Political Crossfire Forums

[britboy]

mathurin wrote: britboy wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Holy s**t he's used that argument in this thread too?

Okay okay..what's next britboy? You're going to compare owning/carrying a gun to everyone having a nuke in their briefcase? Or how about a bag of botulinum toxin (sure great for skin care professionals, in limited quantities)? Maybe anthrax, or the plague, or the bird flu?

micfranklin doesn't agree with you britboy. he agrees that WMDs should be illegal. Guns are not a WMD.
Listen micfranklin doesn't need you to protect him. He's making important changes to his viewpoints, isn't it his freedom to do so?

Listen -- there's like - 1 - soldier making his first steps in leaving the wacky camp .. let's just let him form his own conclusions on the information he has read please.

(micfranklin -- you should write another madly pro-gun reply to this if you read it, try and write some ranting 'I love guns Britboy is talking trash' reply -- trust me -- long term it will make the whole change-process easier. real hardcore pro-gunners hate it when people start realising some home truths. You probably will consider yourself firmly pro-gun for some time yet and this forum should be the last place to admit you're finally, slowely coming round to the common sense conclusions with regards to the issue (you're not alone, I reckon 90% of the Western World agree with our viewpoints .. just not many on this forum).


hrm, sounds just like lucky luke, how amusing, and predictable

I'm glad I'm amusing. Predictable? Maybe.

[wyldejackyl]

I vote for "definitely" not maybe. ;)

[micfranklin]

private_citizen wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

for one you want to use a contagious pathogen, not a projectile.

britboy, what part of this do you not understand? Poison gas = bad. Rifles or guns = good.

[britboy]

micfranklin wrote: private_citizen wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

for one you want to use a contagious pathogen, not a projectile.

britboy, what part of this do you not understand? Poison gas = bad. Rifles or guns = good.

The second half.

:wink:

[micfranklin]

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: private_citizen wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

for one you want to use a contagious pathogen, not a projectile.

britboy, what part of this do you not understand? Poison gas = bad. Rifles or guns = good.

The second half.

:wink:

Are you joking? Please do not make me have to repeat everything that I've just said. Toxic gases spread around an area whether you planned it to or not, and anyone can inhale them.

Simple.

[britboy]

micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: private_citizen wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

for one you want to use a contagious pathogen, not a projectile.

britboy, what part of this do you not understand? Poison gas = bad. Rifles or guns = good.

The second half.

:wink:

Are you joking? Please do not make me have to repeat everything that I've just said. Toxic gases spread around an area whether you planned it to or not, and anyone can inhale them.

Simple.

:wink: = joking. Always.

But I don't think guns are 'good' or 'evil'. I think of them as inanimate objects. Sorry we don't agree about that one. :wink:

[Blinky]

Are you ignoring what I asked you, wyldejackyl?

[micfranklin]

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: private_citizen wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: wyldejackyl wrote: Automobile deaths far eclipse those of gun deaths in america..yet they hand those licenses out to every idiot that comes into this country..legal or ILLEGAL. Yet I can't carry a piece of metal in my pocket. It might be "too dangerous" to myself and everyone around me. LOL! What do they think a 3000lb car is?!

Or a gas tanker driving down the road at 70 mph, which has to weigh at least twice as much as any car and more explosive, too.

I guess you're right. electric shocks must kill THOUSANDS of people a year. Yet they won't let me carry around a 'completely airtight container' with a biological disease in it such as Anthrax.

LOL!

Completely insane. Why can't I carry around my biological warfare kit? It's hardly going to magically split open and poison people. If they ban that, surely the should also ban electricity right?

:roll:

Logic.

for one you want to use a contagious pathogen, not a projectile.

britboy, what part of this do you not understand? Poison gas = bad. Rifles or guns = good.

The second half.

:wink:

Are you joking? Please do not make me have to repeat everything that I've just said. Toxic gases spread around an area whether you planned it to or not, and anyone can inhale them.

Simple.

:wink: = joking. Always.

But I don't think guns are 'good' or 'evil'. I think of them as inanimate objects. Sorry we don't agree about that one. :wink:

Uhh, sorry for the delay but I see guns and any other item as inanimate objects as well, but how you use them is something different.

[wyldejackyl]

Blinky wrote:

Of course. Its not possible that every other modern society is correct while America is wrong. Need you be reminded of the fact that you are more likely to be raped, assualted, and murdered in the United states than you are in Britain? But how can that be when your firearm ownership is so widespread? What explains this anomoly?





I could not agree more. I'm just glad that bullets are designed to stop dead in the air and fall to the ground when fired at someone who doesn't have a gun in their hand.


Name another "tool" that can have the same disasterous consequences as a gun when intentially used for no good. I'm waiting...



An Orwell-ian world can only exist if the proles do what they're told. There are better ways to resist tyranny than the primitive avenues you advocate. For one, you don't work or obey orders. The country collapses economically and big brother is in charge of a useless strip of land worth nothing.


That anomaly can be explained away with any number of societal problems. Take for instance, crime at large. Is the majority of handgun crimes between two criminal elements, or between a criminal and a victim (meaning, someone being mugged, etc)? How about the differences in society in europe vs. America? Is it okay there to have tons of babies to collect welfare? Do you guys favor your rich and leave the middle-class out of work?
I think perhaps you should look at precisely WHY people commit crimes, and not the tools they use. Is it that interesting that we found copper knives, deliberate holes in Egyptian skulls..or the fact that the reason for both was that they knew how to relieve the pressure on the brain from an injury? You merely look at the tools used and think that by removing them and making NO OTHER CHANGES, that society will change. Sure it will. Criminals will still get guns, and the rest of us won't. Last I looked..didn't australia's crime rate go up when guns were banned?


Bullets don't stop dead when they hit someone unarmed. Typically they are aimed and fired at someone who is attacking the armed victim with life-threatening force. Find me some stats on the amount of shootings of innocent bystanders (not including AD's) during a criminal encounter where the victim shoots back. The incidence of these is very low, just like the number of crimes committed by legal gun owners.


A guy almost killed a woman in my neighborhood last week. He was breaking into her home when she caught him. She tried to run but he ran her down, and held a SCREWDRIVER to her throat. You're saying that if she had a gun to defend herself, that's a bad thing? He could have run her through with the screwdriver. Should we ban those? You can kill someone with anything, including your hands.


You think the proles are stupid enough to stop working? Hell, the IRS rips us off..we have to work 5 months out of the year just to pay for taxes..and does anyone stand up? Nope! Too AFRAID. Too comfortable. Too UNcomfortable with the alternatives of work stoppages. The transition is taking place slowly so as not to disturb the sheep.

You trust too much in your elitist government. You really think they give a s**t about you, common man?

[Deigo99]

ok. Lets ban everything that can be used to kill another human being.
Cars
Any type of tool
silverware
Guns
Bookcases(tip em over)
Wieghts (as in a lifting set)
My bare fists

My point is guns dont kill people. PEOPLE kill people. Any gun no matter how powerful it is, is just a hunk of metal without a human being pulling the trigger. If we ban guns, people will use knives, if we ban knives, people will use bats, if we ban bats, people will use their fists. Any one who blames guns for ANY of the deaths in america is just a little bit off guns are a tool easily replaced.

[Blinky]

Deigo99 wrote: ok. Lets ban everything that can be used to kill another human being.
Cars
Any type of tool
silverware
Guns
Bookcases(tip em over)
Wieghts (as in a lifting set)
My bare fists

My point is guns dont kill people. PEOPLE kill people. Any gun no matter how powerful it is, is just a hunk of metal without a human being pulling the trigger. If we ban guns, people will use knives, if we ban knives, people will use bats, if we ban bats, people will use their fists. Any one who blames guns for ANY of the deaths in america is just a little bit off guns are a tool easily replaced.

If we ban guns and bats peope will use their fists? Really?
So sometime in the future we could expect to hear about high-school punching massacres and the like? Trenchcoat mafia kids punching a dozen or so of their classmates to death?

We could expect to hear of 6 year olds accidentally blowing their heads off with their dad's fist that they found lying in the cupboard?

You'll be handing your wallet over to a skinny malnourished junkie because he'll threaten to punch you?


Let me ask you a question. Do you sleep with your gun? Do you use it to open cans? :lol:

[Jefferson]

britboy wrote: If a cultire decided that it's citizens had a human right .. an inalienable right that could not be taken away. A right that was laid down in writnig 200 years ago, the culture should be allowed to practice that right yea?

Now, what would happen if that invented 'right' was leading to the deaths of 7000 innocent people a year? Still as confident? 7000 innocents a year not that bad?

Let us use an example. Let us say a government declared it was a human right that it's population should not have to live alongside Jews. And passed some laws to protect their 'fundermental human right' that resulted in 7000 Jews being killed each year, every year. Laws like 'If a jew encroached upon a non-Jew neighbourhood he could legally be shot, no questions asked'.

Now, people felt very strongly about this human right. They liked it. They thought it was cool and made them feel manly. They saw it as their right to protect their neighbourhoods from these Jews. Other countries looked in, saw what was happening, and thought 'well, let's just let it carry on'.

So another 7000 people died the next year, then the next, then ad-nauseum until people were actually used to it happening. Every year it was just taken as read -- 7000 extra corpses. 7000 extra Jews dead. No problem yea?

People liked not living near Jews, and didn't mind the 'side-effect' of a few thousand being 'disappeared' each year. In fact it was a 'right' they would defend to the death.

BUt the entire rest of the civilised world would say it was absolutely crazy, horrible, indefensible -- and stuff what rights they thought they deserved because some fool wrote in 200 years ago 'to defend the country from the Jews' -- 7000 people a year were dying. This had to change.

Would you suggest that the country with the invented 'right' made plans to withdraw it as it was clearly costing 7000 deaths a year for the sake of people's misinformed 'life would go to sh*t if we didn't have it' paranoia -- and live with the consequences. Or would you go down the '7000 people die a year, but they were mostly/all Jews so who cares' route?

The bottom line .. we outside of the US look in the the US gun control policy and just think 'how horrible.' It's our responsibility to try and save those 7000 US citizens a year even if the pro-gun lot don't care remotely about them (let's face it, even if their own daughter was mowed down by some guy having bought a gun expressly for the purpose, they'd argue 'I wish she was carrying more guns that'd have stopped it'!!!.

Yes like we should have tried to save the Jews in Germany. Same principle. People, this is 70,000 of your fellow human beings every 10 years. Don't you care at all? If it was your wife next killed by a legally owned gun, would you care enough to realise without legally owned guns she wouldn't have been shot? Or go out and buy three more assault rifles? You're governments (and your) policies are killing 7000 people a year.. We already know the pro-gun lot don't care. But some people in the US do. Living away frm the US I propose it is still our responsibility to try and save the next 7000 people due to die. Despite, similar to Germany during the second world war, there are thousands of people who don't care or will actively encourage or take part in the killings...

Your logic depends of legally owned guns killing people.

"If it was your wife next killed by a legally owned gun..."

I don't think you proved that legally owned guns kill people.

Try again.