05-03-2002, 04:02 PM | #181 |
Dracolich
Join Date: August 28, 2001
Location: Hurricane Valley
Age: 51
Posts: 3,089
|
Well not much to say on tha subject, but if he was in the military
and was an acting solder then he had the right to have his weapon with him and to be carrying it. So in this instance that is to say he was an acting member of the military according to those anti gun people he was supposed to have his gun, by the way, who ended up stopping him from killing people was it the military or the police ? or was it a random citzen or citzens ? |
05-03-2002, 04:05 PM | #182 | |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
|
Quote:
Regarding your question, I can only say that if your aquaintance wanted to go out in a blaze of glory and a gun wasn't available, he would have chosen some other means... and there's a million different ways he could have done it, some of which may have killed MORE than the 17 unfortunate lives his violence cost. Columbine is a good example of the danger of attacking the tool instead of the root cause. If those boys hadn't been able to get guns they'd have no doubt put a lot more effort into the bomb phase of their plan (they had a number of them, but none were detonated), and bombs can be easily and inexpensively build that could have killed hundreds of kids in that school. In Israel it could be argued that terrorists use bombs because guns are ineffective. The reason guns are ineffective is because of the percentage of armed citizens... ready to react to meet their violence with overwhealming force. I would close with a counterquestion... how many would this guy have killed if even 10% of your populace were armed? [ 05-03-2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ] |
|
05-03-2002, 04:13 PM | #183 |
Account deleted by Request
Join Date: May 17, 2001
Location: .
Age: 38
Posts: 8,802
|
My opinion on the "Armed populace deals with lawbreakers/attackers" thing:
In times of war or, as in Isreal, heavy terrorism, it'd probably be a good thing for the majority of the populace to be armed. It'd discourage attackers and make the people safe. In times of more or less peace as the situation is now in the US I'd say that a heavily armed populace is a bad idea. It'll make things less safe. |
05-03-2002, 04:41 PM | #184 | |
Emerald Dragon
Join Date: January 3, 2002
Location: From Slovenia, in Sweden
Age: 42
Posts: 931
|
Quote:
__________________
At one time or another there will be a choice: you or the wall. (J. Winterson) |
|
05-03-2002, 04:51 PM | #185 | |
Silver Dragon
Join Date: March 4, 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN USA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,641
|
Quote:
__________________
Sir Taliesin<br /><br />Hello... Good bye. |
|
05-03-2002, 04:53 PM | #186 |
Ma'at - Goddess of Truth & Justice
Join Date: August 31, 2001
Location: Land of the Britons
Age: 37
Posts: 3,224
|
Well, although it was only hypothetical, it wouldn't really be all that hard to defeat them Spelca.
No matter how trained you are, a bullet in the head will kill you, trained soldiers aren't invincible, and being fitter, healthier and perhaps stronger won't help if you are riddled with bullets. Also, many people with their own guns are great marksmen with them. [ 05-03-2002, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Talthyr Malkaviel ]
__________________
Resident cantankerous sorcerer of the Clan HADB<br />and Sorcerous Nuttella salesman of the O.R.T<br /> <br /><br />Say NO to the Trouser Tyranny! Can I drill you about this? |
05-03-2002, 05:01 PM | #187 | |
Emerald Dragon
Join Date: January 3, 2002
Location: From Slovenia, in Sweden
Age: 42
Posts: 931
|
Quote:
__________________
At one time or another there will be a choice: you or the wall. (J. Winterson) |
|
05-03-2002, 05:10 PM | #188 |
Dracolich
Join Date: August 28, 2001
Location: Hurricane Valley
Age: 51
Posts: 3,089
|
I got a puddle of mud over here, care to join me
|
05-03-2002, 06:38 PM | #189 |
Gold Dragon
Join Date: March 29, 2002
Location: Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 2,534
|
Milamber, I am enjoying watching you disecting my posts point by point, so I'll give you another opportunity. I think there is some confusion in my argument, which I probably could have stated a little more clearly. I am not interested in the governments definition of mass destruction. No, a gun cannot kill whole cities at a time, but in the wrong hands in can by extremely devastating. I understand your point about recreational shooting with a gun, but a fail to see what possible use a 9mm fully automatic uzi with armour peicing rounds could be for hunting. Do you have many deer wearing Kevlar vests were you live? Most of the populace of the world is not responsible enough to own a firearm, but who is to determine that. A good portion of the populace shouldn't be driving either, but they still do. You can make all the laws you wish to control firearms, be people will still find ways to acquire them. There is no solution or law that will stop lunatics from going on a killing spree short of wiping the gun from existance. I have a hard time understanding how you perceive nuclear weapons to be a deterant. Give one to Hussein or Bin Laden and see what happens. The only thing that has stopped the use of nuclear weapons is the knowledge of the destruction they create.
I wonder what the world would be like if, instead of spending billions on creating a bigger better gun, we used the money for disease research or EDUCATION! Yes, if you give a chimp a gun and the chimp blows away a lab full of scientists it's not the guns fault, it's the idiot who gave him the gun in the first place. Perhaps spending some time educating people as opposed to killing them would be a good thing. I cannot turn on the news these days without hearing gunfire and explosions. How is this creating a better world? I agree with you on one point. Remove guns and people will find other ways of killing each other, but that's one step closer to solving the problem. To your previous point, yes I do enjoy my freedom and rights, but I do not need a gun to do so. Owning a gun for defense you say? Defense from what? Another gun. Guns have no place in creating a better society for everyone, and that's the goal we should all be striving for. WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Falkland Islands, Cuba, Serbia, Bosnia...the lists goes on and on. When is enough going to be enough? I thought we were more civilized than 50 years ago, but we insist on killing each other with guns. Again, not intended to insult I just enjoy the banter.
__________________
It\'s all fun and games until somebody loses an eye...then it becomes a sport.<br /> [img]\"http://members.shaw.ca/mtholdings/bsmeter.gif\" alt=\" - \" /> |
05-03-2002, 07:01 PM | #190 | |
Drow Warrior
Join Date: April 16, 2002
Location: Connecticut
Age: 40
Posts: 259
|
Quote:
__________________
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.<br /><br />-John Fitzgerald Kennedy |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What Instruments Do You Carry? | booklord | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 13 | 06-21-2004 11:06 PM |
How can I carry more? | Pinchit | Miscellaneous Games (RPG or not) | 13 | 01-03-2004 02:03 PM |
Carry -Over Items | LordSephiroth | Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal | 21 | 03-31-2003 02:02 AM |
Is It Better to Carry...... | dizzy | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 8 | 05-04-2002 12:58 AM |
Carry Over From GD Per Saz! | skywalker | General Discussion | 6 | 10-29-2001 03:04 PM |