unoservix Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 You cited some awful examples, AJC. Completely, utterly ignorant of history. The Viet Cong? Supported, equipped, and trained by the North Vietnamese Army and the People's Republic of China. The American revolutionaries? On the brink of defeat by the British until the French entered the war and the revolutionaries themselves received proper military training from a former Prussian general. Mogadishu? "Defeated" a special ops team by outnumbering them when they were trying to evacuate, and still took appalling casualties. The Taliban? Didn't exist. What you're talking about is the mujahideen, which was equipped and trained by the United States. Please go actually learn history before you try to cite it. You are making yourself look bad. In the meantime, we're back to my point about how the Second Amendment is not a bulwark against government tyranny, which neither you nor Mr. Krystal invalidated. In fact, I'm not even sure the latter even read anything in this thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harlow Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 Well, but I'm curious. In the end, weighing your POV's about the pros and cons, in what spectre do you find yourself? In other way, not explaining any other views or circumstances or rules you may think. Pro-gun or Anti-gun? Yes or No? I'd say I'm more of a Pro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 10, 2012 Share Posted January 10, 2012 In a way I'm inclined to agree, apologies if necessary, . Also, is there anything wrong with your quoting? You seem to be quoting every post twice in a row. sometimes it just does that 0_o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Elite Posted January 11, 2012 Share Posted January 11, 2012 The object itself is not good or bad, it's who's using it. An anaesthetic can be used on someone for medical purposes, and also used by a rapist for an easier attack. Similarly how a gun can be used for a crime, or to defend oneself. It is merely the weapon. The wielder's intention is the deciding factor as to whether the action is bad or not. Gun Laws in Australia are rather strict, ever since the Port Arthur Massacre, in which Martin Bryant gunned down 35 people (and injured 21 others) Since then, the laws were radically changed to become stricter and the number of Gun-related deaths has dropped considerably. Most of them suicides. It's estimated that for every 1 gun related crime, there are three knife related crimes. Evidence suggests the laws have helped lower the gun-related crime rates. Our laws categorize acceptable weapons into 5 catergories , Category A being the easiest to acquire for. Genuine reasons are needed, and must be proven, Self-Defence is typicall not an acceptable reason. a 28 day waiting period is also in place. So you can't just spontaneously think "let's get a gun and rob the Petrol station." By limiting the access to the weapons, it seems to decrease the amounts of those crimes being committed. In Summation: A gun is not good or bad, it is the wielder's intention that matters. It is my opinion, that people should have a right to defend themselves yes, whether a gun is required for that defense varies. If a gun is legitimately needed, then it must be a gun to fill that need and no more than that. One cannot take a Howitzer to fend off one man with a pistol. It's overkill. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psygonis Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I agree with the fact that firearms are, as objects, exempt from any kind of moral alignment. Then, as pointed before, people use them, and people tend to do stupid things when carrying them (Well, actually, people do stupid things using a wide range of objects, and certainly have an ability to figure out how to harm/kill using anything at hand's range). So not evil, but "usually" used for evil. Conclusion's logic: It needs rules. Like for cars, alcohol, some jobs etc... Now, depending on countries, time and situations, rules may vary, which is why I second that statement saying that the Second Amendment is clearly outdated. It was designed for an outstretched embryo of a country, at a time when relying on citizens to assure public security was more relevant that it would be today. In both term of design and technology, I'm kind of a gun enthousiast, which is why I own airsoft guns (and practice airsoft), that I happen to shoot a few rounds on a shooting range from time to time (the same way I practice archery), and that's it. I'd never buy a real gun to keep it at home. It's the kind of objects that just attracts problems, and potential irreversible consequences. I think firearms should be disabled outside their operation grounds. You could store and display them at home if you wish, but they couldn't be operated outside a shooting range, or a hunting ground, using a system of unlocking keys, like a mix of ankle-monitor and security trigger. And in the case of self-defence weapons (if any), any self-activation should be logged and trigger a police-call. That may not prevent outlaws from getting/using them, but it would certainly prevent law-abiding guys from acting dangerously, and that would be something already (lots of firearms incidents are just operation accidents you know...). Oh, and about the civilian versus military thing, I'm sorry to confirm that any untrained guy stands like no chance against any instructed personnel. I worked with the military once, had the occasion to compare marksmanship on a shooting range, and even if I was assessed as above par for a civilian, I'm still way below military standards. And I can't imagine what that would be in actual combat situation... That allows me to state that the exemples cited before were not only incorrect (as pointed out already), but also outdated anyway (like the Second Amendment). They are from a time when military standards weren't what they are today. When soldiers were trained to combat on open fields, with no specific training for CQB, anti-sniper warefare, urban guerilla and other forms of specific combat. And thinking that the US territory can reproduce the combat theatre of Vietnam is just non-sense, unless you reduce the US to the Yellowstone Park! And that's not taking into account night-vision, thermo-scan, sat-scan and other warfare technologies the military didn't have then, and have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gestalt Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 In a nutshell you can't live with them, and you can live without them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 In a nutshell you can't live with them, and you can live without them However since they were created, war has changed, so technically right now, you actually -can't- live without them, maybe a single person can sure, but not nations. They will be in your life some way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Nobody was arguing that the military shouldn't have guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arashikage Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well my final point was no you really can't live without them being in your life somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 i've managed pretty well for 23 years now, actually Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 What other people do with guns does not count as "my life" and being that you're of the "guns aren't evil, they're just tools!" stock it would be rather hypocritical of you to attribute any acts of heroism either protecting or founding a country or body of people to guns as well. And for the record, no, the only time my life has personally involved a gun was that time I shot an air rifle, which didn't exactly have any impact on my course of existence whatsoever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thu'um Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 well actually a long time ago a bunch of guys tried to create their own country and they used guns to wage that war. after becoming independent a colony north of the new state had to united into a place called Canada. i believe you live there now. and the founding of the very place you live is partly contributed to firearms. ( lol sorta a joke, not a statement) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 We've reached a bit of a stalemate; how 'bout we just let this topic die a slow and dignified death? :lol: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drasiana Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 well actually a long time ago a bunch of guys tried to create their own country and they used guns to wage that war. after becoming independent a colony north of the new state had to united into a place called Canada. i believe you live there now. and the founding of the very place you live is partly contributed to firearms. ( lol sorta a joke, not a statement) CANADA'S FIRST HOUSES WERE MADE OF WOOD! HOLY SHIT, I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT AXES AND SAWS IN MY LIFE!!1!!111 while we're at it, I'd like to extend a deep thanks to the oil lamps, horse-drawn carriages, piles of coal and buckskin galoshes that've made my life what it is today oh, wait, you mean the tacticians and explorers and traders that actually founded the country? nah fuck those guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unoservix Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 apparently, when bad things happen involving guns, it's not the gun's doing, it's the person's doing; but when good things happen because of guns, it's not the person's doing, it's the gun's doing ass-backwards? whatever do you mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gestalt Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Hmm...would I rather have a bullet to the knee? or An arrow to the knee? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrypticQuery Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 apparently, when bad things happen involving guns, it's not the gun's doing, it's the person's doing; but when good things happen because of guns, it's not the person's doing, it's the gun's doing ass-backwards? whatever do you mean Technically both sides make the same argument; anti-gun sympathizers will blame violence and problems on firearms and positive things will be attributed to people. The opposite, as you have stated, is true for the pro-gun crowd. Hmm...would I rather have a bullet to the knee? or An arrow to the knee? That's like saying, "Would I rather be run over by a train or bus?" :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gestalt Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's like saying, "Would I rather be run over by a train or bus?" Dude, I'll take the bus anyday...U no see difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts