Firearms

[Fithos]

and yes, i value the life of a person (even one robbing me) than i value the cost of a few trinkets in my house. as long as they are alive they still have the ability to change.

That sounds very beautiful, but I think that's immoral as all hell.

how do you figure?

[Teek]

how do you figure?

I value life, too, but I value (necessarily) my own life more than another. If a man is willing to steal a few "trinkets" (for example, my stereo, television, car, etc.) I don't think he's valuing life much at all, and likewise I certainly don't value his life and put it above my own.

[Endless]

yuki kiro all weapons that are on the market have been sold legitimately at one point. either by the maker, store owner or someone else (unless the gun was stolen from the factory). at one point down this line one of these places may get robbed and the guns go on the black market.

but if you cut down the amount of people able to buy guns then you reduce the need for factories. so people have less chance of stealing from them. there are no stores to rob. so the only place left to get a gun from is imported. in doing this you have limited from where illegal guns can come from and just made the whole thing alot harder. now break smuggling and we have ourself a gun free country.

Err. You do realize that whatever regulations your country has, gun makers outside of your country don't give a damn? Better yet, what if some gun makers (*cough*EasternCountries*cough*) knew very well their weapons are used in the end for black market reselling and won't do anything about it? The only way it would work is if all the countries on Earth agreed to pass the same laws and have them in effect at the same time. chances of that happening? 0. Effect of a gun ban in a given country on the number of weapons on the black market? 0.

[Skyblade]

While what you are discussing may be logical in a military situation with limited forces at your disposal, anywhere else it is sheer lunacy. You are not at war with every single person in the world. Killing the gun owners would change nothing. It's not like the gun owners are going to come hunting you down while you are off robbing their neighbors. Just ignore the gun owners. There are enough people to rob who aren't gun owners that if you successfully robbed them, you could retire rich and happy forever. I mean, just how paranoid, insane, and trigger happy are you? Also, I hope you have a lot of practice with that gun. At least attacking non gun owners first you'd get used to your weapon in a situation where you need it to save your @$$.

i belive we are going after two different theoretical situations here. i was referring to a mass crime spree, or a neighborhood were everyone trys to help each other as best they can. what you are reffering to is a neighborhood were people dont seem to care what goes on.

also i am starting to think you think robberys only happen during the day. based on your "if i have gun ill be fine because ill have a chance to use it first" kick. the majority of robberys i hear about happen while your asleep, so unless you have a wierd subconcious about you that can shoot youe gun for you i dont think you will be any safer than the rest of us. so why get a gun? chances are it woulnt do you any good.

and yes, i value the life of a person (even one robbing me) than i value the cost of a few trinkets in my house. as long as they are alive they still have the ability to change.

Actually, the situation you are discussing would never come up. Even if there was a nice happy community where everyone helped each other (and, given our current society, whose situation do you really think is more likely?), chances are you could rob a house and be gone before the neighbors even knew you were there. I suppose if you were attempting to rob a utopian city of psychics your plan might be a good idea. Otherwise, it's just stupid.

I'd rather have a gun and no opportunity to use it than not have it and need it.

Why would the person change when they can keep stealing from dumb@$$es like you? I'm the one who is giving them a good reason to change their ways: if they continue on their current path, they'll wind up with a bullet in their head. My arguement is a lot more convincing than a "take everything I own, but please don't do it again".

[Fithos]

i dont recall saying i have no defences in my house. i just said i wouldnt support common gun use.

[quote]I value life, too, but I value (necessarily) my own life more than another. If a man is willing to steal a few "trinkets" (for example, my stereo, television, car, etc.) I don't think he's valuing life much at all, and likewise I certainly don't value his life and put it above my own.[quote]

acully, he is valuing his life. in the most common case people who are stealing are doing so to support themself for lack of money/food/whatever.

by the way, how old are you Skyblade?

[Lionx]

The meaning is that if the person went into a gunowner's home and KNOWs he has a gun..then very well damn he doesnt value his own life. Anyone that breaks into a home goes in with the risk that there might be dire consquences.

[Teek]

acully, he is valuing his life. in the most common case people who are stealing are doing so to support themself for lack of money/food/whatever.

But he does so at another's expense, which isn't much of a value for life in general. Considering that he could get those objects honestly, I don't have much pity for him. He (the criminal) disrespects all life (and mine most of all); I don't feel bad shooting the man who enters my house and lays claim on my life and its products.

[Madame Adequate]

by the way, how old are you Skyblade?

He's the one who's posting in lengthy sentences with good grammar and capitalized letters. I'm willing to wager you will lose where you are going with this.

i dont recall saying i have no defences in my house. i just said i wouldnt support common gun use.

So you only support ineffective, or at best questionably effective, means for self-defense?

[Skyblade]

i dont recall saying i have no defences in my house. i just said i wouldnt support common gun use.

I value life, too, but I value (necessarily) my own life more than another. If a man is willing to steal a few "trinkets" (for example, my stereo, television, car, etc.) I don't think he's valuing life much at all, and likewise I certainly don't value his life and put it above my own.

acully, he is valuing his life. in the most common case people who are stealing are doing so to support themself for lack of money/food/whatever.

by the way, how old are you Skyblade?

Why not support gun use? You prefer your defenses to guns. That's fine. That doesn't give you a right to say what I use to defend my house. I find a gun generally does the job, and it is cheaper and more efficient than mace, electric fences, cameras, digital security systems, etc...

Actually, if the people need a TV, stereo, or my mother's jewelry collection to live, I figure they're beyond help anyway. Besides, haven't they heard of asking? Not once has someone come up to me and said "Do you have any spare home entertainment systems or jewelry that you could donate to a person in need?" I'm not a total insensitive @$$hole (ok, I probably am). I would at least consider such a request.

It's impolite to ask that of a lady. Now, one might argue that I'm not a lady. This is true, but I also do not believe in some forms of gender discrimination. If ladies don't have to give out their age, then men shouldn't have to either. Of course, this is a totally ridiculous coverup for the simple fact that I am not going to tell you. For one thing, I don't like giving out personal information over the Internet (which is why my location is given as "Earth, approximately"). But what's more, it doesn't change the validity of my arguments at all. Just because logic fails you doesn't mean I'm going to help you pass your ridiculous claims off by giving you the ability to make comments such as "he's so old he's senile", or "he's too young and stupid to know what he's talking about". If you can't actually win arguments without turning this into an attempt at character assassination, you should give up now. I'm certainly not going to help you in such a pursuit.

[Teek]

I'm certainly not going to help you in such a pursuit.

Skyblade's nine, what.

[Skyblade]

I'm certainly not going to help you in such a pursuit.

Skyblade's nine, what.

...Ok... While your post in and of itself could be a coherent thought, coupled with the quote it makes practically no sense to me. Would you be so kind as to clarify that, my good sir?

[Teek]

You're nine years old.

[Skyblade]

And, out of curiousity, how did that single line that you quoted clue you in to that fact?

[Teek]

And, out of curiousity, how did that single line that you quoted clue you in to that fact?

Drop your damn defenses. I was playing around.

[Skyblade]

And, out of curiousity, how did that single line that you quoted clue you in to that fact?

Drop your damn defenses. I was playing around.

No, I'm just really curious why you chose to quote that single line...