Every possible reason for gun ownership addressed and countered

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


You still don't understand, it would be very easy to hide from those things and blend in, and that's IF they were deployed and IF there were military to use them. If there was a rebellion btw, where does the country get the money to wage war on itself? I'm done arguing with someone that is incapable of understanding or refuses to concede because their agenda prevents it.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Well this threads done. People around the world think guns are taboo? They donnt want them? Are you that naive? Do you know nothing about arms trade? You seriously think when 3d printers are standard people won't make them.

So educate me on the arms trade?
Are you saying regular citizens in countries with gun bans are buying firearms from gun runners
Where in the world have you been where people want guns? Ive been to plenty of countries and in none of them does the regular citizen wish to be armed. I doubt youve ever left the States (Mexico and Canada do not count) so quite frankly your talking drivel.
And yes I think when 3d printers are common the vast majority of people will refrain from making guns with them

Then with the constitution your argument is even weaker " its not a full stop its a comma, this TO ME IMPlIES blah blah blah" more blathering, no point.

The fact you see it as blah blah blah says something about your level of intelligence and grasp of how English works
A great example taught to school children, I hope you can understand it
Woman, without her, man is nothing
OR
Woman, without her man, is nothing

See how punctuation can completely change the meaning of a sentence?

Apparently you haven't kept tabs on afghanistan. We didn't take out their govt,the have small tribal govts, and we are losing there. Before we went there Russia lost to them and their small arms.

Its been the same for every army in history,geography is the problem in Afghanistan. Its not going to be a problem in America. Fight the Gov with your handguns and your dead minutes after your first raid

As for the military here not firing on us or destroying us and our "puny" guns, it isn't black and white. You are apparently incapable of considering it realistically. Don't ever become a writer. There would be some military rebel, some defend. Police would likely take on civilians at first, and the news would painnt the rebels as terrorists. Its complicated guns would be nnecessary though.

If really high ups in the military were on the side of the people sure you got a chance, if not your toast, its that simple. You have absolutely no chance against drones and satellites or are you incapable of considering that realistically?

Originally posted by foodstamp
LET'S ALL GET THIS CLEAR PEOPLE!!

When an "Anti-Gunner" tells you that there have been political change, you will find them bringing up India and Egypt as examples.

Please note that these two examples are the ONLY examples where a government change has happend non violently. By the people anyway. The governments? Well, before they were dissolved, they made sure they Massaquered and slaughtered as many peaceful unarmed citizens as possible before they reliezed all they did was empower the WHOLE nation not to accept their rule..

MANY MANY people died in both these "peaceful regime changes" and they all died violently.

Again, solidifying the FACT that an armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. Need we really say more?

edit on 12/17/1212 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)

Australia, Canada?

Both peaceful changes of government

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
You ask for a rational debate yet you ignore my post.

Ive tried time and time again to get you to respond.

This thread is clearly to incite arguments not to have a debate.

I second this. I have made logical arguments too. Then OP quotes a single line and responds to it briefly so he never fully answers. This thread is either to troll or push an anti gun agenda. I think all that's happened here is we have seen the reasons we should have guns reinforced with logical responses.

LMAO

Rich considering you hardly responded to anything I wrote
And once again Im going through responses 1 by 1 as they appear and addressing everything in each post that needs addressing.

Instead of whining about what Im missing perhaps you could help me out by highlighting it

reply to post by Ghost375

If 100 million people have guns, there's no way 1 million people(and our army isn't even that big) would be able to control them all.

It's incredibly easy to control us all. We, the people, have too many differences, which prevents us from standing united for anything.

reply to post by usmc0311

Guns make killing easy and impersonal, you can stand across a room pull out a gun and BANG someones dead.

Anyone who has ever shot someone can tell you how personal it becomes. A good natured person can be haunted by this for a lifetime. It is a mental defect that allows a person to become detached from their actions.

reply to post by GrimReaper86

My biggest concern is big government. To me my gun is a way to protect myself from tyrannical government and just because the government may have a technological advantage doesn't mean I want to give up the only thing that might help me balance the odds.

Appreciate the sentiment but it sounds like your aware its a futile gesture

And you can tell me all day that taking away guns will somehow saves everyone but if you look toward your own lands the number of deaths from gun related crime hasn't changed according to you own words.

True but then it was never really a big issue to begin with, guns have never been readily available in the UK or Australia

but can you actually provide supporting evidence to support what you claim as far as criminals only using guns against other criminals because I'm pretty sure non criminals get mugged all the time.

73% of people who have been shot have been arrested
60% have criminal convictions

No doubt guns get used on good citizens but its a small percentage as the above figures show

Besides I believe Austailia might have started using a gun ban and I hear people from there bitch about how much worse crime has gotten since then. I could be wrong about the whole Australia thing but it certainly rings a bell.

Im Australian and I can tell you this is absolute rubbish. Its a very tiny tiny portion of the population that think guns should be legal or actually want one. No one I know wants one and peopke who do are considered weird and are normally not quite right

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by kozmo

 

The only one of the above examples that even comes close to being relevant is Russia VS Afghanistan and that was over 30 years ago, you are aware of how far technology has come I assume.

Another big factor in these rebellions was supply lines, invading armies were able to be cut off from supplies and troops via guerrilla war. Communication was also an issue.
With Aircraft this is no longer an issue for an army and if your military choose to take you out it could have a drone above you in what.... 5-10 min.

Terrain also plays a major part when it comes to Afghanistan, sure you could lay low in the Rockies or Yellowstone or where ever but to actually take on the military with your guns!!!!!
Your delusional if you think it would end in anything but every person who took up arms death.

Nowadays when fighting governments with resources like the USA the only thing we can learn from armed resistance in history is false hope.
Sorry

Nice selective dissembling, obfuscating and... well, spinning. I have repeatedly debunked your claims and then you selectively respond with dissembling tripe about battle tactics? Seriously???

Dude, stop trolling. This is getting just... painful! Very, VERY painful!

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


You skipped replying to me. Why is that? It is not a very hard thing to answer is it?

I patiently await a response.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


Very well put

I appreciate it was once necessary but no longer feel it is.

As you pointed out nowadays not one shot has to be fired to collapse a government, you would need more armed people to fight a war than you would unarmed people peacefully protesting to change a gov so it really is just self defeating.

Your argument was intelligent well presented and well thought out, yet you got 1 star, the ones above you that have no intelligent content and dont address any points get 5 or 6. I think that says all that needs to be said about the majority of gun advocates. Since most gun advocates wont understand what I mean by that Ill simplify it, most of you are just rabid and dont understand how to have a discussion or debate.

Thanks for responding and actually giving me something to think about

Allow me to give your post its 2nd star

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
reply to post by kozmo

 

I dont think you understand, there wasnt a real issue to begin with.
The gun bans in Australia and the UK came after massacres but the vast majority of the population was never armed and neither country really had an issue with gun violence to begin with.
The ban was about taking the guns out of circulation so they didnt eventually get into the wrong hands.

Nothing is invalidated

So protecting your freedoms are you, lucky you all have guns or the government could do things like detain you indefinately without cause, tap and track all of your communications, restrict your movements.
Yes lucky you have your guns.... Oh hang on

Oh, but it was! You are committing ad hoc, ergo propter hoc without delivering appropriate evidence to support the claim. Did you not state that your country had also had massacres? Did you account, since you like statistics, for variations in population density? Of course not! In fact, all of your evidence is anecdotal based on your fear of guns. And none has been statistically normalized to account for the THOUSANDS of variables that ensure there is no correlation between Australia and The United States.

Nonetheless, the statistics that you, admittedly and verifiably presented indicate that instituting a ban on firearms had NO change in gun homicides.

So yes, possession of firearms by the citizenry always gives pause to those who would so easily conquer a peoples and makes them take stock of their potential losses should they fail. Do you claim and unarmed populace would fair better than an armed populace? Hence the originating purpose of the 2nd Amendment!

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by usmc0311

 

Guns make killing easy and impersonal, you can stand across a room pull out a gun and BANG someones dead.

Anyone who has ever shot someone can tell you how personal it becomes. A good natured person can be haunted by this for a lifetime. It is a mental defect that allows a person to become detached from their actions.

As I stated in my post. That quote that you posted was from the OP not my words. Trust me I fought in Fallujah I know all too well how personal it becomes and the long lasting effects it could have. I live with it everyday.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Oh.. man I have to say something to you. Ok last month I was driving down to georgia around the 5 points area to meet my girlfriend who was driving home from Fla. Anyway I wanted to choose somwhere safe to stay, but didn't know where (I had protection, but still this is atlant georgia we are talking about and I was worrieed about her). So I was googling small towns outside atlanta and she said what about Kennesaw? I googled it and i saw "every household has a gun by law, also one of the safest towns in the country" so that's where we stayed and it was a super nice town, we walked safely to a pizzaplace/bar and saw teens hangingoutside and talking. All was fine,all was safe.

So if you are traveling through Goergia, or staying near Atlanta, stay in Kennesaw. Lots of good food, and plenty of hotels.

edit on 17-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Absolutely amazed that your impressed walking into a small town and finding it safe with kids hanging around not causing trouble.

America must be worse than I thought if a safe small town is something to brag about

reply to post by yuppa


I also didn't receive an acknowledgement and a counter.

Originally posted by shaneslaughta
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

 

Its not because i want one....its because i fear that i will be stuck bringing a knife to a gunfight.
That in its self warrants my owning a few.

edit on 17-12-2012 by shaneslaughta because: (no reason given)

Yeah thats exactly what I said, Its now have a gun or suffer because everyone else has 1

Please tell me you can see how contradictory and self defeating this is?
Its a vicious circle that you all keep going.

Anyway I gotta run, Ill be back on in a few hours and Ill try catch up with everyone elses replies then.
To everyone who took the time to respond civilly I really appreciate it.

Catch you all in a few hrs

reply to post by usmc0311


I apolize for botching the reply to.

Thank you for your service, brother. I hope you find your peace. I'm trying for mine.

reply to post by tamusan


No worries just didn't want more confusion. The OP seems to be having their hands full with this one. I hope you find your peace as well. It is not an easy thing to do but only time can heal.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff

Yeah thats exactly what I said, Its now have a gun or suffer because everyone else has 1

Convince me that someone would not be able to obtain a firearm illegally, and you win. It is far too easy to get your hands on any type of illegal countraband in this country.

What we need is a greater accountability for firearm owners. I would even submit to a yearly evaluation. If I am not responsible enough to manage my weapons, then I hope someone takes them away from me.

reply to post by tamusan

Perhaps he was speaking in relative terms. I imagine it would be easier to kill someone by shooting them from 200 yds away vis a vis stabbing them to death at arms length.

reply to post by IkNOwSTuff


Your gonna have to be more specific. Canada when? And australia when? Because I'm not aware of any change except for the British coming in a saying it was theirs. Heh