Several Stabbed in Tokyo...(Dangers of a disarmed society)

**FallenWyvern** · 06-14-2008, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Where's the proof of this?

He lived there.

**FallenWyvern** · 06-14-2008, 12:17 PM

Not very logical argument to say that guns make you safer... Why not arm ourselves with automatic weapons or even tanks, why not give every one WMD's.... no one would ever rob my house if they knew I was gonna blow up the whole town!!! Stupid.

7 people dead at the hand of a manic is better than the 32 dead at VT. It would be pretty hard to kill 32 with a knife.

Saying that criminals will get guns anyways even if its illegal is quite moronic too. Kinda like saying that Mexicans are gonna come here anyways so might as well make them legal, or people are gonna do Meth no matter what the laws says, might as well make it legal....

My buddy was held up by a 12 year old with a gun. Do you really think a 12 year old would have access to a gun in Japan or the UK?

As far as keeping the government in check, that's dumb too. Do you really think you can do anything against a tank or a machine gun? I remember the Rodney King riots in LA. The national guard put everything on lock down. That was way more scary than the riots. I had no idea that they had so much power.

Guns are apart of America and they aren't going away.

**inheritmylife** · 06-14-2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by FallenWyvern

Not very logical argument to say that guns make you safer... Why not arm ourselves with automatic weapons or even tanks, why not give every one WMD's.... no one would ever rob my house if they knew I was gonna blow up the whole town!!! Stupid.

You really believe you are better able to defend yourself, your neighbors, and your personal property armed with only a telephone with 911 on quick dial than you are with a firearm?

**NotSmall** · 06-14-2008, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by FallenWyvern

Not very logical argument to say that guns make you safer... Why not arm ourselves with automatic weapons or even tanks, why not give every one WMD's.... no one would ever rob my house if they knew I was gonna blow up the whole town!!! Stupid.

7 people dead at the hand of a manic is better than the 32 dead at VT. It would be pretty hard to kill 32 with a knife.

Saying that criminals will get guns anyways even if its illegal is quite moronic too. Kinda like saying that Mexicans are gonna come here anyways so might as well make them legal, or people are gonna do Meth no matter what the laws says, might as well make it legal....

My buddy was held up by a 12 year old with a gun. Do you really think a 12 year old would have access to a gun in Japan or the UK?

As far as keeping the government in check, that's dumb too. Do you really think you can do anything against a tank or a machine gun? I remember the Rodney King riots in LA. The national guard put everything on lock down. That was way more scary than the riots. I had no idea that they had so much power.

Guns are apart of America and they aren't going away.

Let me explain your mistake here buddy - you are trying to use logic in a debate against someone who thinks that the solution to knife crime is to give everyone a gun...

**thegodfather** · 06-14-2008, 02:20 PM

The Anti-Gun people in this thread ought to watch these videos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM...eature=related

**thegodfather** · 06-14-2008, 02:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3Ede...eature=related

**thegodfather** · 06-14-2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by NotSmall

Let me explain your mistake here buddy - you are trying to use logic in a debate against someone who thinks that the solution to knife crime is to give everyone a gun...

Is that as logical as the people who think the solution to violent crimes is to disarm every law abiding citizen in the country? UK's violent crime is UP since outlawing firearms, states within the United States violent crime is DOWN since encouraging conceal&carry of firearms in those states.

Obviously many of you are unfamiliar with a Realist theory called the Security Dilemma. We use this term in politics to describe a situation where there is Actor A and Actor B. If Actor A upgrades his armament, because we are using a realist lense to examine the world, Actor B cannot look at Actor A's ideals, views, or feelings, they can only look at Actor A's CAPABILITY to use that weapon against them, so Actor B must upgrade his armament to equal or greater. This means that if a large percentage of CRIMINALS (Actor A) have handguns/rifles/etc, then Actor B (Law Abiding Citizens) must also have the same weapon. Your logic is flawed when you talk about citizens having tanks, in that the majority of criminals do not own tanks and dont have access to them, if they did I would encourage all law abiding citizens to have tanks. Additionally, in our UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION there is no amendment which prohibits a law abiding citizen from owning a tank, so if a citizen would like to own a tank, I have no reasonable objection to it.

If you guys in the UK and elsehwere in the EU and other countries like gun control, and being prey to criminals, that is fine. Just do not come into a thread and try to push your Socialist agenda unto us.

**DSM4Life** · 06-14-2008, 02:33 PM

God, now lets just say this happened in America where he could have easily purchased a gun, the number of deaths would have been well over 7 people.

Unfortunately the stupid outweigh the responsible people in the U.S of A.

**inheritmylife** · 06-14-2008, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

God, now lets just say this happened in America where he could have easily purchased a gun, the number of deaths would have been well over 7 people.

Unfortunately the stupid outweigh the responsible people in the U.S of A.

That's possible, but far from a certainty.

**inheritmylife** · 06-14-2008, 03:07 PM

I'd rather have liberty than a marginal amount of safety any day.

**thegodfather** · 06-14-2008, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

I'd rather have liberty than a marginal amount of safety any day.

+1.....

**Coop77** · 06-14-2008, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

I'd rather have liberty than a marginal amount of safety any day.

That statement sounds like you agree less guns = more safety.

**soulstealer** · 06-14-2008, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by Coop77

That statement sounds like you agree less guns = more safety.

then obviously you need to google the definition of liberty...

**inheritmylife** · 06-14-2008, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by Coop77

That statement sounds like you agree less guns = more safety.

No, I'm not saying that less guns equals more safety, not necessarily.

It seems the studies are contradictory anyways. Although, from what I've read, in western countries, more gun control means more violent crime. But that isn't universal, it isn't always the case.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't care whether or not it does or doesn't. I believe that I have the right to defend myself and my property by any means necessary. That goes for you too. I'm not going to try to kill you with a knife, or break into your house and rape your daughter, so why would I give two shits whether or not you decided to have an AR-15 in your closet?

**thegodfather** · 06-14-2008, 10:14 PM

WATCH THIS VIDEO!!!!!!!

Alan Keyes sums this up nicely...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nBK...eature=related

**Coop77** · 06-14-2008, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by soulstealer

then obviously you need to google the definition of liberty...

I didn't say anything about liberty.
inheritmylife's statement implied that gun control brings "a marginal amount of safety", that he's willing to trade for more freedom. .. oh nevermind. Who cares.

I totally agree that no gun control whatsoever would mean more individual liberty. So would abolishing speed limits, legalizing drugs, prostitution, child pornography, or anything else. Every law that exists takes away someone's freedom to do something. Sometimes infringing individual freedom is necessary for the good of society as a whole.

**Coop77** · 06-14-2008, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

The point I was trying to make is that I don't care whether or not it does or doesn't. I believe that I have the right to defend myself and my property by any means necessary. That goes for you too. I'm not going to try to kill you with a knife, or break into your house and rape your daughter, so why would I give two shits whether or not you decided to have an AR-15 in your closet?

Because you don't know if I'm a psycho or not. What if that dude in Japan had an AR-15 in his closet. Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally and killed 32 people with them in 9 minutes. Ironically he wouldn't have been able to do that in his native Korea.

**SMCengineer** · 06-14-2008, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Coop77

Because you don't know if I'm a psycho or not. What if that dude in Japan had an AR-15 in his closet. Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally and killed 32 people with them in 9 minutes. Ironically he wouldn't have been able to do that in his native Korea.

...legally, that is. Illegally he would have had no problem getting it and you can bet someone that deals guns on the black market isn't doing background checks.

**Coop77** · 06-14-2008, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Blome

...legally, that is. Illegally he would have had no problem getting it and you can bet someone that deals guns on the black market isn't doing background checks.

That's debatable. Your typical mental case isn't a well connected gangster. From what I understand, like in Japan, they do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of the hands of the common schmo, and have the crime rates to prove it.

**SMCengineer** · 06-14-2008, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by Coop77

That's debatable. Your typical mental case isn't a well connected gangster. From what I understand, like in Japan, they do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of the hands of the common schmo, and have the crime rates to prove it.

That's implying that you have to be a well connected gangster to be part of illicit black market activity, which we all know is not true.

**inheritmylife** · 06-15-2008, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Coop77

I didn't say anything about liberty.
inheritmylife's statement implied that gun control brings "a marginal amount of safety", that he's willing to trade for more freedom. .. oh nevermind. Who cares.

I totally agree that no gun control whatsoever would mean more individual liberty.

So would abolishing speed limits, legalizing drugs, prostitution, child pornography, or anything else. Every law that exists takes away someone's freedom to do something. Sometimes infringing individual freedom is necessary for the good of society as a whole.

Piss poor argument.

Liberty does not allow depriving another of their life or property.

**inheritmylife** · 06-15-2008, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Coop77

Because you don't know if I'm a psycho or not. What if that dude in Japan had an AR-15 in his closet. Seung-Hui Cho bought his guns legally and killed 32 people with them in 9 minutes. Ironically he wouldn't have been able to do that in his native Korea.

If he wanted to kill 32 people he could have done it like Richard 'iceman' Kukliski. He killed more than 60 people, one at a time.

He rarely ever used a firearm.

**inheritmylife** · 06-15-2008, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Coop77

That's debatable. Your typical mental case isn't a well connected gangster. From what I understand, like in Japan, they do a pretty good job of keeping guns out of the hands of the common schmo, and have the crime rates to prove it.

Their crime rates are a reflection of their ethnicity and culture, not gun control policies.

**Coop77** · 06-15-2008, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

Piss poor argument.

Liberty does not allow depriving another of their life or property.

If you're saying if someone takes your gun away they're depriving you of your life, that's a stretch.

A lot of Americans seem to have their own concept of what "liberty" is, which is usually some vision of stars and stripes and whatever they think America stands for, and not the literal meaning of the word. If you want the most liberty, freedom from government control, look to some country like Somalia that has virtually no enforced law at all. You can have all the guns you want there. You can carry a machine gun around with you if you like. Of course they are in a state of total chaos, but freedom & liberty abound.

**Coop77** · 06-15-2008, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by inheritmylife

If he wanted to kill 32 people he could have done it like Richard 'iceman' Kukliski. He killed more than 60 people, one at a time.

He rarely ever used a firearm.

Yes, you can kill someone without using a firearm. It's much easier with a firearm though.

**thegodfather** · 06-15-2008, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by Coop77

I didn't say anything about liberty.
inheritmylife's statement implied that gun control brings "a marginal amount of safety", that he's willing to trade for more freedom. .. oh nevermind. Who cares.

I totally agree that no gun control whatsoever would mean more individual liberty. So would abolishing speed limits, legalizing drugs, prostitution, child pornography, or anything else. Every law that exists takes away someone's freedom to do something. Sometimes infringing individual freedom is necessary for the good of society as a whole.

Driving, is a priviledge and not a right. Therefore limits on the speed that you can travel are legitimate.

Firearms, are a 2nd Amendment inalienable right, meaning that you are endowed with the right to own a firearm from your creator. You obviously missed my example with the Security Dilemma, look it up and you will understand a bit better. Your arguments are nonsensical and ignore all the empirical evidence for the right to bear arms that exists.

Furthermore...

1)Speed limits exist, yet there are those people who speed and disregard these limits, they are called criminals.

2)Prohibition of drugs exist, yet drugs are readily available, and their enforcement is quite heavy, however drugs are here to stay.

3)Prostitution is one of the oldest professions on Earth. There is also no Constitutional provision for prohibiting a woman to sell her body. Actually, prohibiting this profession instead of regulating it and ensuring testing, makes the public safety danger more pronounced than if it was a legalized and regulated industry. Regardless, Prostitution is illegal, and this law enforced, yet many people will have no problem finding a prostitute.

What does this all mean? Where there is a demand, there WILL be a market. Guns are HERE TO STAY! Just as are Nuclear weapons, and a host of very unpleasent things that we could say in an "ideal world" wouldn't exist. Because of this fact, and ignoring any idealized liberal fervor, it is a necessary provision for LAW ABIDING citizens to be able to exercise their god given RIGHT to own firearms, any kind of firearms, and to carry them with them any place that they deem appropriate without restriction. The reason that 'gun control' and even having to obtain a PERMIT for a firearm is unconstitutional, is because needing to obtain a PERMIT implies having to get PERMISSION to exercise a RIGHT. You do not need PERMISSION to exercise free speech. The government does not GIVE YOU YOUR RIGHTS, the government is RESTRICTED from infringing on your rights, therefore ENSURING your rights. You no more should need a permit to own and carry a firearm, as you do to protest or speak harshly of your government under the 1st Amendment.

Many of the examples that you pointed to also failed to meet the litmus test proving that prohibition is effective even when enforced. So, you must really decide whether you support legislation which makes people much easier to be victimized or not.

**inheritmylife** · 06-15-2008, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Coop77

If you're saying if someone takes your gun away they're depriving you of your life, that's a stretch.

A lot of Americans seem to have their own concept of what "liberty" is, which is usually some vision of stars and stripes and whatever they think America stands for, and not the literal meaning of the word. If you want the most liberty, freedom from government control, look to some country like Somalia that has virtually no enforced law at all. You can have all the guns you want there. You can carry a machine gun around with you if you like. Of course they are in a state of total chaos, but freedom & liberty abound.

No, I'm saying it's depriving you of your property.

My concept of liberty is my right to exercise free will so long as I don't deprive another of their rights.

As for your Somalia example, I agree that government is necessary to protect peoples ability to exercise those rights. I like government, government is a good thing. It is supposed to enforce private property rights and to protect us from murderers and thugs if we are unable to protect ourselves. They don't have that in Somalia, they have anarchy. No system of common law, no recourse for people who are being coerced by others.

So I'll concede that governments are necessary and good, but I believe that the individuals right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally important to human liberty, as well as the effective function of government. But that's a whole other argument...

**inheritmylife** · 06-15-2008, 11:53 AM

If you're interested in a great explanation of the purpose and scope of government, and a relatively brief (4 or so hours

)description of the American system of government, check out these videos.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...KTuaC1Dw&hl=en

That's part 1. There are 5 or 6 of them. Very interesting stuff.