How do you feel About Guns?

[EmperorJamesI]

The truth is right in front of me. Riiiiight.

Let's see here...
8,000 firearm deaths in the USA last year.

406,000 from tobacco.
116,000 from alcohol
106,000 from something called PharmCo
19,000 from other "miscellaneous illegal."
http://bbsnews.net/drug-deaths.html

Yet Europe is banning guns and decriminalizing drugs? Holy cow, boy! You guys got it backward!

[EmperorJamesI]

Guns may kill 8,000 people a year, but cars kill 42,000 a year. Cars are no more "necessary" to life than guns are; after all, we lived without cars for tens of thousands of years. Your problem is selective vision. You choose to focus on guns as some cause for crime, when they are not. They play no bigger part than swords once did or than knives do now. You're ignoring the problem; namely, that people feel motivated to commit crime, and focusing instead on one tiny aspect. You're looking at a person who has cancer and obsessing over the fact that their skin has a lump on it; examining the symptom rather than the underlying cause. Blaming guns for ANYTHING is a flawed assumption and an illogical jump to conclusions.

[Väinämöinen]

EmperorJamesI wrote:
I find it truly ironic that Europe prides itself on being liberal. What's the basic tenet of liberalism? That people can do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. So how is me owning a gun hurting anyone else? You incredible hypocrite.

Freedom must have limits. In this case, State interest is more important than the right of the individual. That´s what I say, and that´s what European law says. You just happen to have an old and crazy law.

Is everything allowed in the USA? Of course not.

Why are automatic weapons forbidden for instance?

I will be patient with you. A small example.

If I have a test tube of with 10 grams of smallpox virus in my fridge, very safely wrapped, how is that hurting anyone? The answer is, it´s not as long as it stays in the tube. It´s completely 100% harmless. Much safer than a gun in fact. But it´s the POTENTIAL that the State is concerned with. That´s why the State takes away my freedom to have smallpox virus in my fridge, no matter how responsible I am as a person or how well it is wrapped. Anything else would be crazy.

Regarding the US economy versus the Europe economy, let´s not go there!!!

[EmperorJamesI]

Väinämöinen wrote:
That´s what I say, and that´s what European law says.

And because Europe believes it, everyone in the world should believe it. There you go again.

Why are automatic weapons forbidden for instance?

Congratulations, you just proved my entire point. Automatic weapons are not as efficient for self-defense as handguns, which is why handguns are allowed why semiautomatic weapons are not. The whole point of the law is self-defense, not allowing people to carry dangerous things.

But it´s the POTENTIAL that the State is concerned with.

Your president/prime minister has the potential to start a war with Russia tomorrow. The United States has the potential to nuke Finland into the Arctic Sea. When you go out driving, you have the potential to be killed in a car accident. Everything in life has the POTENTIAL for risk. If you dwell on that, you'll never get anything out of life. Abuse is no argument against proper use.

Regarding the US economy versus the Europe economy, let´s not go there!!!

Quite right, because this isn't an economic debate However, you were the one who brought it up, claiming that guns ruined our economy, so perhaps you would care to back up this statement with proof before letting it drop.

[Väinämöinen]

[EmperorJamesI]

PPS, if you oppose guns because people die from them, the EU should be banning the cars and keeping the guns, not the other way around As for us here in the US, we'll keep our guns, because our country obviously hasn't fallen apart yet.

[Väinämöinen]

EmperorJamesI wrote:
And because Europe believes it, everyone in the world should believe it. There you go again.

No, that´s not what I mean. You really can keep them if you want them. But it´s not for us.

Automatic weapons are not as efficient for self-defense as handguns, which is why handguns are allowed why semiautomatic weapons are not. The whole point of the law is self-defense, not allowing people to carry dangerous things.

That´s what you say. What if I believe they are much better for self-defense? Why you want to take away that freedom? After all, each person knows better than the state what is good self defense weapon?? Right??

Your president/prime minister has the potential to start a war with Russia tomorrow. The United States has the potential to nuke Finland into the Arctic Sea. When you go out driving, you have the potential to be killed in a car accident. Everything in life has the POTENTIAL for risk. If you dwell on that, you'll never get anything out of life. Abuse is no argument against proper use.

I am certain the EU considers the cost of private gun ownership on society versus the benefits. So far the results have been that guns are NOT introduced into European homes by the governments. Nor has ownership become easier.

Could you tell me why that is, if common ownership of guns is such a good thing?

Why is there big movement in the USA to outlaw guns? These people are all scared and irrational idiots too?

Quite right, because this isn't an economic debate However, you were the one who brought it up, claiming that guns ruined our economy, so perhaps you would care to back up this statement with proof before letting it drop.

No, I just said "drag" without any other proof. I´m sure you have some figures to show that guns as a total boost the US economy!

I don´t have any figures to show that bad roads, bad telephone service, lack of doctors and schools is a drag on Burundis economy.

It doesn´t mean that I will think that Burundis excellent highway and phone system, health care and schools are a boost to burundi´s economy.

Even if someone says "SOURCE FOR THAT!!!!!" "prove it!!! otherswise you LOSE!!" on the internet.

[Väinämöinen]

EmperorJamesI wrote:
Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

Like i said.. you go ahead keep them! We don´t want them

[Väinämöinen]

[EmperorJamesI]

That 8,000 looks pretty miniscule now, I have to admit. And actually, given that Finland's population is 1/60th of the US's, multiply each of those above numbers by 60 to see how they compare to the US's figure of 8000 homicides. Five and a quarter million burglaries, anyone?

[Väinämöinen]

[EmperorJamesI]

Väinämöinen wrote:
You can write that if you want too. But do people take you seriously?

Some might. Do people take you seriously when you say guns are bad for the economy?

I actually don´t care if you´re not convinced. You seem very determined not to change your mind

Because I'm already convinced I have the right answer, and all the sources I've posted prove that to be correct. This isn't the first time I've had this debate, it's not the tenth and it's probably not the twentieth. I've been through all this before, and my beliefs have been a trial by fire. In light of all the evidence out there, my opinion seems to me to be the only logical one to have. Hence why I have it.

Why shouldn´t I be allowed to assault someone who tries to kill me? If you outlaw assault weapons then only the criminals have them.

Why indeed. Note that I didn't ever say I favored the assault weapons ban; in fact, statistics have shown that the number of killings and robberies with assault rifles went up after the ban was enacted. Just like the number of burglaries and firearm homicides in England and Australia went up after they banned handguns. If you know your victim won't be armed, or won't be armed as well as you, that sure takes the risk out of attacking them, doesn't it?

Why don't twice as many guns equal twice as many homicides?
Home soldiers, like I said before.

But you just admitted that simply owning guns does not make people more likely to commit crimes or murders. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole debate. The fact that they're soldiers just means they know how to use guns responsibly, and they don't use them on a whim. That's the way all gun owners should be, and if they were that way, we wouldn't even have to have this debate.

Israel has a draft too. They could have the same system. I don´t know though

Israel does have mandatory military service, yes. But after people leave the military, they're allowed to keep their guns. Most of those rifles do not belong to people who are in the military, yet they're not killing people. Owning guns does not equal more murders. Israel is a dangerous place; I dare say people need a gun for protection more there than anyplace in the world.

I´m sorry. USA still has higher levels of gun murders than Finland. Nocthing you say can change that fact.

Finland has a higher level of non-gun murders than the USA. What's your point?

Which would you prefer:

a) being killed by handgun

What do you have to do in order to be killed by a handgun, though? People own guns for defense, so if you get killed by a gun, it's probably because you're threatening them. 90% of those killings are in the inner city anyway, and are a result of gangland violence. You keep thinking that it's basically the same process between picking a robbery victim and picking a murder victim. Robberies are random, gun killings never are. Draw a distinction, please, in the interest of accuracy.

[HymnToLife]

I dont like guns.
A person should have a high controled temperament to got a gun, but I think not always is like that. There are many uncontrolled persons with guns out there.

[EmperorJamesI]

That's the main problem. I don't think, though, that banning them (as was suggested earlier) is fair to the 79,900,000+ Americans who use them responsibly every year. 80 million people own then and only 8,000 kill someone with them, that says a lot about the maturity of American society. If only one in ten thousand abuses something with as much potential for abuse as a gun, that's pretty good.

[Väinämöinen]

[EmperorJamesI]

And no one yet has addressed how banning guns is beneficial (or FAIR) to the 79,992,000 gun owners in the US who kill no one each year.

[Väinämöinen]

[EmperorJamesI]

Do more research. Washington has a total ban on handgun ownership, so obviously it's gun CONTROL that's not working.

[Väinämöinen]

[EmperorJamesI]

Speaking of Washington, let's discuss where they get illegal things. As you may know, drugs are illegal here in the US too. They're illegal in most countries in the world, in fact. So how do they get to the US? Legality has nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. If guns were illegal in the entire US, people would get them from other places, the exact same as drugs. That's why I keep saying, if you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns, and the people who would actually use them for a GOOD PURPOSE (that being self-defense) won't have them.

[Väinämöinen]

Anyway, I don´t care what you have in the USA as long as it´s not that bad here. Keep your guns, really, I don´t care!!

[EmperorJamesI]

Väinämöinen wrote:
but talk about straw man argument

On the contrary. You say guns cause high violence, I say blacks do. (I don't really, but for the sake of argument, pretend I do.) I have more proof for my argument: South Africa has the highest murder rate in the world. Is it the guns, or is it the people?

You say that crime is higher in societies where there are guns. I say crime is higher in societies where there are blacks. You say ban guns, I say ban blacks. What's the logical difference? Calling it a strawman doesn't change the fact that it uses the same logic as your approach to guns, and the fact that you view it as absurd shows how I view your opinion regarding guns.

For instance, you just made a naive argument for legalizing all drugs.

I did nothing of the sort. Name me one positive effect of using drugs. I can name one positive effect of using guns: they prevent 2.5 million crimes per year. There's a good reason to own firearms (self-defense), there's no good reason to use drugs. This is where your logic breaks down.

Anyway, I don´t care what you have in the USA as long as it´s not that bad here.

Then why do you keep trying to insist guns are going to be the death of America?

[Väinämöinen]

EmperorJamesI wrote:
That's what your approach to crime would dictate.

I just want to say again, I don´t want to try to run things in your country. If you guys want to keep the guns out in the population in the USA, I don´t care. Really I don´t!

If I was very cynical I could say it´s maybe better for us in Europe if you guys bleed yourselfs to death instead of competing well with us over here! But I really feel sorry that there is so much violence over there, I wish there were less guns in the USA but I am not going to change it for you guys.

Peace dude!

[EmperorJamesI]

And peace to you. Thanks for participating, and as always when I debate, please accept my apologies if I offended you personally.

[Väinämöinen]

[Väinämöinen]

Have to go tosleep. Have a good one over there!

[Stratofortress]

[browneyedgirl]

[/quote]

[Shurik]

"Israel does have mandatory military service, yes. But after people leave the military, they're allowed to keep their guns. Most of those rifles do not belong to people who are in the military, yet they're not killing people. Owning guns does not equal more murders. Israel is a dangerous place; I dare say people need a gun for protection more there than anyplace in the world."

I don't know who told you this, but you should stop trusting him from now on. I'm living in Israel for more than 10 years and I did the full 3 year military service and it's the funniest thing I've heard about my country ...

Also, Israel is just as dangerous as any other place in the world now. Gun will not save you from terrorism ...

[MetalMusic]

how do I feel about guns ?? ...depends if one is pointed at me ... they look pretty cool in design, especially when they are behind glass or away from people that think it might be pretty wild to try it out.

I'm sure if it wasn't the gun we invented we'd be using something even worse... well we do have bambo blow darts ... i'm sure we'd think of something to destory ourselves with if it wasn't guns ... but then again, the weapon has the same IQ as the user.

www.16.betrayer.ca