About This is getting out of hand. Page 12
|May 1st, 2012||#112|
| || |
"The cost of freedom is always high."
Love it or hate it.
|May 1st, 2012||#113|
| || |
Completely this! People need to understand where freedom ends otherwise others can claim freedom and it expands to anarchy. Rights to do this, rights to do that, come on people... When do these "rights" end.
I am not completely for or against the 2nd amendment, but I don't agree more guns = less crime. It lacks common sense in that the more weapons you give to people the more people will use it irresponsibly, same goes for nukes. Complete removal or even a slight change to the 2nd amendment will not happen in the foreseeable future. I wish our forefathers didn't lack such oversight... They feared and hated big government to the point now our own people is the problem.
|May 1st, 2012||#114|
| || |
You have to pick a side because you can't have both.
Let's for a moment at least touch basis on the home defense nuts out there for a short spit of my opinionated statements...*maybe I should be a reporter?*
Let's for a second put concealed carriers in every home in America, every last apartment to two story house with a picket fence.
But let's look at some seldom mentioned trends.
* Criminals don't stay in crime ridden areas, it makes sense from a invader standpoint to pick a higher income area.
* Criminals only want your valuables. Also false, they also want you guns, the ones you leave in your truck, shed or wherever you fasley deem secure, once escaping you have lost not only your firearm, but compound this fact with the trend that seldom owners keep up with their serial numbers, but now you have also armed a criminal for future commission of crimes.
* Criminals are completley dettered by the fact you practise and carry. False, some people are in fact so derranged not to flee if you brandish a weapon at them, forcing you, the defender of your home to make some very very split second decsions that can either get you killed or serving a life term for 1st degree.
Especially if the thug has buddy to testify against you. Or he can survive and sue you.
* Criminals won't rob an armed populace. This is the biggest false notion. Take a look at a warzone for a moment. During the Iraq war, militants with no formal military training would sometimes seek engaging a heavily armed and highly trained military power, like the U.S. or British armed forces deployed there.
Point is, they would often steal equippment and weapons from wounded or killed fighting men for their own use.
Figure this, even in extreme circumstances, if sometimes illiterate part time militants are willing to risk death against a world power because they want something.
Then what stops your neighbor hood thug from crawling in your window? Whether you implore them or not?
Especially with a hardened criminal fresh out of incarceration without anything to loose for instance.
My underlining message here, is crime adapts just like the armed defender adapts.
If we had weapons in every home, we would have armed criminals at every window at almost every break in.
Last edited by Yossarian; May 2nd, 2012 at 00:10..
|May 2nd, 2012||#115|
| || |
Lol, that is why I am completely against the theory guns reduce crimes. Of course if guns are everywhere it means the criminals are definately going to be armed when they attempt a crime.
The fact is you can stop/reduce significantly mass slayings such as Virginia Tech by banning firearms. Of course then they would use something else like knives, but do you realize how difficult (if not impossible) it would be to kill 30 people out in the open with a knife?
This is why I lean more to banning firearms, especially hanguns, which serve no purpose other then to kill other humans. Of course I am completely in touch with reality that I do not believe I will see such a day in U.S. Anyone who dares touch or hint at touching the U.S will not be elected. Thanks to this stubborness, we will always have crime like these at ratios much higher than those who ban firearms.
|May 2nd, 2012||#116|
| || |
Banning firearms will only make the situation worse and banning specific firearms is just plain silly as you can kill someone with a musket just as easily as you can kill them with an AK, to solve the problem you need to change the way people think and act just as has been done with things like drink driving.
In the end however you will never stop people killing each other no matter what you do all you can realistically achieve is to minimise the problem.
We are more often treacherous through weakness than through calculation. ~Francois De La Rochefoucauld
|May 2nd, 2012||#117|
| || |
Banning handguns will only affect the law abiding, which means they will be defenceless against armed criminals who will get what they want, when they want.
Adversus solem ne loquitor
|May 2nd, 2012||#118|
| || |
Agreed , people will be people, and I do not know a single type of firearm today that autonomously goes around killing people without a trigger puller.
Driving kills people as well, but our society would collaspe if you told them no more motor vehicles.
It's really just evident now it's a mindset, a behaviour, it's almost child like in some regards.
|May 2nd, 2012||#119|
| || |
I hate to double post.
But news just flashed this on every major media outlet.
"Crazed Gunmen in body armor shoots 4 in Arizonia".
My reply: how is the weather in New Zealand this time of year?
|May 2nd, 2012||#120|
| || |
Hmm well it is fine and sunny but rather chilly right now.
One thing to remember in all this is that you have 300 million people and we have 4.2 million so even though you have more crazies by volume we have just as many per capita.
|Shiites, Sunnis should work hand in hand|
|Favorite hand to hand combat scene(s)|
|Who are the best hand to hand combat warriors in the world?|