Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #81  
Old 08-08-2008, 04:55 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
I find it hard to follow the logic of the anti-gun argument. If you outlaw the guns who remains? Who commits most violent crimes?

If all the countries got together and signed a new nuclear weapon proliferation and banned all nuclear weapons, would the world then be free of all nuclear weapons or would it just be more dangerous to those that didn't see themselves bound by the proliferation?
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #82  
Old 08-08-2008, 04:59 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
9/11/2001 Did the hijackers use guns? Was the passenger of the Greyhound bus that was so brutally killed just recently in Canada a victim of a gun? Did guns play a role in the Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing? What good would gun control do for all of these victims?
 
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 08-08-2008, 05:14 AM
SmallBusinessSEO SmallBusinessSEO is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-22-08
Location: Ibiza
Posts: 335
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Barr View Post

And please don't propose a national gun ban -- that's a sure-fire recipe for starting the Second American Revolution.
you see. personally (as in my opinion only ) I think this is the problem.

its not easy access to guns per se that's the problem, as proven by the Swiss, Canadians etc etc..

its easy access to guns for gung ho, macho bravado rootin' tootin' descended from cowboy Americans that's the problem.

until these types evolve a little higher its never going to change.
 
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 08-08-2008, 06:53 AM
Franc Tireur Franc Tireur is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
You cannot please yourself for just one stereotype lawful gun owner.

Easy access to guns is a myth, law enforcement check your criminal background before you can even buy a gun.

Because it is a right to keep and bear arms, people are misleading by dishonest anti-guns propaganda.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SmallBusinessSEO View Post
you see. personally (as in my opinion only ) I think this is the problem.

its not easy access to guns per se that's the problem, as proven by the Swiss, Canadians etc etc..

its easy access to guns for gung ho, macho bravado rootin' tootin' descended from cowboy Americans that's the problem.

until these types evolve a little higher its never going to change.
 
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 08-08-2008, 07:04 AM
SmallBusinessSEO SmallBusinessSEO is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-22-08
Location: Ibiza
Posts: 335
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
You cannot please yourself for just one stereotype lawful gun owner.
what does this mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
Easy access to guns is a myth, law enforcement check your criminal background before you can even buy a gun.
by easy I mean the public can legally buy them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
Because it is a right to keep and bear arms, people are misleading by dishonest anti-guns propaganda.
if no-one was being murdered by them I would have no issues with their easy availability.
 
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 08-08-2008, 07:33 AM
Franc Tireur Franc Tireur is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
1) I meant they can be cowboy, open carry or CCW they all are lawful.

2) Easy access because it is legally possible to own firearms? That's a little far fetched when you know many Europeen countries France included has millions firearmes owned by civilians. I don't even talk about US.

3) Do you really think lawful firearms owners meaning millions in US are ready to murder anyone?

4) "if no-one was being murdered by them I would have no issues with their easy availability."

Why not to say the same thing about some drivers killing people on the road under drug influence, alcohol, speeding and reckless driving, etc... Do you still driving your car knowing that?

They are far more people killed on the road than firearms !

Last edited by Franc Tireur; 08-08-2008 at 07:39 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 08-08-2008, 07:46 AM
SmallBusinessSEO SmallBusinessSEO is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 03-22-08
Location: Ibiza
Posts: 335
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Elements View Post
1) I meant they can be cowboy, open carry or CCW they all are lawful.

2) Easy access because it is legally possible to own firearms? That's a little far fetched when you know many Europeen countries France included has millions firearmes owned by civilians. I don't even talk about US.

3) Do you really think lawful firearms owners meaning millions in US are ready to murder anyone?

4) "if no-one was being murdered by them I would have no issues with their easy availability."

Why not to say the same thing about some drivers killing people on the road under drug influence, alcohol, speeding and reckless driving, etc...

They are far more people killed on the road than firearms !
this cars and driving thing doesn't really wash does it? these are accidental deaths, not someone pointing a weapon designed for one thing, and one thing only, to hurt or kill people, at another person, and deciding to pull the trigger.

apart from the small percentage of accidental discharge deaths it's not really the same is it?

and lol @ "France included" ..why single France out?
 
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 08-08-2008, 09:36 AM
Franc Tireur Franc Tireur is offline
Contributing Member
 
Join Date: 08-15-06
Posts: 10,109
iTrader: 11 / 100%
I disagree with that: "this cars and driving thing doesn't really wash does it? these are accidental deaths"
When some people are under drug influence, alcohol, speeding and reckless driving, etc they are criminal
and there is no accidental deaths

I disagree with that: "pointing a weapon designed for one thing, and one thing only, to hurt or kill people, at another person, and deciding to pull the trigger."

It can save life, put some food on table when hunting, and you can enjoy shooting on paper target.

Don't make me wrong, I respect people who don't like firearms, but let people enjoying this right if they want to use it.

Last edited by Franc Tireur; 08-08-2008 at 09:41 AM.
 
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 08-08-2008, 12:25 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
If you're a felon, you can't legally buy a gun, if you have a mental illness history you can't legally buy a gun. If you are to young you can't legally buy a gun. It's not like you can just walk into a store any where and any time you want and walk out with whatever type of gun you want. Fully automatics are illegal.....there are a great many restrictions.

Who does a majority of the killing with guns? A majority of the killings come from previous felons, Gang members, mentally unstable people. Would a general gun ban prevent or lower the amount of gun related crimes committed by gang members and felons? Absolutely not, I mean, they don't have the guns they have legally to begin with so what difference would any kind of law make? Other than the fact that noone else would be able to protect themselves. Would the mentally ill be prevented from accessing guns to commit crime? That would depend on the circumstances I'm sure some would, but definitely not all of them, again, just those that are innocent would be defenseless.

Your anti-gun you must outlaw gun rhetoric is completely illogical and won't prevent those that are determined to commit acts of violence or kill others to do so. You won't prevent those that are determined to commit suicide from doing so either. You'll just force them to change their means. I guess after guns we'd get rid of the crossbows, bows, knifes, broken bottles, and anything else considered dangerous if put in the wrong person's hand?
 
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 08-08-2008, 02:32 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
It's already happening in the wake of Britain's effort to ban guns:

Quote:
Reducing knife crime
We need to ban the sale of long pointed kitchen knives

"Britain in the grip of knives terror—third of murder victims are now stabbed to death." Daily Express, 31 January 2005
"Stabbing rampage kills one, injures five—a large kitchen knife was found." Independent, 24 December 2004


Violent crime in the United Kingdom is increasing; figures from London show a 17.9% increase from 2003 to 2004, and one easily accessible weapon used in many incidents is the kitchen knife. Unfortunately, no data seem to have been collected to indicate how often kitchen knives are used in stabbings, but our own experience and that of police officers and pathologists we have spoken to indicates that they are used in at least half of all cases. UK government statistics show that 24% of 16 year old boys report carrying knives or other weapons and 19% admitting attacking someone with the intent to harm. Although other weapons—such as baseball bats, screwdrivers, and chains—are also carried, by far the most common weapons are knives. In the United Kingdom in the first two weeks of 2005 alone, 15 murders were attributed to stabbings and 16 other non-fatal attacks.

(more at link)

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7502/1221

<added>
Sorry -- I forgot to mention, this is an editorial and is not government policy -- yet.
</added>
 
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 08-08-2008, 07:08 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
If all the countries got together and signed a new nuclear weapon proliferation and banned all nuclear weapons, would the world then be free of all nuclear weapons or would it just be more dangerous to those that didn't see themselves bound by the proliferation?
Following your logic, let's just ensure that everyone has access to nuclear weapons, since you have them.
How is Iran supposed to protect itself against you? They do have that right, so let's make sure they get them first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
9/11/2001 Did the hijackers use guns? Was the passenger of the Greyhound bus that was so brutally killed just recently in Canada a victim of a gun? Did guns play a role in the Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing? What good would gun control do for all of these victims?
So... Because gun control didn't stop these three things from happening, it has no merit at all?
 
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 08-09-2008, 11:42 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
Following your logic, let's just ensure that everyone has access to nuclear weapons, since you have them.
How is Iran supposed to protect itself against you? They do have that right, so let's make sure they get them first.



So... Because gun control didn't stop these three things from happening, it has no merit at all?
As sometimes you do Zap, you are completely missing or attempting to redirect the point, you are talking gun control, the topic is gun banning, the current nuclear proliferation treaty is for control not for banning of nuclear weapons, current gun laws are to control who should have them, not to prevent everyone from having them.

There is no argument that a mentally ill person, a convicted felon, or a child should not have guns. None whatsoever that I am aware of. In the same state of mind, if you look at the world as you would view citizens, would you feel comfortable handing a 357 or a 50 caliber machine gun to the patients of a mental facility, or to all the students of an elementary school?
 
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 08-09-2008, 03:18 PM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
As sometimes you do Zap, you are completely missing or attempting to redirect the point, you are talking gun control, the topic is gun banning, the current nuclear proliferation treaty is for control not for banning of nuclear weapons, current gun laws are to control who should have them, not to prevent everyone from having them.
Don't confuse your inability to grasp the concept with obfuscation of the point.
There's no difference in principle between the concept that you and your fellow citizens having the right to defend youselves against each other and countries doing the same.
If the US has nuclear weapons, then you gun loving hypocrites must allow Iran to defend itself against you with same.
So, let's begin rolling nuclear weapons out to Iran, Syria, North Korea and Iraq, for a start.
We'll get to work on the countries you pose an immediate threat to first. Then we'll arm the rest in good time.

Great idea, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
There is no argument that a mentally ill person, a convicted felon, or a child should not have guns. None whatsoever that I am aware of. In the same state of mind, if you look at the world as you would view citizens, would you feel comfortable handing a 357 or a 50 caliber machine gun to the patients of a mental facility, or to all the students of an elementary school?
Totally beside the point. You wouldn't allow your fellow citizens (the same people you feel the need to defend against) to determine your mental fitness for the purpose of obtaining a firearm, would you? No. Didn't think so.
That means that the US doesn't get to decide if other nations are fit for the purpose of obtaining nuclear weapons.
 
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 08-09-2008, 05:52 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
You're such a character. A scary character but a character. Look it's simple, gun control is not the same thing as gun banning, not even close. And yes you have institutions in place to ensure that gun control is upheld and remains safe for the average citizen, that is part of being a citizen of the society. I mean do I want to relinquish the diagnosis to someone else? Not my first choice but since I am wanting to enjoy the right, and I am wanting to enjoy the protection and safety then I relent to those terms. If I don't want to relent to it, then I leave the society, move out into the woods, the country, move to an island, another contry something. Then I'm no longer restrained by the in place institutions.

On the world scale as in Iran and Syria and the like, you are just being out right stupid. It is for the world to decide whether a country should or should not have them, will one country lead the charge more than another? Of course, China led the charge agains N. Korea, they had a vested interest to do so. Will we lead the charge agains Syria and Iran, sure, not only have they openly targeted us with aggression but close allies as well. So the U.N. and world leaders are the institution that is in place to decide the control. And nuclear weapons pose to much of a danger on to big of a scale to be idiotic as you suggest. My opinion, if you could ensure that no one had them then all the better, but reality is that we have them, russia has them, india has them pakistan has them, and other places so you can't completely take them off the table, you can however ensure that those that have proven the responsibility to have them keeps control over them, and you can help those others that already have them ensure they keep them under control and honestly.

You may like them or something I don't know but Iran and Syria isn't any where close to fitting the bill under any of those circumstances. And I don't care who you are, if I'm holding a loaded gun and I'm trained to use it, and know that I won't unless I have to, I'm not going to hand it over to someone that has never had one before, never went through a class or someone I don't know what will do with it once they have it.

I believe if you try, and I know this to be hard for you as you've proven in the past :-) But if you use a little common sense, and mix it with a little reality you can see where sensible folks come from.
 
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 08-09-2008, 06:25 PM
Bob Barr's Avatar
Bob Barr Bob Barr is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: 05-17-08
Location: San Juan Bautista, California
Posts: 3,186
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
Look it's simple, gun control is not the same thing as gun banning, not even close.
Tell that to the many law-abiding citizens of New Orleans who had their legally-owned firearms illegally confiscated following Hurricane Katrina.

Quote:
And yes you have institutions in place to ensure that gun control is upheld and remains safe for the average citizen, that is part of being a citizen of the society.
The institution that carried out the illegal seizures was the New Orleans Police Department.
 
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 08-09-2008, 06:34 PM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Yeah I know, and it was wrong, and stated so afterwards. That's what happens when a policing institution doesn't follow their own law. That's the result of Chaos, then the fools turned around and voted the Mayor back in. They get what they deserve after that I woud think
 
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 08-10-2008, 06:37 AM
Zap's Avatar
Zap Zap is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 01-15-06
Posts: 13,769
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
You're such a character. A scary character but a character. Look it's simple, gun control is not the same thing as gun banning, not even close. And yes you have institutions in place to ensure that gun control is upheld and remains safe for the average citizen, that is part of being a citizen of the society.
Tell that to the kids that keep getting shot up in your schools.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
On the world scale as in Iran and Syria and the like, you are just being out right stupid. It is for the world to decide whether a country should or should not have them, will one country lead the charge more than another? Of course, China led the charge agains N. Korea, they had a vested interest to do so. Will we lead the charge agains Syria and Iran, sure, not only have they openly targeted us with aggression but close allies as well. So the U.N. and world leaders are the institution that is in place to decide the control. And nuclear weapons pose to much of a danger on to big of a scale to be idiotic as you suggest. My opinion, if you could ensure that no one had them then all the better, but reality is that we have them, russia has them, india has them pakistan has them, and other places so you can't completely take them off the table, you can however ensure that those that have proven the responsibility to have them keeps control over them, and you can help those others that already have them ensure they keep them under control and honestly.
So... you like the UN if they're going to keep nuclear weapons away from other countries, but they're useless when you want to invade Iraq?
Now, THAT is stupid.
You can't ensure that nobody has them. Too many nations already do have them.
So, for the gun loving self defense crowd, the logical solution has to be arming each country that has nuclear capable agitators with nuclear weapons. You have a gun because you want to protect yourself against other people with guns. It's not that hard to draw a parallel between the two ideas. You can do it if you try really hard, gamer. I have faith in you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegamerslink View Post
You may like them or something I don't know but Iran and Syria isn't any where close to fitting the bill under any of those circumstances. And I don't care who you are, if I'm holding a loaded gun and I'm trained to use it, and know that I won't unless I have to, I'm not going to hand it over to someone that has never had one before, never went through a class or someone I don't know what will do with it once they have it.
So what? Your opinion doesn't matter here.
As usual, you're either missing the point or trying to divert attention away from it.
You don't get to decide who is fit to have guns.
Your government makes that decision, based on the fact that they have the ability to enforce their decision on you.
You don't get to decide who is fit to have nuclear weapons. And their is no equivalent world governing body that has the ability to enforce it's decisions on all the countries of the world.
If your neighbour tells you that they don't want you to own any guns, are you going to throw your guns away and refuse to buy any more?
Is the US prepared to destroy all of it's nuclear weapons?
It's laughable that the US would even have the opportunity to suggest who should have nuclear weapons and who shouldn't.
Next time you have a gun pointed at you, ask the person pointing it if they think you should also have a gun.
Simple enough for you?
 
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 08-10-2008, 07:08 AM
South's Avatar
South South is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,489
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zap View Post
If your neighbour tells you that they don't want you to own any guns, are you going to throw your guns away and refuse to buy any more?
Is the US prepared to destroy all of it's nuclear weapons?
It's laughable that the US would even have the opportunity to suggest who should have nuclear weapons and who shouldn't.
Next time you have a gun pointed at you, ask the person pointing it if they think you should also have a gun.
Simple enough for you?
Zap...man. I've been silently watching this, but come on. Do you really expect to drive this home? Individual handgun ownership versus nuclear weapons? Really?

If it sounds hypocritical to you, so will this.

We get to decide who has nuclear weapons as long as we have the military strength to do that. It's not that we have the authority, we don't. We do, however, have the power. Thank God we do. We continue to have that power by so far keeping rogue nations from getting really good weapons. That may not always be the case, and if the day comes that we don't...somebody else will be trying to limit our power. All things considered, we'd rather be the biggest guys on the block, and will do what's needed to maintain that position. If that means some people will call us "bullies" for protecting our position and interests, oh well.

A pacifist will never understand that. A superior military is how you defend your peoples lifestyle and protect your allies. You keep a superior military by building your own stronger and limiting those sworn to kill you when you can. If that makes us sound like hypocrites or meanies, sorry. That's just reality.

To try and compare our domestic handgun laws with our world military policy on nuclear weapons is just silly. Don't act like you don't know the difference. Of course you do.
 
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 08-11-2008, 10:42 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
There ya go Zap, and I never said I like the U.N. I think they are useless. They don't do anything they are there to do. And inhibit more than the help. As for the Iraq war, again, it was a legal war, on the merits of peace treaty violations and the U.N.'s own sanctions so zip it.

As for the Nuclear weapons, I can't put it any better than South. Only thing I could maybe add is I wish The U.S. could possibly remove itself for people like you, into a plastic ball that is far and away, and let countries like Syria, Iran, Yemin, North Korea get the nuclear weapons or the just good weapons you're suggesting they should have access to, and then see where it gets you. Without the U.S. here to protect you do you really think Canada would still be around as it is? Not to mention the communist states such as China and Russia. Where do you think you would be if we weren't here to keep them away from you? Going back in history what do you think would've been the result of WWI and WWII, where would you be if the other side had won? You may not like how we have to do some things, but you're lifestyle that you so enjoy is only possible because of us.
 
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 08-11-2008, 10:46 AM
TechWizard's Avatar
TechWizard TechWizard is offline
v7n Mentor
 
Join Date: 07-26-07
Location: Georgia
Posts: 6,156
iTrader: 2 / 100%
As for gun control and the kids getting shot up in school. You have to take a dose of reality at some point. It's really simple, if people are going to kill people they are going to find a way to do, and simply taking away a weapon that they aren't suppose to have in the first place is going to fix that problem. The problem is, what is causing them to want to do it in the first place. When I was growing up there were less gun control laws, there were more guns, and even automatic weapons freely available to those that wanted them. You didn't hear or experience people going into the local mall, the local college or the local school or Mcdonalds and taking out as many people as they can. Something has changed to make them want to do that, that is the true problem. Whether guns exist or they don't, the killing will continue, just in different methods, and that's fact, historical fact. People have been finding creative ways to kill other people long before the creation of gun powder.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Baby with three arms! JuggoPop Forum Lobby 65 09-29-2008 02:41 PM
Seduce Women Under Your Arms Pit... hem Forum Lobby 22 06-16-2008 05:43 AM
Oh boy! A new arms race? ewomack Controversial Social Issues 9 06-07-2007 02:13 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC