Conquer Club

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..

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..

MeDeFe wrote:It's a really reliable newssource.

MeDeFe wrote:It's a really reliable newssource.

pimpdave wrote:

MeDeFe 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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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?

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."

GabonX wrote:Look at the post above this. Their's something like 42 other sources with the same story for you to choose from.

pimpdave wrote:Note that when reading The Sun, it is impossible to get past page 3.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

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.

Ahhh, this old chestnut... another age-old question that the gun-lovers usually ignore or sidestep.

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?

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

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.

Ahhh, this old chestnut... another age-old question that the gun-lovers usually ignore or sidestep.

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?

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.

Ditocoaf wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Dancing Mustard wrote:

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.

Ahhh, this old chestnut... another age-old question that the gun-lovers usually ignore or sidestep.

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?

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.

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?