Guns? What are your feelings?

[Porthos]

Ah, but there is one difference. You cannot ban knifes as they are a needed tool in everydays life. You can easily ban guns as they are not needed.

Sorry, my BS alarm just broke.

Maybe they aren't "needed" in Australia, but they sure as heck are in the US.

I know a lot of people that hunt to put food on their table.

 

[Death]

There are a lot of things that aren't strictly needed that can cause harm to people. Should we ban them, too? Booze? Tobacco products? Red meat? Caffeine? Cars with metric butt-tonnes of horsepower?

And who gets to define "need"? From my personal observations, it seems that a fairly large percentage of the anti-gun people live in "nice" neighborhoods or other places where the biggest threat to them is stubbing their toe when they go to use the toilet late at night when the lights are out (due in more than a few cases to private citizens hired as armed security guards). They're hardly everyone, though.

And, um, Porthos? Karl's from Austria, not Australia.

 

[Dyret]

There are a lot of things that aren't strictly needed that can cause harm to people. Should we ban them, too? Booze? Tobacco products? Red meat? Caffeine? Cars with metric butt-tonnes of horsepower?

Well, here in Norway they have made all of those things insanely expensive so that people cant afford to "hurt themselves". Of course, the true reason is to get more money.

 

[Quarto]

Ah, but there is one difference. You cannot ban knifes as they are a needed tool in everydays life. You can easily ban guns as they are not needed.

What Death said.

What's more, what you are saying is that the moment someone proves knives aren't needed any more, you won't mind them being banned. Isn't it convenient, then, how you can buy everything from bread to ham in sliced format these days? Guess now we just need to get the green-grocers equiped with slicing machines, so we can buy our vegetables sliced, too.

Thats soooo a different subject. And it doesn't happen with guns alone. Just have a look at the recent bombings in London. [..] Politicians and other groups with some influence will always be willing to jump at any opportunity to pass a law they wanted to happen for a LOOOOONG time when the opportunity arises.

And this bothers you... but it doesn't prevent you from believing them when they claim that the rising crime rates require us to outlaw the equipment least often used in crime? It doesn't concern you at all that the motives used to outlaw guns are a transparent lie? You're willing to close your eyes on all this, just because you find it convenient to believe this particular lie?

The thing is, with every such law passed, it becomes harder to resist future laws of the same kind. Any time you give up one of your basic rights for the sake of security, you are overriding someone who wanted to keep this basic right. Then along comes another law, which forces you to give up one of the basic rights you wanted to keep - but nobody's willing to protest for your sake, because you didn't care when you forced them to give up their basic rights. In other words, you're screwing yourself.

Oh, and before you disagree, yes, the right to bear arms is a basic human right. Doesn't matter if your particular constitution guarantees it or not, the fact remains that for hundreds of thousands of years, people have had this right and made use of it whenever necessary. Now you're willing to give it up, because it so happens you don't need it right now. Lemme ask you this - how good is your current job? Is the pay good enough for you to live off? If it is, might I suggest that you give up all your bank savings? After all, you don't need them right now, and if you don't need something right now, that surely means you'll never again need it.

Sure you heared examples. But how many? OTOH its not uncommon that somebody is severly enjured or killed because he dared to figth back.

Yes, so you've told me. But I've provided you with two examples, and I could certainly find dozens more with a quick search on the internet. So where are your examples?

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are 668 examples in California of armed citizens giving the bad guys what they deserve. You can search any state, and get pages of the same thing.

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/default.aspx

 

[McGruff]

And another highly informative site for those who have a bias against the NRA:
http://www.jpfo.org/

Uhm - okay. This is just stupid.

Really? What world do you live in?

So I would find myself in a shooting between a desperate robber and some shoppers? Uhm - Great...

No, you wouldn't. You would choose to be as helpless as anyone else. But please continue, you're doing a better job of discrediting yourself than I could ever hope to. - Now go put another shrimp on the barbie.

 

[Porthos]

And, um, Porthos? Karl's from Austria, not Australia.

In agreement with your comments.

And on the geography/spelling error, whoops! That explains the "land of Glock" comment from eariler.

 

[cff]

What's more, what you are saying is that the moment someone proves knives aren't needed any more, you won't mind them being banned. Isn't it convenient, then, how you can buy everything from bread to ham in sliced format these days? Guess now we just need to get the green-grocers equiped with slicing machines, so we can buy our vegetables sliced, too.

The comparision is still stupid. You need knives for millions of things, not just for eating.

And this bothers you... but it doesn't prevent you from believing them when they claim that the rising crime rates require us to outlaw the equipment least often used in crime? It doesn't concern you at all that the motives used to outlaw guns are a transparent lie? You're willing to close your eyes on all this, just because you find it convenient to believe this particular lie?

As I said - it DOES bother me a great deal when motives used to outlaw an ything are a transparent lie. However no - it doesn't bother me at all if there are restrictions on who might own a gun. There wasn't exactly a special case of murder or something when the laws has been made more restrictive either IIRC.

Oh, and before you disagree, yes, the right to bear arms is a basic human right.

Says who?

Doesn't matter if your particular constitution guarantees it or not, the fact remains that for hundreds of thousands of years, people have had this right and made use of it whenever necessary.

Thats just stupid polemic. So I am allowed to kill you, take your stuff and rape your girlfriend as well because for hundreds of thousands of years people have had this right because they were the stronger one?

Really? What world do you live in?

A safer one then you as it seems. Despite me not being able to shoot a robber.

No, you wouldn't. You would choose to be as helpless as anyone else. But please continue, you're doing a better job of discrediting yourself than I could ever hope to. - Now go put another shrimp on the barbie.

So? Let me summarize:
You would be in a shooting between the robber and some gun crazy folks in the store.
I would stand there, waiting for the guy to peacefully leave the store.
Sure, I am the one who is cracy here...

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Stop being stupid.

 

[Halman]

This always really bugs me.
A knife is more dangerous than a pistol, because you're far more likely to use it. And yet when you see someone taking the same steps they use for pistols, most people say "Oh my, how very excessive".