Search Results

Quote from S1919: “Assumption, and a wrong one at that. If you take the UK or Canadian gun crime statistics you'll find they are miniscule in comparison to that of the U.S, where guns are legal. Here, in the U.K guns are very difficult to get hold of. Criminals who want guns do not often have them. In the U.S, there are many more in circulation due to their legality and can be sold and circulated easily. By your logic, gun crime is not increased if guns are made legal. This is wrong. Again, no. …

Quote from DamnImGood: “It's not only about firing a weapon making you a target; the more people who have guns, the more people will be firing them, the more chances are someone innocent will get hit. It's just as easy for a bystander (well, not anymore) to fire, miss and hit someone as it is for a criminal.” Less people will be firing, as it will be far more risky for gangs to do anything violent around the public. As is the public are mere inconveniences in that they might get hit as opposed t…

Quote from Trogdor_74: “If a bank robber goes into a bank with the intention of robbing it, they have a weapon as a means of "negotiation", although they do not intend to shoot people. However, if somebody else in the bank pulls out a gun, to robber will shoot them.” Unless the armed civilian shoots them first, something that could easily be done. Quote from Trogdor_74: “Again, as I said, most minor criminals are more likely to turn violent if threatened. Bystanders will usually not get harmed. …

Quote from x-mercedes-x: “You completley missed the point, if guns were available for self defense then more people will have them, therefore it will also be easier for those who are interested in crime to get hold of them, especially those without a previous record. Of course people are going to own them illegally but in a country with strict gun control it will be harder to get hold of them than it is in a country with no or little gun control, so yes it will increase serious crime. Just look …

Quote from LuklaAdvocate: “How about you read the rest of my post and you might get your answer (the answer to your question was in the sentence directly after this first quote). Only the government isn't going to be overthrown internally by a rebellion. Your government would crush it. Owning guns won't fix your "my liberties are being taken away" problem.Two entirely different situations. The American revolution was back in a time where large crowds of citizens couldn't be killed instantly; eve…

Quote from x-mercedes-x: “The more available guns are, the more gun crimes so the more people will want them for self defence, which again increases gun crime, it just goes on in a big circle so the whole "they should be legal for self defence" argument is just complete bollocks imo.” As I've already said, the people who would use guns for criminal activities are the ones least affected by gun control measures. And why would more people with guns for self defense increase gun crime? If anything …

Quote from Trogdor_74: “But in most cases guns will be used to murder and commit crimes.” And those who would use guns for such purposes are those who would continue to have access to firearms regardless of your attempts to ban their legal sale. Quote from Trogdor_74: “And civilians trying to destroy the government will most likely result in failure and unnecessary loss of life.” So instead we should take away the chance of anything happening and give the government the power to oppress civilian…

Quote from DamnImGood: “Impossible? Maybe. Difficult? For sure. In any case, the only purpose a gun serves is to kill or to destroy. Not a valid purpose in my eyes.” Or for leisure i.e. target/trap shooting etc. Regardless, this argument fails because it is based on the false premise that killing or destroying is necessarily a bad thing. Is it a bad thing if a gun is used to kill a rapist/murderer in self defense? Is it a bad thing if guns in the hands of civilians are used to destroy an oppress…

Quote from Trogdor_74: “What? Aren't there enough gangs with guns killing each other? You're suggesting this should be legal?” Doubtfully. He's probably suggesting something more along the lines of that people should be allowed guns to protect themselves from 'gangs with guns', perhaps including the government. Quote from DamnImGood: “Eliminate guns entirely then.” Not only impossible, but is a huge infringement upon human liberties and ignores the fact that guns serve a valid purpose.

Quote from Trogdor_74: “Why should you have the right to have a gun?” Hunting, target shooting, self defense, restriction on government power etc.

Quote from Corsan: “That is true, however i absolutely hate hate hate hate hate hate communism so much and it is completely wrong idealodgy for the Human Race, purely because the concept is completely misinterpretated and misused (i.e - Soviet Union / Russia - there is STILL poverty and uneven pay) and of course, due to human nature, too much control can insue - such as North Korea and historical and somewhat still today - Peoples Republic of China.” What do you mean 'too much control can ensue'…

Quote from burnakow: “It didn't work because the people of Israel were inherently "evil". They were inherently selfish” Lol at jewish stereotypes.

Quote from Esmo: “The nature of a government is to set and enforce laws that are in the best interests of the state. I would argue that widespread violence is not in the best interests of the state, whilst general peace is. Law enforcement need not be violent, only in the face of violence or in the standing of the way of enforcement.” Yes generally the government uses the threat of violence as opposed to outright violence, but by that logic a mugger is peaceful if he holds a gun to your head so …

Quote from Esmo: “Well, a theocracy in itself is not necessarily violent; theoretically it could be peaceful. Violence would only occur in fundamentally violent theocracies that allow their specified religion to define the great majority of elements in their country. Don't forget that technically countries like the UK has some theocratic elements to them. But overall I think a proper theocracy would generally be a bad thing.” Government, by it's very nature, cannot be peaceful. This is even more…

Quote from dude23: “What are the problems inherent in a theocracy?” The fact that you are using the threat of government violence to make people conform to your religious beliefs.

Quote from S1919: “They don't have to be 'polar opposites' They are simply examples of countries that have used mandatory military service and still good examples of democracy.” Which is, as I said, irrelevant. As Democracy is not opposed to communism in the same sense that capitalism is. It's also irrelevant because showing countries that have both a certain policy and which also have democratic policies doesn't address what the certain policy is. That's like saying the U.S. bailout package isn…

Quote from S1919: “Some good examples for those people who thought countries who practice it = communists.” Too bad democracy and communism aren't polar opposites like most people seem to think for some reason, making those examples irrelevant.

Quote from x-mercedes-x: “Mandatory military serive can be used in a democratic country as well so although some arguments may be used in a communist ideology, mandatory military service is not directly related to either the far left or far right political side.” That's because the left/right scale is meaningless. On a scale measuring individual freedom, it can be associated with one side of the spectrum, that side being the collectivist, anti-freedom side.

Quote from x-mercedes-x: “Before making such a ridiculous comment like that, two things:- 1. Look up communism 2. Look up mandatory military service And i think you'll find that the two are not related.” Well he's sort of right. Communism is a collectivist ideology and so are the arguments put forward here i.e. 'you owe it to your country/society'.

Quote from VoDKaMarine: “But you were talking about violnce from that, they will never use violence for that.” So how would they enforce the draft? Quote from VoDKaMarine: “And most of those who will be in the agencies will more than likely be draft dodgers themselves.” What does that have to do with it? And can whoever keeps giving those reputation comments actually address me on here as opposed to anonymously posting 'huuurrr, ur an idiot' on my profile?