Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 80
  1. #21  
    nobody committed a massacre with a cricket bat, and as for being invaded - surely that's what the armed forces are for?
    Animo et Fide
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    nobody committed a massacre with a cricket bat, and as for being invaded - surely that's what the armed forces are for?
    Try answering the question. I did not say anyone was massacred w/ a cricket bat, I said what if. Using your logic they should be banned if they are used to kill.

    And as for being invaded I said an "overwhelming force". I was assuming incorrectly I guess that you would understand that to mean too much for your armed forces to handle.What if your armies are away fighting a war somewhere and youre invaded? I guess it will be the Bobby's that protect you? Whistles and funny hats are very helpful against armed invaders.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Try answering the question. I did not say anyone was massacred w/ a cricket bat, I said what if. Using your logic they should be banned if they are used to kill.

    And as for being invaded I said an "overwhelming force". I was assuming incorrectly I guess that you would understand that to mean too much for your armed forces to handle.What if your armies are away fighting a war somewhere and youre invaded? I guess it will be the Bobby's that protect you? Whistles and funny hats are very helpful against armed invaders.
    But your question was daft. A cricket bat isn't designed to kill people and it's very inefficient at doing so, I never said that anything that can be used to kill people should be banned, that is an absurdist line of reasoning as practically anything can be used. It's things which are designed to kill people that are the problem. As to other things which can kill, yes there are also laws concerning swords and knives here, not as strong because knives also have a different purpose than killing.

    As for being invaded by an "overwhelming force", that is also an argument with no basis in reality. If a war looks likely and defending the country is necessary then I'd join the army. I mean, what's your question based on? Alien invasion or something? I can't think of a real situation that would be that sudden.
    Animo et Fide
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Try answering the question. I did not say anyone was massacred w/ a cricket bat, I said what if. Using your logic they should be banned if they are used to kill.

    And as for being invaded I said an "overwhelming force". I was assuming incorrectly I guess that you would understand that to mean too much for your armed forces to handle.What if your armies are away fighting a war somewhere and youre invaded? I guess it will be the Bobby's that protect you? Whistles and funny hats are very helpful against armed invaders.
    Regardless of your somewhat aggressive attitude, PeterBrown does make 2 valid points.

    Firstly, there is an obvious distinction between a firearm and a blunt instrument - I would have a much better chance of disarming someone with a cricket bat if I didn't have such a bat myself than I would of disarming someone with a gun if I didn't have a gun. Also, if cricket bats were banned, there are an almost infinite number of alternative blunt instruments which can be used just as effectively, rendering such a ban useless. There are, however, fewer alternatives to firearms - bows, crossbows, catapults maybe.

    Secondly, what makes you think that any force able to overwhelm today's modern armed forces is going to be bothered by a few civilians with guns? How long do you think you will be able to hold out against a tank, a plane or a cruise missile with your Uzi? We also have the Territorial Army - what Americans call, I believe, reserves - and the police can be armed, if necessary.

    I am much happier living in a county where firearms (mostly) are banned.
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    But your question was daft. A cricket bat isn't designed to kill people and it's very inefficient at doing so, I never said that anything that can be used to kill people should be banned, that is an absurdist line of reasoning as practically anything can be used. It's things which are designed to kill people that are the problem. As to other things which can kill, yes there are also laws concerning swords and knives here, not as strong because knives also have a different purpose than killing.

    As for being invaded by an "overwhelming force", that is also an argument with no basis in reality. If a war looks likely and defending the country is necessary then I'd join the army. I mean, what's your question based on? Alien invasion or something? I can't think of a real situation that would be that sudden.

    Yes, daft is what I was thinking. Guns are not just designed for killing people. They have other uses as well. I compete in various target competitions with guns. Hard for you to imagine I am sure, but our targets are not people. (we use bowling pins alot). Plus you have to be completely daft to think that if criminals started using cricket bats as a weapon of choice, they wouldn't be banned or at least restricted. Original intent of design has no bearing what so ever.

    As far as invasion goes, lets just imagine for a moment. The US and UK ar no longer allies. We end up in a war and we invade your country. We succeed in all but destryoing your military force and are going through the country rounding up people. Would you want to be able to defend yourself? Of course not, you would try to makes friend so we wouldnt kill you and be happy to be slaves to us. Why because you dont have a choice. You cant defend yourself against a military with cricket bats and golf clubs. Are you getting this yet?

    As far as joining the army, that usually takes time. They dont hand out guns at the recruiting office. At least not here they don't.

    Let's try another example. Lets say while the bulk of our army is off in Iraq, a large force of radical muslims decides to invade the us through the ridiculously ill guarded boarder with Mexico. Well they may kill a few people, but they wouldnt get far, because WE HAVE GUNS and would quickly wipe them out. Why do you think the terrorists don't invade?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by kmwmtd
    ...
    Secondly, what makes you think that any force able to overwhelm today's modern armed forces is going to be bothered by a few civilians with guns? How long do you think you will be able to hold out against a tank, a plane or a cruise missile with your Uzi? We also have the Territorial Army - what Americans call, I believe, reserves - and the police can be armed, if necessary.

    .....
    Yes you Brits thought that back in the 1770's too didnt you. "just a few locals with muskets, they can bother the Queens army" LOL. Ya whatever.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  7. #27  
    Baseball bats are used routinely in Northern Ireland in paramilitary attacks, but we don't ban them - although no-one plays baseball.
    As for your imagination, it's certainly very active. As I said earlier, there are no real circumstances in which I need to own a gun outside of being in the army.
    Animo et Fide
  8.    #28  
    ya I guess youre right. I'll just shut up. Really no point in arguing with someone who can't even use their imagination.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  9. #29  
    well I certainly don't want to get a gun because I'm scared of a B-movie scenario.
    Animo et Fide
  10. #30  
    "people are the danger not the weapons". Using this logic, I should be able own a nuclear bomb because:
    I am not planning on using it unless in self defense.
    I want to own one because it is cool to have one.
    They are a supreme machine made here in the US.

    "Do you have a problem with that?"
    Last edited by DHAnderson; 09/13/2004 at 09:25 PM. Reason: To fix a typo
  11.    #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    "people are the danger not the weapons". Using this logic, I should be able own a nuclear bomb because:
    I am not planning on using it unless in self defense.
    I want to own one because it is cool to have one.
    They are a supreme machine made here in the US.

    "Do you have a problem with that?"
    Hardly. However, most people are incapable of understanding the safe workings or handling of a nuclear weapon. Also they have no practical use other that the mass distruction of property and life. Guns on the other hand have a multitiude of uses.

    As you said earlier DH, your analogy isnt sound. Good try though.

    Next?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. #32  
    It was not an analogy, but an extension of your logic. If you can have a weapon because you want one and it is cool, why can't I have some other weapon because I want it and it is cool?

    There is no test for owning Assault weapons based on one's ability to understand its safe workings, so why bring that in?

    I'd appreciate if you could enlighten me on the multitude of uses for Assault weapons, outside of killing, and wounding of people (their primary design).
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Yes you Brits thought that back in the 1770's too didnt you. "just a few locals with muskets, they can bother the Queens army" LOL. Ya whatever.
    Completely different situation - that was essentially civil war, not an planned invasion. The army did not know who was for or against them - in fact, the wife of the man in charge of the local army is now widely believed to have been passing information on to the 'rebels', including the location of the armouries and troop movements. There were no modern comminications to organise actions, or call for reinforcements. The British garrisons were fighting 3 thousand miles away from Britain - reinforcements would have taken weeks to arrive.

    If I have to live in a country where there is a fractionally higher chance of an extremely unlikely invasion succeeding, but I don't have to worry about my next door neighbour shooting me because of a dispute over a fence, then I think I'll sleep soundly at night.

    By the way, people who finish their points with "Ya whatever" immediately lose 50 IQ points in my view. It's the equivalent of a 5 year old saying "You smell! So there!"
  14. #34  
    I don't know if you know about this case Woof, but I'll let you know I agree with the court verdict first before I tell you the details.
    In 1999 a farmer shot and killed a burglar at his remote farmhouse. The burglar was trying to get away and was shot in the back. The farmer claimed he shot in self-defence. He was convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (he had a paranoid personality disorder). This case prompted a lot of debate in the country and even an attempt to get a law passed in parliament to allow homeowners to defend themselves. Have a look and see what you think
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1627540.stm
    Animo et Fide
  15. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by kmwmtd
    By the way, people who finish their points with "Ya whatever" immediately lose 50 IQ points in my view. It's the equivalent of a 5 year old saying "You smell! So there!"
    LOL
  16. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #36  
    BTW woof, I love your new avatar.

    Whether you agree or not, one reason why many people in the US oppose the ban is the old adage "give'em an inch and they'll take a mile".

    Also, if you look at the numbers for the leading cause of death in the US you'll find that it is not guns. Here are some interesting numbers; Murder committed using firearms accounts for less than 10,000 victims and the accidental firearms death toll is little more than 1,000. About 120 or so kids under 14 are killed by gunshots.

    The medical system mortalities break down this way: adverse drug reactions: 106,000; medical error: 98,000; bedsores: 115,000; infection: 88,000; malnutrition: 108,000; outpatients: 199,000; unnecessary procedures: 37,136; surgery-related: 32,000. As Dr. Null explains, these are conservative estimates that do not attempt to overcome the considerable limitations of self-reporting regarding error and negligence.
    For the full story go here http://newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry35.htm. Now before you jump all over me for using a biased site you should know that I found this site from googling on +"leading cause of death" +guns and this link was at the top.

    The point is that a lot of people absolutely freak out about guns when they should be freaked out about a lot of other things that kill a whole lot more people.
  17. #37  
    Of course TxDot, and people are working hard all the time to improve medicine to help save lives, and if you compare mortality rates now with 30 years ago I'll bet they've improved. Another major killer is road accidents, for that reason modern cars are much safer now than they were say 30 years ago. The point is that you can't make a gun safer without making it unusable. All unnecessary death is a cause for concern.
    Animo et Fide
  18. #38  
    I was just wondering if someone can explain to me why an assault weapon is necessary for home defense? (This does not include the dude who's got 10 acres of prime sensemilla in Humboldt County.)
  19. TxDot's Avatar
    Posts
    892 Posts
    Global Posts
    916 Global Posts
    #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Of course TxDot, and people are working hard all the time to improve medicine to help save lives, and if you compare mortality rates now with 30 years ago I'll bet they've improved. Another major killer is road accidents, for that reason modern cars are much safer now than they were say 30 years ago. The point is that you can't make a gun safer without making it unusable. All unnecessary death is a cause for concern.
    The same thing can said about guns. There are many steps being taken to ensure that they can't be used in a way that was not intended. However, that doesn't mean that they won't be misused.

    My biggest problem with the ban is that it just flat out doesn't work. Two of the most horrific situations occured during this ban. 1) the two guys in body armour out in California 2) Columbine High School shooting. Point is the ban didn't stop these things from occurring.

    Someone else already pointed out earlier in this thread that only law abiding citizens obey the law and they're right. Criminals by definition do not obey the law so what good is the law other than to define what punishment can be meted out. The argument that the law is proactive is also bogus because it assumes that people are going to obey the law. Again, criminals by definition do not obey laws.
  20.    #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by DHAnderson
    It was not an analogy, but an extension of your logic. If you can have a weapon because you want one and it is cool, why can't I have some other weapon because I want it and it is cool?

    There is no test for owning Assault weapons based on one's ability to understand its safe workings, so why bring that in?

    I'd appreciate if you could enlighten me on the multitude of uses for Assault weapons, outside of killing, and wounding of people (their primary design).
    Have you read this thread. I said I competed in target competitions with my guns.

    There isnt a test for nukes either. What purpose would you have for owning a nuke? They have nuclear weapon dress up classes or something? No there is no other purpose for nukes, but there are for guns.
    Last edited by Woof; 09/14/2004 at 01:53 PM.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions