Gun Control

[TimePants]

I want to find out if any people here, who are anti-gun, can come up with any logical arguments for their anti-gun position.

Take no offense, but I have yet to debate this with anyone who didn't just get all upset after I refuted a few of their more illogical points.

So lets see if anyone here can debate this logicaly.

[Oxll Sunslayer]

Ok lets try to start fresh here and keep things Logical and Relaxed.

I'm against gun making companies, and people who carry weapons. Guns themselves are a necessary tool for defence in this world, only because other people have guns. Had they not been created, I think mankind would have already had settlements on the Moon, and Mars. We'd have new medicines to treat cancer, and other fatal diseases. But instead we've spent TRILLIONS on these weapons, which only take away life.

People who carry guns are Chickens. They feel that they can't handle the situation on their own, so they need protection. Protection from a little piece of metal. Even better, these chickens are also cattle, since they've been told by the gun companies these weapons will save them. Honestly if people need protection, then perhaps a Bullet Proof Shield would be a better idea for a defensive item. People always say the gun is for self defense. Bullshit. Its for a strong offense that creates a no need for defense situation.

On a Global Scale guns are much like a plague. Example would be africa. You have many tribes fighting for control of a country. Enter America. They pick the team who they think is most democratic and sell them guns. The ensuing butchering of people is caused because one side is now much more overpowering then the other.

So I'd love to hear your side of the story now. And how guns are not a tool of evil and death.

[Rezwarius]

Originally Posted by TimePants

I want to find out if any people here, who are anti-gun, can come up with any logical arguments for their anti-gun position.

Take no offense, but I have yet to debate this with anyone who didn't just get all upset after I refuted a few of their more illogical points.

So lets see if anyone here can debate this logicaly.

Guns are just another tool of separation in a spiritual manner.. in a world where we are already enslaved by a false sense of self.. guns are only another natural choice for your ego to help edifice itself and stop you from gaining any knowledge of your true inner self..

'nuff said..

[TimePants]

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

Ok lets try to start fresh here and keep things Logical and Relaxed.

I'm against gun making companies, and people who carry weapons. Guns themselves are a necessary tool for defence in this world, only because other people have guns. Had they not been created, I think mankind would have already had settlements on the Moon, and Mars. We'd have new medicines to treat cancer, and other fatal diseases. But instead we've spent TRILLIONS on these weapons, which only take away life.

People who carry guns are Chickens. They feel that they can't handle the situation on their own, so they need protection. Protection from a little piece of metal. Even better, these chickens are also cattle, since they've been told by the gun companies these weapons will save them. Honestly if people need protection, then perhaps a Bullet Proof Shield would be a better idea for a defensive item. People always say the gun is for self defense. Bullshit. Its for a strong offense that creates a no need for defense situation.

On a Global Scale guns are much like a plague. Example would be africa. You have many tribes fighting for control of a country. Enter America. They pick the team who they think is most democratic and sell them guns. The ensuing butchering of people is caused because one side is now much more overpowering then the other.

So I'd love to hear your side of the story now. And how guns are not a tool of evil and death.

Just a quick rebuttal here, to point out a glaring flaw in your argument.

Without the technology that birthed firearms, there would never have been such a thing as a rocket, ergo no mars landings.

Also, another flaw, you say guns are the cause of, among other things, violence in Africa. Here's a question to you, do you not think that the same violence would exist if they still used swords?

You speak as if there was no such thing as war or violence before there were firearms, and if you ever crack open a history book, you will find yourself proven wrong.



And Rez, I don't even have a response for you, that was way too deep for me, man.

[Oxll Sunslayer]

LMAO REZ man, that was seriously deep.

Ok I like the point about the rocket, however the gun didn't lead to the rocket. The chinese used firecrackers way before guns were created. Those rockets don't use the same concept as a gun, other then some combustion.

Ok now about war. Swords to me are a fine weapon of choice if you want to go to war. It doesn't cause much collateral damage, and takes guts to use it. Alot like the machetes which were common in africa. However when you point machine guns at 100 villagers, and then chop off their limbs its different. Those villagers could stop a group of 10 bad people normally. Give them automatic weapons and its a different story.

Guns compromise good thinking. Look at the situation in Iraq, and Afghanistan. The reason our troops are over there, is to keep the rebel forces out of the main cities. Why? Because those rebels will shoot alot of the people for selling out to western culture. How do you rebuild a government when their politicians are getting shot on a weekly basis.

When it comes down to it, Guns don't mix with Man. On their own both are quite docile. Put them together.... and shit happens!

[TimePants]

Now, I didn't say guns led to rockets, I said the technology that guns came from did. And in the same idea, common things like passenger planes are also things derived from weapons of war, the first jet powered aircraft was in WW2, a german fighter plane. Would the technology have arisen as quickly as it had without the war? Or even the airplane in general, WW1 really sped up the technological advances in the airplane.

Back to the matter at hand, history shows that bad people will do bad things, regardless of what weapons they use. You reference the current conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, but would there be any less bloodshed if there were no guns? Lets take a big leap here, and say instead of guns we had swords and crossbows, rudimentery weapons. Would it be less bloody? No, look at the crusades.

And again, most of the casualties in any war are produced not by bullets but by shrapnel, in other words bombs and other explosions. In fact, the number one killer over there of US troops is the IED, (improvised explosive device) often termed "roadside bomb" by the media, which is incorrect because they are used in many more applications than just roadsides. Anyway, when you hear on the news that 60 people died in an incident over there, that wasnt a couple guys with AK-47s, it was a couple guys strapped with explosives. So the obvious answer to this problem is, eliminate explosives. Well, then, there goes your moon landing. The point is, these things were nescesary for technological advances throughout history, and the fact that guns are potentialy dangerous in the wrong hands is a bad argument, anything can be dangerous in the wrong hands, drunk drivers kill more people per year than guns do (in america).

[Rezwarius]

Your arguments are futile man.. Do you even realize that Killing is not very good. Guns are a tool for killing.. they don't actually help us DO anything other than kill people.

Therefore, they are useless.. atleast a CAR has other uses than killing someone in a drunken fit of idiocy... do guns have other uses..

Stop deflecting the topic to shit other than guns.. and accept them for what they actually are built for.. killing people.


the topic is guns.. not people. if you want to talk about how the problem really is people, well see my first reply for an insight into what must be done.

[TimePants]

Guns don't help us do anything than kill people?

Have you ever met a deer hunter? A duck hunter?

In any case, your argument isn't valid, killing other people is a necesary thing, and it always has been. The point of gun control, and by that I mean the limits and restrictions imposed upon people by their governments, is to take away their citizen's ability to fight. Why would they want to do that, you might ask? Here is an example, before the halocaust, Adolf Hitler took away guns from his people. And look what happened? Do you suppose it would have been as easy for him to do if the Jewish citizens had thier guns? That is the only purpose behind gun control, to allow the gov't the ability to impose its will over the people, and take away the people's power to do anything about it.

Also, beyond defending one's self from a government, a gun can be used with great sucess in defending one's self from home invaders, muggers, etc. And don't try to tell me nobody ever gets killed in their own home by burglars, because it happens every day. And, to paraphrase an expression, "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns". If legal gun ownership is restricted, then the only people with guns will be criminals, allowing them even more power to cause harm. The point is, there is nothing wrong with legal gun ownership, and I don't know the statistic but its a very very low percent of guns used in crimes are legaly owned guns being used by the legal owner.

[Oxll Sunslayer]

Mankind is not evil. What happens is differences between us ie. Religion, Color, and Country cause friction which leads to argument, which can lead to combat. Guns should never have been allowed to be massed produced. Instead of the WAR ON DRUGS, we should have had a WAR ON GUNS.

America however is the lead profiter in weapons. So I can expect your view to be that of a brainwashed jarhead. I don't mean this in a bad way, since most american soldiers recieve more education then the average american. Infact most soldiers are the ones who actually know whats going on in their country. This is one thing I don't understand about the military. You got predator drones, and all this high tech stuff.... yet you can't get by a fucking roadside bomb. Its like all this thought went out the window, and they cram a bunch of young guys into these unarmored lav's that couldn't take a shot from an AK, to roll over these IED's. PATHETIC is what I call that. Why is this so fucking pathetic. Well during drug raids, they can see heat signatures from even the smallest of clock radios. Where is this type of tech for the battlefield. Instead of heat signature, should be a metalic signature from most of the bombs they make. Or how about an unmanned vehicle driven infront of the main Convoy? 7 years over in Iraq, and you guys haven't figured it out yet. I'm not so afraid of the american military anymore.


Ok and to address the deer hunter. If the man lives off the land, and eats and uses the deer properly (other then a trophy), then there is reason to shoot the deer. If it is for sport, then i'm ashamed that my species can do such things to its own species. All mammals in my books get equal treatment when it comes to life.

[TimePants]

A common thread, when the anti-gun side runs out of logical arguments, they resort to emotionaly based argument and personal attacks.

Also, get your facts straight. We've been in iraq since 2003, which is 5 years. Afghanistan for 7. Also, the IED didnt become popular until late 2004, and we have methods to deal with them that I cannot discuss with you.

edit - there is a heavy amount of baseless argument in your post. A factory armored HMMWV can widthstand small arms fire, and even RPGs on occasion (dont argue this, I have seen this in person), so please refrain from this argument.

[Oxll Sunslayer]

Originally Posted by TimePants

A common thread, when the anti-gun side runs out of logical arguments, they resort to emotionaly based argument and personal attacks.

Also, get your facts straight. We've been in iraq since 2003, which is 5 years. Afghanistan for 7. Also, the IED didnt become popular until late 2004, and we have methods to deal with them that I cannot discuss with you.

I don't think there was a personal attack. You have been trained to use a gun. You've been brainwashed into killing your fellow man. These are points that must be provided since your statements are derived from this thinking.

And NO you don't have any ways of overcoming the IED's. I've read the news and you guys are still getting slaughtered out there.

Ok and to address your point that guns will help fight your government? Well I don't think a bunch of civillians would be able to take on a well trained unit of soldiers. So even if Adolf hadn't taken away the guns, I highly doubt the people would have been able to stop the nazi army from doing what they wanted to do. If I had to fight an Army, i'd resort to IED's. Bombs are the best way to fight an over powered force, and we've seen the results. BTW where did you get the stats on 2004 being the start of the IED. Thats some bullshit. Day one of that war they were lining the roads with IED's. Its the only defense they had against you guys. Hell back in DESERT STORM they used IEDs and look at you soldiers getting rocked by it still. What good do your guns do against an opponent who always hides, and attacks from where you least likely expect.

Education is more powerful then Guns. And Education will eventually win.

[TimePants]

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

I don't think there was a personal attack. You have been trained to use a gun. You've been brainwashed into killing your fellow man. These are points that must be provided since your statements are derived from this thinking.

And NO you don't have any ways of overcoming the IED's. I've read the news and you guys are still getting slaughtered out there.

Oh, I'm sorry I had forgotten, the media knows 100% of what's going on overseas and reports it with 100% accuracy and 0% loss of data. No. If you haven't been overseas you have no clue what's going on, and that's the truth.

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

Ok and to address your point that guns will help fight your government? Well I don't think a bunch of civillians would be able to take on a well trained unit of soldiers.

You're forgetting that the American revolution was fought and won by a bunch of civillians vs a well trained unit of soldiers. You're wrong.

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

BTW where did you get the stats on 2004 being the start of the IED. Thats some bullshit. Day one of that war they were lining the roads with IED's.

Where are you getting YOUR facts? Day one we were fighting against Iraq's professional army, which used things such as T-72 Tanks. The IED wasn't used until the insurgency started. YOU CAN TRUST ME ON THIS ONE, I KNOW PEOPLE WHO WERE OVER THERE AND SAW THIS FIRST HAND.

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

Education is more powerful then Guns. And Education will eventually win.

Yeah, your education is really kicking some ass

[TimePants]

double post

[Oxll Sunslayer]

Originally Posted by TimePants

Oh, I'm sorry I had forgotten, the media knows 100% of what's going on overseas and reports it with 100% accuracy and 0% loss of data. No. If you haven't been overseas you have no clue what's going on, and that's the truth.



You're forgetting that the American revolution was fought and won by a bunch of civillians vs a well trained unit of soldiers. You're wrong.



Where are you getting YOUR facts? Day one we were fighting against Iraq's professional army, which used things such as T-72 Tanks. The IED wasn't used until the insurgency started. YOU CAN TRUST ME ON THIS ONE, I KNOW PEOPLE WHO WERE OVER THERE AND SAW THIS FIRST HAND.



Yeah, your education is really kicking some ass

The media lies, the military lies, I know to keep my views open. And btw your not the only one who knows people over there. I have a friend in Afghanistan, tank commander. I have a close friends brother who was in Iraq, career Navy boy.

The American Revolution! lmao. No comparison there. There was trained people fighting on both sides.

Ok and why do you use so many personal attacks? Right from the get go you were saying people who are anti gun will get personal in these debates. Yet your the only one who has directly gone after remarks made. I'll cite some of the links to facts in an upcoming post. I'd like you to do the same before telling me that America faced that many operational T-72's. There was more of a booby trap your outpost and fall back mentality used by the initial troops in this recent war. T-72's are sitting ducks without proper air cover.

When you grow up, pay taxes, and own some property your views will change. Questions such as Why are we fighting over there? Why are young people like you being put to such risk? How much will this cost? These will become your focus rather then who has bigger guns, and what you've heard from a small source of friends who tell tales.

[TimePants]

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

The media lies, the military lies, I know to keep my views open. And btw your not the only one who knows people over there. I have a friend in Afghanistan, tank commander. I have a close friends brother who was in Iraq, career Navy boy.

The American Revolution! lmao. No comparison there. There was trained people fighting on both sides.

Ok and why do you use so many personal attacks? Right from the get go you were saying people who are anti gun will get personal in these debates. Yet your the only one who has directly gone after remarks made. I'll cite some of the links to facts in an upcoming post. I'd like you to do the same before telling me that America faced that many operational T-72's. There was more of a booby trap your outpost and fall back mentality used by the initial troops in this recent war. T-72's are sitting ducks without proper air cover.

When you grow up, pay taxes, and own some property your views will change. Questions such as Why are we fighting over there? Why are young people like you being put to such risk? How much will this cost? These will become your focus rather then who has bigger guns, and what you've heard from a small source of friends who tell tales.

I know there arent any US tanks in afghanistan, maybe some NATO ones in kandahar, so that statement is dubious at best.

trained people on both sides of the revolution? what? no.

The T-72 was an example to you, no they have not been using IEDs since 2003. The professional Iraqi military did not employ them. And if you dont belive me that there were T-72 tanks, read this : http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...yle/index.html

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

And NO you don't have any ways of overcoming the IED's. I've read the news and you guys are still getting slaughtered out there.

Who are you to say this to me? You don't have any idea about our ways of overcoming an IED, and the fact that I cannot discuss this openly shouldn't prohibit me from telling you that you are wrong.


EDIT - Lets try and get this thread back on track, I'm sure there is plenty of room elsewhere for an argument about the war, and maybe if you find someone to argue with who hasn't been there you can discuss all you "facts" at length.

[Oxll Sunslayer]

Here is a nice report that shows that IED's were used since the beginning of the war, not too mention a lot of other interesting information regarding their usage.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf

Lastly, I found your secret weapon for fighting IEDS!

Slashdot | Silly String Goes to War Against IEDs

[TimePants]

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

Here is a nice report that shows that IED's were used since the beginning of the war, not too mention a lot of other interesting information regarding their usage.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22330.pdf

Lastly, I found your secret weapon for fighting IEDS!

Slashdot | Silly String Goes to War Against IEDs

you don't understand how gov't documents like that are written, which is why I understand your misunderstanding.

Nowhere does the document state when the IED entered popular use, it is using the begin date of OEF (and so the war on terror) as a start date, so the report encompasses the entire GWOT. If you think about it, there couldn't have been IEDs or roadside bombs at the time you think the report is saying there were, what did they do, IED our high altitude bombers? Nice try.

Here is another little tidbit from that article, "Observers have indicated
that the Taliban forces in Afghanistan appear to have learned some IED techniques from
the Iraqi insurgents," as you see, it clearly mentions INSURGENTS, not the Iraqi army, indicating that the IED was not employed until the insugergency started.


EDIT -

Originally Posted by Oxll Sunslayer

Ok and why do you use so many personal attacks? Right from the get go you were saying people who are anti gun will get personal in these debates.

Originally Posted by TimePants

Take no offense, but I have yet to debate this with anyone who didn't just get all upset after I refuted a few of their more illogical points.

The subject changed, and with it personal feelings were interjected. You can't start spouting your bullshit "facts" about the war with someone who has been there and actually knows whats up, and not expect a reaction.

[Rezwarius]

Originally Posted by TimePants

Guns don't help us do anything than kill people?

Have you ever met a deer hunter? A duck hunter?

In any case, your argument isn't valid, killing other people is a necesary thing, and it always has been.

my argument IS valid.

Who needs deer or ducks when you can raise chickens and cows and grow fruit and veggies..

and the whole killing other people is a necessary thing.. is a very construed and even insane thing to say.

it was never necessary.. and you never actually back up that statement with a valid example... so you sound just opinionated.. no offence.

[Rezwarius]

Originally Posted by TimePants

Guns don't help us do anything than kill people?

The point of gun control, and by that I mean the limits and restrictions imposed upon people by their governments, is to take away their citizen's ability to fight.

Actually you misinterpret what gun CONTROL really is.. gun control is not anti-gun. it is actually Very PRO GUN.. the government just wants to control who has them.. and who doesn't.. its that simple..

so your arguments are not valid.. especially so because your not even talking about your original post..

so heres a challenge for you.. go back and re-read my posts.. and try to come up with some Actual responses that ACTUALLY respond to what I say.. instead of brushing off my statements and making new ones in some other direction..

[Rezwarius]

take away their citizen's ability to fight.

are you saying that people can not fight without guns?

[TimePants]

Originally Posted by Rezwarius

Actually you misinterpret what gun CONTROL really is.. gun control is not anti-gun. it is actually Very PRO GUN.. the government just wants to control who has them.. and who doesn't.. its that simple..

so your arguments are not valid.. especially so because your not even talking about your original post..

so heres a challenge for you.. go back and re-read my posts.. and try to come up with some Actual responses that ACTUALLY respond to what I say.. instead of brushing off my statements and making new ones in some other direction..

gun control is the very essence of anti gun, I dont understand how you think otherwise. The fact that the gov't wants to control who has and who doesnt have guns is in itself very wrong, that is akin to the government controling who has and who doesn't have sex.

Originally Posted by Rezwarius

and the whole killing other people is a necessary thing.. is a very construed and even insane thing to say.

it was never necessary.. and you never actually back up that statement with a valid example... so you sound just opinionated.. no offence.

No, it isn't. Having to take life away from another man, while maybe not a good experiance, is sometimes a very necessary thing. To provide with you an example, my buddy Jeff, was on a convoy through an area that was very restrictive in regards to movement, picture a mountain path on the side of a mountain that is about 7 feet wide, so they really couldn't go fast anyway, or turn to move anyplace else. His convoy started getting hit with RPG's and small arms fire. Jeff engaged the attacker with his Mark 19. If he hadn't, the 3 or 4 taliban would have had a chance to destroy the entire convoy, killing 20-30 american/nato soldiers.

Would you not agree that what he did was necessary?

Another example from a crime commited here in Connecticut, it was a home invasion. 2 men recently released from prison decided to burglarize a home. Inside this home was a family of four, Mother Father two daughters. The criminals took the mother to the bank, made her withdraw all her money, and eventually sexually assualted the mother, the 11 and 18 year old daughters, and set the house on fire. The mother was killed during the assault, and the daughters died from smoke inhalation after the criminals set the house on fire. The only survivor was the Father. Now, call me crazy, but if he had a viable means of home defense, like a shotgun, this wouldn't have proceeded nearly as far as it did. Would you not agree he would have been in the right to defend his home by shooting these men when they broke in?

Originally Posted by Rezwarius

are you saying that people can not fight without guns?

Using Oxlls statement from before - "Alot like the machetes which were common in africa. However when you point machine guns at 100 villagers, and then chop off their limbs its different. Those villagers could stop a group of 10 bad people normally. Give them automatic weapons and its a different story. "

I would say the answer is no.

[Oxll Sunslayer]

Ok your buddy Jeff, and that little statement about what he did... First HE SHOULDN"T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. End of story, WAR should not be something we do. Yes in that situation you stated, which is completely redundant, if your being shot by RPG's yes you should fire back.

Also quickly to point out. I have cited a reference. You just shot it down without any sources yourself. You are sounding like a broken record. "I'm right, everything u guys say is wrong!" Please start using some thought and references if you want us to even come close to believing any of the points you've been coming up with. IED's have been around for a long time, stop arguing that point. Sometimes you say things in haste and your wrong, so please just stop refuting this point since you have no data to support it.

Now we could dispute the war, but like you said, back on to topic. Gun Control is something i'm against actually. May seem odd with my approach to hating guns themselves. I do understand the NRA and other gun supporters points regarding civilians being armed to make sure their government doesn't push them around too much. I absolutely hate it when the government makes decisions for the people instead of letting us make those decisions. Its like we're all a bunch of kindergarten kids who can't think for ourselves so they put in rules and bylaws to keep us in line. So regarding Gun Control, the only control should be to make sure our Government doesn't launder our tax money by buying weapons for twice the cost from a friend of theirs. IE Halley Burton, Lockheed Martin.