British terrorist attackers obvious lack of firearms.... Take note America!

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: BendingTheTruth
You prove my point for me...

Indiana is "The police" in this situation, the man with the sword is the general public.....

What if "sword man" also had a gun, wouldn't have been quite the same fight...

PA

You're right, the point is proven. This is an excellent post.

If Jones represents the police, IE government, and the man with the sword represents the general public(inferior armed, at a disadvantage), this would indicate the imbalance and danger to the general public due to a lack of rights to protect themselves. As evident by your second sentence.

If the "sword man" had a gun, he would have had the ability to defend himself equally.

Your analogy is a perfect example of the very basic human right every being on earth has, the right to defend themselves. Anything else is just a warmed over version of slavery.

But, the man with the sword should not be given the opportunity to shoot at the police.... not in a civilised society... Or at least his chances of getting hold of a gun should be severely restricted....

In my post above I was of course assuming the sword man was a criminal, "which he was", not a law abiding citizen... Why would a law abiding citizen be firing at the police?

PA

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: Phoenix

Your leaders lived in very different times.... Surely you can see that?

Seems that "wild west" mentality never really went away... tell me, are there any Indians left to shoot?

PA

Huh, well that's not racist at all.

Yes yes, nonsense aside (and the nonsense is peaked out at page 2 for me. I cant read the autism anymore from the pro side).

The argument has already been made. UK is a isolated island. ban guns and its extremely hard to get guns in.
the US borders a 3rd world nation connected to other 3rd world nations with smuggling as a main export..ban guns in the US and only the legal responsible guns will be gone (aka, the good guys with a gun).

Short of a global ban on guns, it simply isn't gonna happen because it cant.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: network dude

I have no need to own a truck, just like you have no need to own a gun.... You have a desire, a desire which makes you, and the people around you less safe.... Do you feel good about that?

Yes, you may be responsible, you may be a good person, but accidents happen, and accidents with guns tend to be fatal.... Accidents with trucks are much less likely to be fatal, just like accidents/attacks with knives are less likely to prove fatal...

Although you don't realise it, you are actually supporting my argument more and more with every comment....

PA

Sorry if I don't agree that your logic beats mine. Guns in the wrong hands are very dangerous, there is no argument over that. Why do Police have guns where you live?

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Yes yes, nonsense aside (and the nonsense is peaked out at page 2 for me. I cant read the autism anymore from the pro side).

The argument has already been made. UK is a isolated island. ban guns and its extremely hard to get guns in.
the US borders a 3rd world nation connected to other 3rd world nations with smuggling as a main export..ban guns in the US and only the legal responsible guns will be gone (aka, the good guys with a gun).

Short of a global ban on guns, it simply isn't gonna happen because it cant.

that is the elephant in the room that is continually missed either on purpose, or by being naive.

originally posted by: grubblesnert

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: dfnj2015

I was being facetious.

There's that dang word again!

Put it on the BAN list!!

So funny you say that.
I wrote that in a response before I saw the belligerent usage of the word.

As I read the next pages of posts, I thought to myself, "Why couldn't I have said sarcastic."

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Yes yes, nonsense aside (and the nonsense is peaked out at page 2 for me. I cant read the autism anymore from the pro side).

The argument has already been made. UK is a isolated island. ban guns and its extremely hard to get guns in.
the US borders a 3rd world nation connected to other 3rd world nations with smuggling as a main export..ban guns in the US and only the legal responsible guns will be gone (aka, the good guys with a gun).

Short of a global ban on guns, it simply isn't gonna happen because it cant.

that is the elephant in the room that is continually missed either on purpose, or by being naive.

No kidding, They dig tunnels and have submarines and all manner of other means of smuggling in mass amounts of drugs, but for some reason, those things definitely, absolutely couldn't also bring in illegal guns, because, I guess, the people doing the drug running aren't armed or anything ...

Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: BendingTheTruth
You prove my point for me...

Indiana is "The police" in this situation, the man with the sword is the general public.....

What if "sword man" also had a gun, wouldn't have been quite the same fight...

PA

You're right, the point is proven. This is an excellent post.

If Jones represents the police, IE government, and the man with the sword represents the general public(inferior armed, at a disadvantage), this would indicate the imbalance and danger to the general public due to a lack of rights to protect themselves. As evident by your second sentence.

If the "sword man" had a gun, he would have had the ability to defend himself equally.

Your analogy is a perfect example of the very basic human right every being on earth has, the right to defend themselves. Anything else is just a warmed over version of slavery.

But, the man with the sword should not be given the opportunity to shoot at the police.... not in a civilised society... Or at least his chances of getting hold of a gun should be severely restricted....

In my post above I was of course assuming the sword man was a criminal, "which he was", not a law abiding citizen... Why would a law abiding citizen be firing at the police?

PA

You're assuming a lot, and frankly most of your assumptions are based on a partial view of reality. Assumptions aside, you obviously seem to recognize some of the qualifiers you are using.

So, disregard your assumptions, and look at the scenario again. Do you still believe that the person should have "no opportunity" to protect themselves from an attack?

What if the sword man isn't a criminal, what if the person with a gun is, how could one who is innocent but judged guilty have a chance?

Why would a civilized society create a situation where those most vulnerable would not have the opportunity or right to prevent their exploitation?

I have to be honest, this is all pretty grade school stuff here. I don't know if a lot of these types of OP's are just to troll and stir the pot; or if this is actually a logical conclusion based on some heavily cherry picked information with ridiculous scenario parameters.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Philippines also.
A lot of backyard gunsmiths.

originally posted by: DAVID64
Plain and simple : If you are not an American citizen, you're opinion doesn't matter. You run your country the way you like, we'll run our's. Tired of arguing with people on how their society gets along fine without [ insert thing here ] so every other society should be like them.

I'm getting to this point as well. Both sides have their arguments.

Common denominator is people killing people. Can we outlaw that? Oh wait..

But seriously, in the OP, they are arguing their deaths from terror are better than americans' terror because of guns? Like someone already mentioned... 911, tools of destruction, knives and commercial airliners. I believe around 3k perished as a result. Thanks to knives, that one terror incident makes several years worth of gun related incidents moot.

One of the stupidest OPs to date.

a reply to: PerfectAnomoly

I'll say it again.

The co-ordinated gun attacks are coming.

Support the constables.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

Finally someone speaking sense here!

Obviously, the equation for this is simple. The amount of guns owned is inversely proportional to the pompous arrogance/perceived intellect of someone in the UK. Simple math, duh.

originally posted by: crazyewok
Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

And yet, the worst terror incident to date was accomplished by knives...why are we talking about guns?....

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: crazyewok
Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

Finally someone speaking sense here!

Obviously, the equation for this is simple. The amount of guns owned is inversely proportional to the pompous arrogance/perceived intellect of someone in the UK. Simple math, duh.

Your free to own your guns. You can have all guns you want. Trump can give all Americans free guns. Not my country , not my buisness.


But I am free to call you insecure idiots


Freedom can be a bitch.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o

originally posted by: grubblesnert

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: dfnj2015

I was being facetious.

There's that dang word again!

Put it on the BAN list!!

So funny you say that.
I wrote that in a response before I saw the belligerent usage of the word.

As I read the next pages of posts, I thought to myself, "Why couldn't I have said sarcastic."

Perhaps it was synchronicity.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: crazyewok
Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

And yet, the worst terror incident to date was accomplished by knives...why are we talking about guns?....

So?

As I said you yanks can have all the guns you want.

US gun control (or lack of) is non of the UK buisness same way as UK gun control is none of the USA buisness.

Both countrys have a way that works for them.

a reply to: GraffikPleasure

I own a pistol for home protection , a compound bow for hunting, a recurve for bow fishing and a spear for hunting feral hogs. They are all deadly weapons that could be used in a public attack , should we ban them all?

P.s. I would rather be gut shoot with my pistol than stabbed with my spear , it does a devastating amount of damage.

originally posted by: crazyewok


But I am free to call you insecure idiots

Freedom can be a bitch.

so can people, but then, I'm not at liberty to discuss that at the moment.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: crazyewok
Let the stupid yanks have there boom boom sticks.
If it makes them feel better about there insecuritys good for them.

Its of no concern to the UK.

And yet, the worst terror incident to date was accomplished by knives...why are we talking about guns?....

So?

As I said you yanks can have all the guns you want.

US gun control (or lack of) is non of the UK buisness same way as UK gun control is none of the USA buisness.

Both countrys have a way that works for them.

Sssoo I was triggered I guess by "stupid yanks", minus that, we agree.

Bad people are the cause, not inanimate objects.