicide Gun Deaths in the UK were for 2007/08 and were 53 ! Extrapolating this to the population of the US, this would give a figure of not much more than 400 tops - in other words the actual US non-suicide gun deaths rate is around 30 times the UK figure.
So remind me how the US Gun Laws help make people safer ??

My quibble is with the Gun-Lobby, not the US Constitution per se, and their use of a seriously old document to justify their macho behaviour. All constitutional documents should be subject to review and revision over time because things change and the relevance of a document can diminish. That doesn't mean that the fundamental sentiments on which the document was based have changed - just the circumstances which they are designed to address. We do not have any written constitution here - the constitution is an aggregation of individual laws and legal decisions handed down over centuries. Many in the UK have called for a written constitution but I think that would be a retrograde step for reasons stated above. Part of our constitutional history is the famous Magna Carta, signed in the year 1215, when the powers of the Monarch (and his/her absolute power) were forever curtailed. It was right for the time, (for example : it enshrined in Law for the first time the concept of Habeus Corpus) and the sentiments on which it was based perhaps are still relevant, but much of the detail is wholly irrelevant to the UK today. For that reason, almost the whole of Magan Carta has now been repealed !

Anyway, I did say I would not post on this topic again because of my debating skills (or lack of !) and I will now refrain for that reason - subject to defending myself where I feel it necessary (through unfairness) or apologising for any unintended offence, if I have left any unapologised-for.

As I said,
Quote:We are all on this earth together and need to learn to LIVE together.....
.
TB2IBO, may I wish you well in your life and business and hope that I have not alienated you completely Big Grin
 Reply
#24
ibofightback Wrote:So you DO believe individuals should be allowed to own thermonuclear weapons if they want?

No....just regular nukes. The thermal kind are way too destructive. I'm being funny here because this argument is so off-topic and irrelevant. Comparing a gun to a nuclear weapon is ridiculous.

Quote:From personal experience I can tell you that you're wrong. And it's got nothing to do with the illegality or not, it's got to do with ease of access.
Wait, you mean it is easier to get a gun than piece of rope, a large knife, arsenic, rat poison, jump off a building or bridge?? Come on. If a person is truly hell bent on killing themselves they will do it, end of story.

Quote:The US has a huge advantage militarily over everyone and has done for generations. The claim you need guns at home to deter invasion is ridiculous.
It is not only a deterrent for invasion from foreign countries, but also right at home. Besides there are more reasons to own a gun than for self-defense. I grew up in the back woods (yes, I got the jokes...hahaha). Guns are still a viable part life for MANY in the US. Hunting is huge in much of the USA. It helps with food on the table, animal control (over population..etc etc.), sport shooting, trick shooting. Or you can believe this at about the 8 second mark.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU95LkZXKOU[/youtube]

Quote:There's no helping paranoia and fear I guess.
There is also no helping others understand what it means to live in a free society with limited government control I guess. Dang, there I go again.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#25
TB 2 IBO Wrote:No....just regular nukes. The thermal kind are way too destructive. I'm being funny here because this argument is so off-topic and irrelevant. Comparing a gun to a nuclear weapon is ridiculous.


It's not at all off-topic. Isn't your side of the debate all about personal freedom? Why do you disallow nukes from that?

Quote:Wait, you mean it is easier to get a gun than piece of rope, a large knife, arsenic, rat poison, jump off a building or bridge?? Come on. If a person is truly hell bent on killing themselves they will do it, end of story.

Of course it's easier to get a gun if you have a gun in the house! Most gun owners I know do not have arsenic, rat poison, or buildings or bridges (or anything else) sitting in their house high enough to jump off to kill themselves. Apart from which, most household chemicals will make you very sick rather than kill you, or lead to a very very painful death. Killing yourself with a knife is rather difficult to do and extremely painful. Jumping off a bridge is a much more personal decision than pulling a trigger. A suicidal person doesn't want to suffer more pain, they want to stop pain as easily as they can.

As I said, personal experience. If I'd been a gun owner I would not be here now, I say that with 110% certainity.

Quote:I grew up in the back woods (yes, I got the jokes...hahaha). Guns are still a viable part life for MANY in the US. Hunting is huge in much of the USA. It helps with food on the table, animal control (over population..etc etc.), sport shooting, trick shooting.

I have no problem with people owning guns for those things. I just think they should be under lock and key at the local gun club, or in the case of professionals who may need them (farmers or for culling etc), locked up at the workplace.

Quote:There's no helping paranoia and fear I guess.
There is also no helping others understand what it means to live in a free society with limited government control I guess. Dang, there I go again.[/quote]

But it's fine for a government to control your ownership of a nuke? Why?

And just to throw in some questions to check your position, I assume your "free society with limited government control" position means you also think abortion, gay marriage, speeding, no seat belts, drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana etc should all be legal?
 Reply
#26
ibofb, I will let you and tb hash this out. But I am posting this with you and your nuclear argument in mind:

[Image: Strawman-motivational.jpg]
 Reply
#27
Freedom
cmfitzg Wrote:In the UK we are shocked by deaths in our country from knives, guns (rarely) and other weapons but they are miniscule compared to the carnage wreaked in the US in the name of the Constitution. Pardon me but the Constitution in this case is b******s !

Quote:The final sentence was perhaps unnecessarily insulting and for that I apologise. My point was the use of the Constitution to justify the ownership of guns (and the resultant carnage) was misplaced and, in changed times, irrelevant.
Yea, old documents that are no longer relevant should be thrown away and not used....another classic example is the 10 Commandments. We no longer need those outdated and archaic thoughts. You know...Like "Thou Shall Not Murder", "Thou shall not steal", "Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery", "Honor Your Mother and Father"...etc. So we have done away with these in our schools and in public places. What do we have today? 70% divorce rate, murder rate is up, broken homes, boys without fathers--which leads to weak men that just compound the problem generation after generation. Males in society that do not know the meaning of true commitment and responsibility. Watering down the covenant of marriage as "something we just say, but do not mean". This is the fabric to which we are missing. Gun violence is just a symptom. Remember the days when you got into a fight at school? Was there ever fear of someone yanking out a gun and shooting you? No, you either got your butt handed to you or you did the butt kicking. No one ended up dead, bruised faces and/or egos perhaps but that was the extent of it. Often times it led to a greater respect of the other individual. Some of my closest friends came as result of this type of behavior. Cure the problem...NOT the symptom.

You mean that kind of irrelevant documents? The thing is CMF....we have gun laws. We have LOTS and LOTS of gun laws. The problem is, we have government officials that refuse to enforce the law. Same goes for illegal immigration into our country. We have laws up the whaazoo...but we do not enforce them.

Quote:As I said, no-one here is going to have their opinion changed but a further thought :
Yes you are probably right. Either way, here is how I view it. You take away a liberty (owning guns), it could lead to further control and less freedoms. Next would be attacking the right to free speech...which I believe is already under attack in our country. People get fired for voicing their opinions because it hurt someone's feelings. Give me a break! Rolleyes

Quote:The last available figures for non-suicide Gun Deaths in the UK were for 2007/08 and were 53 ! Extrapolating this to the population of the US, this would give a figure of not much more than 400 tops - in other words the actual US non-suicide gun deaths rate is around 30 times the UK figure.
So remind me how the US Gun Laws help make people safer ??
Well your numbers are quite a bit off here. Last figures I have found for similar deaths in 2005 in the US. Total deaths--19,126 of which 12,672 are guns and 6454 are non-gun related. Which is 33%. Again it is not the laws..it is the enforcement and moral ethics that has been eroding in our P.C. world.

Quote:My quibble is with the Gun-Lobby, not the US Constitution per se, and their use of a seriously old document to justify their macho behaviour. All constitutional documents should be subject to review and revision over time because things change and the relevance of a document can diminish.
As a Brit...that is not for you or your country to decide on our behalf. If that is how you feel about your own laws/constitution then so be it, but what may be good for you and your country is not always good for everyone. I would also submit, that goes for the US as well!

Quote:That doesn't mean that the fundamental sentiments on which the document was based have changed - just the circumstances which they are designed to address.
I have no idea what you are talking about with this statement? It is simple CMF--can we or can we not have guns. There is no sentiments or wow that was written really well. It is plain and simple English. As IBOFB has pointed out several times before...we have elected officials that can amend our constitution, so why haven't they? It has nothing to do with gun lobbyists, it has everything to do with the will of the people.

Quote:As I said, We are all on this earth together and need to learn to LIVE together......
TB2IBO, may I wish you well in your life and business and hope that I have not alienated you completely Big Grin
Agreed, but it does not mean we need a global set of laws, religion, currency and way of life. I asked this question before, what reason do you believe that the USA, in the little 200 yrs it has been around, is the wealthiest, most generous, inventive and powerful nation the planet has ever seen? The answer is at the top of this post. Have a great day. :grin:
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#28
ibofightback Wrote:It's not at all off-topic. Isn't your side of the debate all about personal freedom? Why do you disallow nukes from that?

This deserves an IBOFB patented, "Oh good grief!." It is absolutely off-topic. Personal freedom does not equal absolute freedom. Give me a break.

Quote:As I said, personal experience. If I'd been a gun owner I would not be here now, I say that with 110% certainity.
Sorry to hear that...but your personal situation doesn't translate to anyone else but yourself. A determined person will do whatever is necessary.

Quote:I have no problem with people owning guns for those things. I just think they should be under lock and key at the local gun club, or in the case of professionals who may need them (farmers or for culling etc), locked up at the workplace.
This is not the debate...it is the sole purpose to either have guns or not. Where they are kept are irrelevant to CMF's position.

Quote:But it's fine for a government to control your ownership of a nuke? Why?

And just to throw in some questions to check your position, I assume your "free society with limited government control" position means you also think abortion, gay marriage, speeding, no seat belts, drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana etc should all be legal?

See above with regards to the nukes. The others fall under my commitment to other posters on here. I am not shying away from the debate, but avoiding this becoming another political thread.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things. --Roosevelt
 Reply
#29
To bring a note of humor to this topic. The ad banner running at the bottom of the page is for a Weapons Training School.

To be more serious, as I said earlier, I am a gun owner (S&W .357 handgun). I am a member of the NRA. And I believe the Constitution has served us well for a little over 200 years, and if this administration quits trying to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it will serve us well for many more years.

And related to IBOFB's 'personal nukes' post. Just because you CAN yell fire in a crowded movie theater, doesn't mean you have a right to do it. I can testify to this personally, as when I was serving in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam war, I was at the base theater one night when someone came on the speakers and hysterically announced that the base was being attacked.

If the UK gun laws work for the people in the UK, that is great. I have no interest in changing or disparaging them for their gun laws.

As for the suicide bit, I have had a few friends commit suicide. Two shot themselves (both had PTSD brought on by serving in the war), some took overdoses of sleeping pills, one put a plastic bag over his head and sufocated himself. If someone wants to die, there are plenty of ways to do it without a gun.
 Reply
#30
cmfitzg Wrote:In the UK we are shocked by deaths in our country from knives, guns (rarely) and other weapons but they are miniscule compared to the carnage wreaked in the US in the name of the Constitution. Pardon me but the Constitution in this case is b******s !...The final sentence was perhaps unnecessarily insulting and for that I apologise. My point was the use of the Constitution to justify the ownership of guns (and the resultant carnage) was misplaced and, in changed times, irrelevant.

...My quibble is with the Gun-Lobby, not the US Constitution per se, and their use of a seriously old document to justify their macho behaviour. All constitutional documents should be subject to review and revision over time because things change and the relevance of a document can diminish. That doesn't mean that the fundamental sentiments on which the document was based have changed - just the circumstances which they are designed to address...


I'll throw in my two cents, since I really don't wanna clean the kitchen and this is a nice prcrastinating tool. Smile

I agree with cmfitzg.

I don't believe the U.S. Constitution is b.s. In the same vein that I don't think the Bible is B.S.

What is B.S. is when people miss the spirit of the law and go for the letter of the law.

As an example (since we are talking politics, let's throw some religion in the mix to really add some fuel to the fire) for centuries, people used the Bible to justify slavery.

Rather than looking at the BIG PICTURE and God's message, people zero in on things that were relevant for solely that time period.

Abraham Lincoln's parents, very strong Christians, simply could not reconcile that God's plan was for people to be slaves. Oppressing one another is not of God. It's of sinful, selfish humaness. And they taught that belief to their son, who later became THE champion to end such an inhumane "practice."

And look what is cost America. The Civil War, brother against brother. Such a sad, ugly time in our history.

Constitutions can be changed. That's what Amendments are for. As a woman who's only been on this planet a short while, I must admit that, until recently, until I did a tiny bit of studying of the Women's Sufferage movement (19th Amendment), I really didn't "get it". 150 years as a country before women were allowed to vote? Wow.

But we women can get so self-righteous with our "freedoms."

"It's a women's right!" we scream, as we completely lose sight of the bigger picture.

*sigh*

Just 'cause one CAN do something, doesn't mean one should. Sad
 Reply
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • ...
  • 11
  • Next 
  •  

 
Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)