Moderator: Community Team
GabonX wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1692637.ece
Who would have thought it was possible? Thank God nobody was stupid enough to carry a gun hence saving these obviously mentally unwell individuals from being shot in their heads..
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
GabonX wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1692637.ece
Who would have thought it was possible? Thank God nobody was stupid enough to carry a gun hence saving these obviously mentally unwell individuals from being shot in their heads..
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rlz=1 ... 1246668952MeDeFe wrote:It's a really reliable newssource.
Yes, I was going to add that I am refreshed to read the yellow journalism of The Sun, the last bastion of unbiased, intellectual reporting.MeDeFe wrote:It's a really reliable newssource.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Look at the post above this. Their's something like 42 other sources with the same story for you to choose from.pimpdave wrote:Yes, I was going to add that I am refreshed to read the yellow journalism of The Sun, the last bastion of unbiased, intellectual reporting.MeDeFe wrote:It's a really reliable newssource.
It makes me wonder, is GabonX one of the people on this forum regularly criticizing the New York Times? Because, if so, if this is the preferred news source, um, wow.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
It seems you've missed the point twice now. Grotz.GabonX wrote:Hitler was addicted to cocaine and methamphetamines and despite being a vegitarian his favorite meal was stuffed Quail. Not that any of that has any relevance...
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Again... violence is done without nukes. Does that mean nukes should be available for purchase (I'm sure it would be a lucrative market)? And if that's too far, what about rocket launchers, what about grenades, and where do you draw the line that flips reasoning from "empowering people to destroy is good" to "empowering people to destroy is bad"?pimpdave wrote:Here's some more, horrible despicable violence committed without guns. Right in Philadelphia, the city you mentioned in your thread about hammers and subways.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nati ... slain.html
and the case that preceded that one, but for which I can't find a proper news article:
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Arc ... l=GooglePM
Ahhh, this old chestnut... another age-old question that the gun-lovers usually ignore or sidestep.Ditocoaf wrote:Ah, so the solution to the North Korea problem is to allow all countries to buy nuclear arms? Or does it only work with individuals? Should all individuals be able to buy nukes? Am I taking it too far with that example? How about rocket launchers? Still too far, or maybe not? Where do we draw the line? Exactly where does reasoning flip to it's exact opposite?
I expect an answer to at least 5 of those questions.
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!
Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
My dear cousin across the pond,Dancing Mustard wrote:
Where does this magic quality of guns come from? What is it that makes this particular class of lethal weapon flip logic on its head? Why are these the only dedicated murder weapons on the planet whose proliferation allegedly makes us safer, when the exact opposite is true when discussing every single other lethal instrument?
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
GabonX wrote:I'm saying we should allow people to empower themselves to the point where they can put up a reasonable amount of self defense, hence the common person should be able to respond to a lethal threat with lethal force. If everyone had the ability to project lethal force it would happen very rarely, I believe they call this mutually assured destruction. It's very relevant that their has never been a shooting at an NRA rally but that the columbine and Virginia Tech massacres both occurred in supposed "gun free zones."
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
What you mean though is that there's 12 others, including such august publications as the telegraph, the daily mail and the metro? To anyone who understands anything about british journalism, you're digging yourself deeper. Not that there's far to go after DM's comment, I must say.GabonX wrote:Look at the post above this. Their's something like 42 other sources with the same story for you to choose from.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
read it back to front (i.e, start with sport) and it's mostly solved.pimpdave wrote:Note that when reading The Sun, it is impossible to get past page 3.
There's a balance you need to respect. Clearly, empowering individual with the right to possess nuclear weapons, or indeed heavy machine guns, is unreasonable, since your average gangstaer won't possess tactical thermonuclear warheads. However, if you're going to be logically consistent, yes, think about it: the right to self-defense implies you should be allowed to carry knives and telescopic batons. Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these? Unless you're prepared to entertain this ridiculous notion, there is no reason not to allow honest citizens the right to arm themselves with the necessary tools to fend off assaults from armed thugs. Small arms proliferation isn't something our government will be able to stop, weapons will cross our borders out of the sight of customs officers, Lord knows all manners of drugs do and indeed illegal immigrants. When gangs in North Londons start driving tanks around, a line is crossed, and government steps in by sending in the paras (though in all fairness cunts like Brown will probably hail inner city kids in helicopter gunships as a sign of social progress).Dancing Mustard wrote:Ahhh, this old chestnut... another age-old question that the gun-lovers usually ignore or sidestep.Ditocoaf wrote:Ah, so the solution to the North Korea problem is to allow all countries to buy nuclear arms? Or does it only work with individuals? Should all individuals be able to buy nukes? Am I taking it too far with that example? How about rocket launchers? Still too far, or maybe not? Where do we draw the line? Exactly where does reasoning flip to it's exact opposite?
I expect an answer to at least 5 of those questions.
What is it about guns that makes them so special? Why doesn't the logic apply to things more lethal (nukes, rocket-launchers, tanks, flamethrowers, etc)? I mean, nobody is going to want to rob a bank if everybody inside could potentially launch a rocket at him... right?
And why doesn't it apply to things less lethal? Surely the answer to all this knife-crime is to let everyone carry around knives? Who in their right mind is going to mug somebody at knifepoint when that person might be carrying another knife? Who is going to hold up a convenience-store when all the customers might have knives with them? Right... right?
Where does this magic quality of guns come from? What is it that makes this particular class of lethal weapon flip logic on its head? Why are these the only dedicated murder weapons on the planet whose proliferation allegedly makes us safer, when the exact opposite is true when discussing every single other lethal instrument?
Again... since arms proliferation isn't stoppable, where do you draw the line in amount of firepower? The criminals have heavy machine guns... why shouldn't I? The terrorists have grenades, why shouldn't I? Where and how do you draw the arbitrary line?Napoleon Ier wrote:There's a balance you need to respect. Clearly, empowering individual with the right to possess nuclear weapons, or indeed heavy machine guns, is unreasonable. However, if you're going to be logically consistent, yes, think about it: the right to self-defense implies you should be allowed to carry knives. Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these? Unless you're prepared to entertain this ridiculous notion, there is no reason not to allow honest citizens the right to arm themselves with the necessary tools to fend off assaults from armed thugs. Arms proliferation isn't something our government will be able to stop, weapons will cross our borders out of the sight of customs officers, Lord knows all manners of drugs do and indeed illegal immigrants.Dancing Mustard wrote:Ahhh, this old chestnut... another age-old question that the gun-lovers usually ignore or sidestep.Ditocoaf wrote:Ah, so the solution to the North Korea problem is to allow all countries to buy nuclear arms? Or does it only work with individuals? Should all individuals be able to buy nukes? Am I taking it too far with that example? How about rocket launchers? Still too far, or maybe not? Where do we draw the line? Exactly where does reasoning flip to it's exact opposite?
I expect an answer to at least 5 of those questions.
What is it about guns that makes them so special? Why doesn't the logic apply to things more lethal (nukes, rocket-launchers, tanks, flamethrowers, etc)? I mean, nobody is going to want to rob a bank if everybody inside could potentially launch a rocket at him... right?
And why doesn't it apply to things less lethal? Surely the answer to all this knife-crime is to let everyone carry around knives? Who in their right mind is going to mug somebody at knifepoint when that person might be carrying another knife? Who is going to hold up a convenience-store when all the customers might have knives with them? Right... right?
A little old handgun will be useless against a terrorist with heavy firepower. Should we equip ourselves to defend ourselves against greater threats?
Where does this magic quality of guns come from? What is it that makes this particular class of lethal weapon flip logic on its head? Why are these the only dedicated murder weapons on the planet whose proliferation allegedly makes us safer, when the exact opposite is true when discussing every single other lethal instrument?
That's where legislatures and law courts come in: the axiom of liberal and democratic government is that anyone has the right to do anything that doesn't harm other peoples' rights. Where you draw that line, in matters of self-defense, free speech, or whatever, is a tricky issue, but fundamentally, a combination of judiciary and legislative influence allow this line to be drawn more or less clearly for the executive to enforce. The line won't be perfect, but hey ho, Utopia is unachievable. Textbook Montesquieu. However, at the level of private citizens, you can't deprive them of what others are going to have and use against them. Terrorists and foreign powers need to be dealt with by States or CItizen Militias.Ditocoaf wrote:Again... since arms proliferation isn't stoppable, where do you draw the line in amount of firepower? The criminals have heavy machine guns... why shouldn't I? The terrorists have grenades, why shouldn't I? Where and how do you draw the arbitrary line?Napoleon Ier wrote:There's a balance you need to respect. Clearly, empowering individual with the right to possess nuclear weapons, or indeed heavy machine guns, is unreasonable. However, if you're going to be logically consistent, yes, think about it: the right to self-defense implies you should be allowed to carry knives. Or are you seriously suggesting that ethnic youths aren't already armed with these? Unless you're prepared to entertain this ridiculous notion, there is no reason not to allow honest citizens the right to arm themselves with the necessary tools to fend off assaults from armed thugs. Arms proliferation isn't something our government will be able to stop, weapons will cross our borders out of the sight of customs officers, Lord knows all manners of drugs do and indeed illegal immigrants.Dancing Mustard wrote:Ahhh, this old chestnut... another age-old question that the gun-lovers usually ignore or sidestep.Ditocoaf wrote:Ah, so the solution to the North Korea problem is to allow all countries to buy nuclear arms? Or does it only work with individuals? Should all individuals be able to buy nukes? Am I taking it too far with that example? How about rocket launchers? Still too far, or maybe not? Where do we draw the line? Exactly where does reasoning flip to it's exact opposite?
I expect an answer to at least 5 of those questions.
What is it about guns that makes them so special? Why doesn't the logic apply to things more lethal (nukes, rocket-launchers, tanks, flamethrowers, etc)? I mean, nobody is going to want to rob a bank if everybody inside could potentially launch a rocket at him... right?
And why doesn't it apply to things less lethal? Surely the answer to all this knife-crime is to let everyone carry around knives? Who in their right mind is going to mug somebody at knifepoint when that person might be carrying another knife? Who is going to hold up a convenience-store when all the customers might have knives with them? Right... right?
A little old handgun will be useless against a terrorist with heavy firepower. Should we equip ourselves to defend ourselves against greater threats?
Where does this magic quality of guns come from? What is it that makes this particular class of lethal weapon flip logic on its head? Why are these the only dedicated murder weapons on the planet whose proliferation allegedly makes us safer, when the exact opposite is true when discussing every single other lethal instrument?
