GOP * 3

[TMA_1]

Self Defense is required from a biblical viewpoint, unless your a puritanical quaker. Look at David, he killed "His thousands" or Joshua. Killing woman and children alike in Canaan. Sometimes it is required to kill by god. Either by utter and absolute evil by the punishment of God, or by self defense. Also look at Moses, killing a horrible egyptian guard for torturing a hebrew slave. Or when he protected the nomadic Ammonites from thieves. I could go on about the lists.

[rogue1896]

[quote author=Acriku

[Gobalopper]

So if someone is about to kill me I should just let them do it instead of protecting myself? Be it with a gun or any other sort of weapon? The police can't be everywhere all the time.

[rogue1896]

yes, lol. j/k. go ahead and use your guns. just try to use non-lethal rounds. that way, you won't have the bullets and the non-lethal rounds won't kill innocent bystanders. btw, are non-lethal rounds available for the public yet?

[Edric O]

You're right TMA, but you know what, other things have happened in the mean time. Like, for example, someone called Jesus Christ preached some things... you know, the guy our religion is named after... ::)

Gob, can't you protect yourself in other ways than murdering your would-be murderer?

[Gobalopper]

Yes, there are many ways to disarm someone using a gun without actually killing them.

[SurlyPIG]

Gob, those stats are of things like theft, assault and car-jacking. Doesn't matter if they're higher - they have nothing to do with guns. Look at murder rates. Specifically those for second degree murder. If you plan on killing someone and you put your mind to it, you can and will do it. If you're pissed at someone and you have a nice little killing machine to run home and grab, the opportunity is right there waiting for you.

"Rape and murder rates are still higher in the United States - where gun ownership is prevalent - but the gap is narrowing."

you stop it at the point when the firepower outmatches that which the federal government uses.

Are you that dude in Arkansas who went to court over his "right" to own a rocket launcher? You believe that citizens should be able to own and operate everything the government does? Tanks, missles, fighters, nukes, subs, etc? LMAO.

Defense? BS. Total BS. They make tranquilizers and tasers for a reason you know. There's no need to own something that's designed ONLY to kill. You can own something designed to subdue. It's about vengeance. It's about "You tried to hurt me, so that gives me an excuse to kill you."

Ac, your arguement is contrary. You say that many people don't even use bullets, then you say they are necessary if you are forced to use them. Again, I go back to the point about tranquilizers and tasers. The benefits of them are amazing. Look at these scenarios for when, say, a mugger comes into your house:

1) You take a gun and shoot him. He dies.

2) You point a gun at him and he runs away. He gets away and is never caught.

3) You shoot him in the leg. He is unable to move. He falls down, leaving quite a mess on your carpet. Before he is arrested and charged he must be ambulenced away, costing money to pay for his health care that could be better spent on other things. He is in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.4) You shoot him with a tranquilizer. He starts to run but only makes it to your front lawn. He collapses, and you calmly call the police to take him away. No mess, no hospital

5) You stun him with your taser and knock him over the head. He's knocked unconscious. You call the police, he's taken away, everything is fine.

Later you find out that he was a Vietnam Veteran who went crazy from what he saw in the war and had escaped from a mental hospital and had almost no idea what he was doing. If you had shot him, he'd either be dead or handicapped for the rest of his life. How would you feel if you'd killed or seriously wounded a man who knew no better, and was only in the state he was in as a result of what your government had put him through in a brutal, brutal war? He might have been scared away, but not likely. If you'd used a REASONABLE (and that's the key word) method of defence, he'd have been subdued and returned to the hospital. Lets say, for sake of arguement, that he began to recover and live a normal life. He came back to your house 4 years later and apologised for what he had been told he'd done to you.

It's not likely to happen but I'm saying not every crook deserves to die at the hands of a gun-owner.

Am I saying you shouldn't be prepared to defend yourself? Absolutely not. On the contrary. You SHOULD be prepared to defend yourself. But not with lethal force.

[SurlyPIG]

Yes, there are many ways to disarm someone using a gun without actually killing them.

A gun is not a "disarming" machine or a subdueing-machine. Like I said above, you can, and I think you should, own something that's designed to subdue.

[Gobalopper]

Well I think it would depend on where you live. Here in Canada the chances of being robbed are almost nill in some places. Where I live now I wouldn't even think about buying a gun. But if you live in say the ghetto where the chances of you getting mugged or robbed are a lot higher having a gun to protect you makes a lot more sense. Things like tazers or tranquilizers don't work as well or as often. If I wanted to protect myself I would want something that would work almost all the time. Even just pulling out a gun, be it loaded or not, is enough to scare a lot of people away.

I'm not saying people should be allowed to own rocket launchers or uzi's unless they have a really good reason to. I can see why they might want to collect them but to actually use a rocket launcher to protect yourself is overkill.

[TMA_1]

sometimes the reality is that you need to kill or else you will be killed. Its really sad but its the way it works. I have seen old men that came back from the great war and they cry to themselves alone because of the men they killed. those men had to do what they did. the book of James says that war is sin, but the reality is this world is sin and we are all in sin as humans. It is unavoidable. Killing is evil but sometimes its the only thing we can do. Its horrible but true.

[Edric O]

NO. I refuse to sin just because some pathetic president and his aloof government orders me to.

If I have to choose between killing or being killed, I would choose to be killed.

[TMA_1]

there is nothing wrong with that. My grandpa served in the Great War and signed up as a conscientious objector. He was a medic and then was able to save people's lives instead of killing people. He earned a silver star among many other medals. He served the people just as much as any other fighter and saved lives. So for moral reasons thats perfectly fine. Now I disagree on one thing. If a robber or murderer came against my family. I would then have no choice but to defend others and my family.

[SurlyPIG]

Well I think it would depend on where you live. Here in Canada the chances of being robbed are almost nill in some places. Where I live now I wouldn't even think about buying a gun. But if you live in say the ghetto where the chances of you getting mugged or robbed are a lot higher having a gun to protect you makes a lot more sense. Things like tazers or tranquilizers don't work as well or as often. If I wanted to protect myself I would want something that would work almost all the time. Even just pulling out a gun, be it loaded or not, is enough to scare a lot of people away.

The thing is, a tranquilizer or a taser will work against anyone unless THEY have a gun. As long as you know how to use it, and have practiced enough, it'll work vs a guy with a knife, baseball bat, brass knuckles, whatever. If they have a gun it won't work, but in a gun fight, the advantage goes to the attackers anyway. Just look at robbery statistics. The 7-11 employee that pulls a gun on an armed intruder usually ends up dead.

[TMA_1]

actually tasers and other electric weapons work extremely well, even against fire arms. I meant that we shouldnt own guns that are more powerful than our government's weapons. You dont live in america so your whole arguments are silly. Stop writing about things yo udont understand in an american view point.

[SurlyPIG]

The concept might seem completely foreign to you but I know more than my fair share about your country. I get your media and news jammed down my throat every day, so why wouldn't I? Just because you don't know squat about my country doesn't mean I know nothing about yours.

Tasers are more difficult to aim at longer ranges, but that usually isn't a problem since most crime defense would be closed-quarters anyway. Tranquilizers are much slower to fire, so if you miss, and the intruder has a gun, you're kinda screwed. But since you have the "home court advantage," knock-out weapons can be quite effective.

[TMA_1]

Just because you know something doesnt mean you have wisdom on the subject. Wisdom comes through using your knowledge. You dont live in america so you cant understand what an american can understand on the subject. Even if I took an illiterate american citizen, he would know more than you on the basic dealings in american life. It is him that lives in the country. Your opinions mean nothing because your voice is worthless in america. YOu are not an american citizen. By defult your arguments are then a waste of time because you cant do anything about the points you argue on.

Also tasers are of course not as accurate as a gun. Most of the cases of assult with a gun are at very close distances. You should know that. It is a fact.

[TMA_1]

listen ace the arguments are worthless. You and I learn nothing from it. so Ill just leave it alone.

[SurlyPIG]

Just because you know something doesnt mean you have wisdom on the subject. Wisdom comes through using your knowledge. You dont live in america so you cant understand what an american can understand on the subject. Even if I took an illiterate american citizen, he would know more than you on the basic dealings in american life. It is him that lives in the country. Your opinions mean nothing because your voice is worthless in america. YOu are not an american citizen. By defult your arguments are then a waste of time because you cant do anything about the points you argue on.

Typical American bigotry...I suppose you're one of the people who suggested criminalizing Arabs. Exactly how different do you think Canada is? LMAO. I'm not the ignorant one here. I'll bet you think I live in an igloo as well. I don't have to live in your country to know what a taser does lol. Seriously how ignorant are you? You don't think there are guns here? You don't think there are criminals here? I don't know what you're trying to prove, other than that you're totally prejudiced.

Also tasers are of course not as accurate as a gun. Most of the cases of assult with a gun are at very close distances. You should know that. It is a fact.

I SAID THAT. Why don't you actually READ my post before flaming me for it.

[ethan]

1. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

2. You do not buy an object unless you wish to use it.

1 ^ 2 => People who own guns wish to kill. Whether it would be in self-defense, or hunting, it doesn't matter. The point is that THEY INTEND TO KILL.

Speaking of self-defense, TMA, you call yourself a Christian? There are no exceptions to the Ten Commandments. "Thou shall not kill". Not even in self-defense.

you stop it at the point when the firepower outmatches that which the federal government uses

Then you would have to give NUKES to everyone.

im sorry, Edric, but did you miss my post? i just and only target shoot. no animals, no people, just targets.

[TMA_1]

Nah gun laws would only cause problems. a hike up in crime rate would also increase. The illegal purchase of weapons by people who already have warrents for their arrests and whatnot. Its like the prohibition. The more you constrict, the more problems you have. American ideals are different than other nations. We want our freedoms and are really independant. We dont trust our government too much and thats how the founding fathers made it to be. After the rule of a king we wanted a nation that didnt constrict on people. Guns are more of a statement of our freedoms than a thing we need. They should stay because they symbolize our freedoms.

[ethan]

exactly. some people just break the law, because they think violating it is cool or the thing or somethin

[SurlyPIG]

You actually think your "founding fathers" ever DREAMED of things like columbine, the DC sniper, gang shootings, hold-ups, drive-by's and gun-murders? The "right" (and I use that term loosely) to "take up arms" was given so that you could own muskets to defend yourselves against the red coats. LOL. Yet here you are saying that you still need and want them over two centuries later.

Guns symbolize freedom? That's the most ridiculas thing I've ever heard. Your flag symbolizes freedom. A flag *IS* a symbol. A gun is ONLY supposed to kill. It does nothing else. It symbolizes war, loss, death and suffering. You think these are the fruits of freedom? If you look at a gun and see freedom, well then that's quite sad for you. A gun is wrath. Force. Not freedom.

[TMA_1]

we disagree there. At the same time though the founding fathers would be surprised at a lot of things america has done. Columbine was caused by kids not by guns. We just disagree

About the gun thing symbolizing freedom. anything can be a symbol .Some people look at a gun as a symbol for the freedoms we have. like the symbolization for guns you put up at the end of your post. Please stop slandoring me. It is true. Guns are just metal objects. Humans use them to kill people. Humans are the monster behind the tool.

[Acriku]

If the Columbine kids didn't have guns due to strict laws, they would have used their own homemade guns, or knives, or any other weapon. Guns are just easier to use against a person, and basically the coward's way out (if used in such an occasion).

[SurlyPIG]

we disagree there. At the same time though the founding fathers would be surprised at a lot of things america has done. Columbine was caused by kids not by guns. We just disagree

About the gun thing symbolizing freedom. anything can be a symbol .Some people look at a gun as a symbol for the freedoms we have. like the symbolization for guns you put up at the end of your post. Please stop slandoring me. It is true. Guns are just metal objects. Humans use them to kill people. Humans are the monster behind the tool.

LOL. You said yourself if you want to defend yourself tasers and tranqs will work fine. So unless you get your ya'ya's from attacking and killing people and animals you have no reason to own a gun.

Who said anything about banning guns? Why not ban ammo? Why not forbid the advancement of gun technology, giving anti-gun technology the opportunity to catch up. The most idiot thing I've ever heard in my entire life is the fact that your country bans body armour and not guns.

Ac, those homemade bombs were useless. Few people were injured by shrapnel. Every person that was killed was shot. Every single one. If they had used knives they'd have injured a couple people, maybe killed one, then they'd get the sh*t knocked out of them by the other kids.