[QUOTE=sp00ks;29526608]So you'd rather kill someone who, for all you know, might be stealing your stuff to pay for medicine for his sick child, than get a new stuff from your insurance?
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
Seriously, that is so fucked up.
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
The difference between cars and guns is, that cars were not made specifically to kill and/or seriously injure other people.
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
What about when the government is doing a great job and some citizens just want more power and use their guns to overthrow the government and insert a theocratic dictatorship?[/QUOTE]
You are a dumb motherfucker.
I am all for guns but the idea of someone being able to shoot me out in the open just because I pissed him off or something is unsettling. I know that can happen anyways but you know what I mean. Carrying them in public should be a no.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29527991]Democracy was NOT earned with blood in my country, it was achieved peacefully with gradual reforms over some decades. Furthermore, only a complete retard would abolish democracy, because Sweden would suffer GREATLY from it. We would get kicked out from the EU, trade and international relationships would hurt our economy. The party who abolished democracy would witness demonstrations all over the country, and the military would probably not be very loyal towards the government. Not a very good idea to abolish democracy, with or without gun control.
Besides, the dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt were kicked out without armed rebellion, if there were an armed rebellion in Egypt far more people would have died because the military would have engaged in firefights wherever.[/QUOTE]
Take a look at Libya and Syria and the Ivory Coast, it's an armed rebellion in each of those locations, and the fight is for democracy. Hell, the rebels in Libya are even buying guns from Qatar and the UK to fight for their freedom, because they have to overthrow a dictator who has the support of the army and private security forces.
You say that about Sweden, but what if it's economy was in the shitter so hardcore that people were buying food with stamps because bread cost a million of whatever respective currency they use, then a man came along with the idea of bringing its economy our of the shitter by fighting the people who are the reason it's in the shitter. This is pretty much what Hitler did promised, and he was quite popular because of it. You can NEVER say the chance is 0% that a democracy will turn dictatorial, there is ALWAYS that slim chance.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;29526608]So you'd rather kill someone who, for all you know, might be stealing your stuff to pay for medicine for his sick child, than get a new stuff from your insurance?
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
Seriously, that is so fucked up.
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
The difference between cars and guns is, that cars were not made specifically to kill and/or seriously injure other people.
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
What about when the government is doing a great job and some citizens just want more power and use their guns to overthrow the government and insert a theocratic dictatorship?[/QUOTE]
Yeah totally, lets just let the guy steal my stuff cause he's "down on his luck".
No, fuck him. I'm not giving him a free hand out in the form of my belongings.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;29526608]So you'd rather kill someone who, for all you know, might be stealing your stuff to pay for medicine for his sick child, than get a new stuff from your insurance?
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
Seriously, that is so fucked up.[/quote]
Sob stories don't work and they're quite literally [b]never[/b] the case. Don't use them.
[quote]
What about when the government is doing a great job and some citizens just want more power and use their guns to overthrow the government and insert a theocratic dictatorship?[/QUOTE]
Then it would be up to those who support the government in some way to take up arms against group X etc. Chances are it would end up as a Civil War.
Okay, you've convinced me, everyone who steals deserves to die.
Saying that thieves are just evil is simply not true. The world is way more complicated than that.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;29531495]Okay, you've convinced me, everyone who steals deserves to die.
Saying that thieves are just evil is simply not true. The world is way more complicated than that.[/QUOTE]
so you are basically implying that all gun owners spring at the chance to kill somebody
[QUOTE=sp00ks;29526608]So you'd rather kill someone who, for all you know, might be stealing your stuff to pay for medicine for his sick child, than get a new stuff from your insurance?[/QUOTE]
Please tell me you were joking when you said that
[QUOTE=sp00ks;29531495]Okay, you've convinced me, everyone who steals deserves to die.
Saying that thieves are just evil is simply not true. The world is way more complicated than that.[/QUOTE]
Ok?
So apparently in your eyes being poor justifies breaking into homes and stealing stuff?
Guess if some guy smashed your window and stole your computer you'd be happy cause you helped a person
That is clearly not what I am saying. I'd get mad as shit, but I sure as fuck wouldn't kill anyone over it.
Oh if I had the choice I wouldn't kill him.
Best case scenario is I come out with shotgun, tell him to freeze, call police they come and arrest him.
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29530782]Take a look at Libya and Syria and the Ivory Coast, it's an armed rebellion in each of those locations, and the fight is for democracy. Hell, the rebels in Libya are even buying guns from Qatar and the UK to fight for their freedom, because they have to overthrow a dictator who has the support of the army and private security forces.[/quote]My point was that you don't NEED guns to overthrow a government, Egypt and Tunisia are examples of protests where democracy was achieved without armed rebellion. I don't oppose firearms being used in a situation where it is the only option, but it shouldn't be the primary option. Attempts with demonstrations should always take place before attempting to overthrow the government with firearms.
[quote]
You say that about Sweden, but what if it's economy was in the shitter so hardcore that people were buying food with stamps because bread cost a million of whatever respective currency they use, then a man came along with the idea of bringing its economy our of the shitter by fighting the people who are the reason it's in the shitter. This is pretty much what Hitler did promised, and he was quite popular because of it. You can NEVER say the chance is 0% that a democracy will turn dictatorial, there is ALWAYS that slim chance.[/QUOTE]No, there's literally ZERO procent chance that Sweden will turn into a dictatorship in the near future, and if it does then demonstrations and revolutions is a better way than armed rebellion to overthrow the government.
Let me explain why imposing dictatorship in Sweden is impossible:
Democracy is declared in the constitution of Sweden. In order to change a law protected by the constitution, it must pass two votings in the parliament. A general election must take place between the votings. In order words, even if the leading party theoretically had a majority during the first voting, they would most likely not have it during the second voting, because they would most likely lose the general elections between the votings.
Criminals always obey the law, especially gun control laws...
Meanwhile all the good civilized people have no way to protect themselves from said criminals who TOTALLY DO NOT HAVE GUNS BY THE WAY.
And an absolute government doesn't really care about existing constitutions. They were put in place by a government, they can be repealed by another just as easily if they have military power. Constitutions, like rights, are not absolute, they only work so long as EVERYBODY obeys them. If a military-backed government decides to declare itself absolute, no matter what constitutions, laws, or protests take place, the only way you'll change things is by a violent revolution. Note I say military-backed, Egypt and Tunisia didn't have military-backing to the dictatorship when the protests happened, that's why peaceful revolution was possible. If they are military-backed, it's not possible.
As for Libya and Syria, they tried peaceful protesting, and the government started shooting them because they refused to step down. Peaceful means are not always viable options, and more often than not, when it comes to governments, you need to use violent means. Yes, there are examples of how peaceful protests changed things, there are many more examples of how violent revolutions changed things, both for better and for worse.
Ban guns @ the US to prevent low IQ.
[QUOTE=MoarFunz;29534464]Ban guns @ the US to prevent low IQ.[/QUOTE]
More like ban guns from you because of your low IQ.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29494058]Possession of firearms should be prohibited for civilians. Hunters should be able to get a certain license to possess hunting rifles, provided that they are only used for hunting and locked away in a safe cabinet if not used.[/QUOTE]
People need to protect themselves, also, with so many people that have access to guns, crime actually goes down when more people have guns. Gun crimes actually decrease because people will be afraid of getting shot if they know pretty much every goddamn house will have 2-3 guns in it.
[editline]30th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Roo-kie;29494920]didn't some senator get shot through the head by some nutjob that was easily able to acquire a gun?
sounds like the system works real good[/QUOTE]
If guns laws were very strict, then people will just turn to using knives or improvised weapons to commit crimes, doesn't matter what you do people will always kill each other no matter what you ban.
[QUOTE=Aman V;29531824]Oh if I had the choice I wouldn't kill him.
Best case scenario is I come out with shotgun, tell him to freeze, call police they come and arrest him.[/QUOTE]
If he started to run would you shoot him in the back
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29535599]If he started to run would you shoot him in the back[/QUOTE]
If he is running away, he isn't a threat. No need to shoot him. Exception would be if he was running to another person to attack or use as a hostage.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;29535599]If he started to run would you shoot him in the back[/QUOTE]
It's all situational and hypothetical.
An under slung tazer attachment would be handy in a situation like that...
[QUOTE=DaCommie1;29533634]And an absolute government doesn't really care about existing constitutions. They were put in place by a government, they can be repealed by another just as easily if they have military power. Constitutions, like rights, are not absolute, they only work so long as EVERYBODY obeys them. If a military-backed government decides to declare itself absolute, no matter what constitutions, laws, or protests take place, the only way you'll change things is by a violent revolution. Note I say military-backed, Egypt and Tunisia didn't have military-backing to the dictatorship when the protests happened, that's why peaceful revolution was possible. If they are military-backed, it's not possible.[/quote]I don't find it believable that the military would be loyal to a government which has abolished democracy illegally. Besides, what would a party gain from imposing dictatorship? It wouldn't benefit the party, it wouldn't benefit the country's economy, it wouldn't benefit trade, it wouldn't benefit Sweden's political power internationally, it wouldn't benefit anything at all. All parties in the parliament are FOR democracy, because they realise that even a democratic opposing party would govern the country better than their own party under a dictatorship.
The government in Egypt was partly supported by the military, although there were cases of mutiny. The military and the police did kill demonstrants, the revolution was definitely not peacefully achieved, but it would probably have been more brutal if firefights were involved.
[quote]
As for Libya and Syria, they tried peaceful protesting, and the government started shooting them because they refused to step down. Peaceful means are not always viable options, and more often than not, when it comes to governments, you need to use violent means. Yes, there are examples of how peaceful protests changed things, there are many more examples of how violent revolutions changed things, both for better and for worse.[/QUOTE]As I said, armed rebellion should only be used as a last resort. People in Libya and Syria tried to demonstrate peacefully but it failed, so armed rebellion is justified.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;29534885]People need to protect themselves, also, with so many people that have access to guns, crime actually goes down when more people have guns. Gun crimes actually decrease because people will be afraid of getting shot if they know pretty much every goddamn house will have 2-3 guns in it.[/QUOTE]
I've already answered this a couple of times. You don't need guns to defend yourself, it's a myth breeded by paranoid gun owners. Besides, fighting criminality by eliminating factors that lead to criminality such as poverty is much more efficient than simply allowing everyone to get a gun.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536491]
I've already answered this a couple of times. You don't need guns to defend yourself, it's a myth breeded by paranoid gun owners. Besides, fighting criminality by eliminating factors that lead to criminality such as poverty is much more efficient than simply allowing everyone to get a gun.[/QUOTE]
Where is the logic in this?
How does having a gun make your self defense worse off?
A robber/burglar/rapist/murderer is in your home, would you rather have a gun or not have a gun?
I don't understand why you would choose the route that would end up with you either robbed, hurt or dead.
And no one said "ONLY WAY TO FIGHT CRIME IS GUNS, WE WONT DO ANYTHING ELSE BUT GUNS"
Obviously crime and its causes are a deeper issue no one is arguing that...
[QUOTE=Aman V;29536554]Where is the logic in this?
How does having a gun make your self defense worse off?
A robber/burglar/rapist/murderer is in your home, would you rather have a gun or not have a gun?
I don't understand why you would chose the route that would end up with you either robbed, hurt or dead.
And no one said "ONLY WAY TO FIGHT CRIME IS GUNS, WE WONT DO ANYTHING ELSE BUT GUNS"
Obviously crime and its causes are a deeper issue no one is arguing that...[/QUOTE]
A common misconception is that banning guns will not affect criminals because they can get it illegally. If you ban guns, the availability would greatly decrease. It would be harder for criminals to get guns, and more expensive. And it could only be used in crime once, because the police would arrest the carrier quickly (gun crimes are of high priority).
Banning guns doesn't do anything but put the innocent at risk. Bans only affect people who adhere to the law. [i]Criminals break the law[/i]. So, firearms are being taken out of civilian hands, but criminals are still armed.
Additionally, we [b]need[/b] our firearms. That part about "the right to bear arms" in the Bill Of Rights is one of the most important - it keeps us armed and ensures our right to fight and destroy an oppressive government.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536644]A common misconception is that banning guns will not affect criminals because they can get it illegally. If you ban guns, the availability would greatly decrease. It would be harder for criminals to get guns, and more expensive. And it could only be used in crime once, because the police would arrest the carrier quickly (gun crimes are of high priority).[/QUOTE]
[Giant citation needed]
You are just making up "facts". Can't really put up a counter argument to it.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536491]
I've already answered this a couple of times. [b]You don't need guns to defend yourself, it's a myth breeded by paranoid gun owners.[/b] Besides, fighting criminality by eliminating factors that lead to criminality such as poverty is much more efficient than simply allowing everyone to get a gun.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but I'm calling absolute bullshit on this. Having one and not needing to use and have it collect dust for you all you care is FAR BETTER than wishing you had one in an proverbial shitstorm of a situation where it would greatly better your chances of surviving.
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536644]A common misconception is that banning guns will not affect criminals because they can get it illegally. If you ban guns, the availability would greatly decrease. It would be harder for criminals to get guns, and more expensive. And it could only be used in crime once, because the police would arrest the carrier quickly (gun crimes are of high priority).[/QUOTE]
Bull crap. How are the police going to arrest the carrier, when they don't know who it was or where they got the gun from, it being black market and all.
[QUOTE=Aman V;29536698][Giant citation needed]
You are just making up "facts". Can't really put up a counter argument to it.[/QUOTE]
What part of my post is not a logical consequense to a gun ban? Does a gun ban not decrease availability (assuming it's done right)? Does not increased availability lead to higher prices?
[QUOTE=Ond kaja;29536935]What part of my post is not a logical consequense to a gun ban? Does a gun ban not decrease availability (assuming it's done right)? Does not increased availability lead to higher prices?[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how it would decrease availability.
[QUOTE=Aman V;29536275]It's all situational and hypothetical.
An under slung tazer attachment would be handy in a situation like that...[/QUOTE]
How can you justify hurting a fleeing person at all
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
