| NEWS BOX | ||
| Welcome to BEHG. We hope you enjoy your trip through our cesspool of hatred and lies. |
| Gun-grabbers suck. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 13 2007, 09:17:31 AM (2,338 Views) | |
| Hammer Kirby | May 13 2007, 10:59:16 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Go outside
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That would be great, except for one minor detail... Criminals don't obey laws. They're going to find ways around gun control laws, such as by buying guns on the black market. Only law-abiding people will lose out on guns. So basically, the criminals will have guns and no one else will be able to defend against them. Does that sound like a great idea to you? |
![]() |
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:02:09 AM Post #17 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If getting access to guns is illegal(as I said it should be), from the moment he bought it, it's the police's job to get him, not the citizen's. And if anyone started carrying guns around, everyone would be a potential threat to each other. One hint of incecurity, and a guy might start blazing. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Hammer Kirby | May 13 2007, 11:03:36 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Go outside
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Having an armed government and disarmed citizens is never a good idea. If the government were to reach the point of tyranny, you'd have no defense against it, no way to start a revolution, if there were no guns. |
![]() |
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:05:23 AM Post #19 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Dude, a citizen with a handgun against a trained army with tanks... There is no fricking point. Unless you mean that I should be able to buy a M90 at the walmart. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:19:58 AM Post #20 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm going to level with you. If someone wants to kill, you don't need a gun. You can get your kitchen knife and it's done. And gor a 100 years, noone could really find a good reason to not have access to guns. But like hell I would ever agree and encourage citizens (as a governmenr or another organization) to own guns, for self-defence and whatnot. Each individual on his own volition should figure out whether he needs guns or not and for what purpose. This is a touchy subject and no complete law would solve it. Only measure I can think is to know WHO owns a gun and what type. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Jeff | May 13 2007, 11:30:32 AM Post #21 |
|
Unregistered
|
Buy a gun at a whim? You obviously haven't tried to buy a gun in America. Guns are used far more often in self defense than in offense. And Jim, I will kindly ask you to not claim that your opinions supercede a country's system of government that has been in place for centuries with only one major problem. |
|
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:34:13 AM Post #22 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't claim that my opinions supercede anything. I was mostly arguing that the reasons for owning a gun presented by Darts are wrong. And I know that in many places, while buing a handgun is difficult, you can buy a hunting rifle far more easily. But as I said, that's irrelevant, because you can modify a paintball of a dart shooting gun, hell you can throw a knife, and it's done. And what do you mean by:"government that has been in place for centuries with only one major problem. "? What problem are you reffering to? |
| |
![]() |
|
| Zigludo | May 13 2007, 11:37:19 AM Post #23 |
|
うおっ、眩しい!
![]()
|
I'd guess the Civil War. |
| I'm gringe and I don't give a chainsaw | |
![]() |
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:40:23 AM Post #24 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ah, I should have guessed. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Waddacku | May 13 2007, 11:41:53 AM Post #25 |
![]()
|
See, it's like this: In countries with stricter gun control laws, people get shot less. There are less crimes involving guns. Etc. What does this mean? It means that claiming that stricter laws only hurt self-defense and not the offensive use of guns is just bullshit. Oh, and the USA should really get over that nigh-religious worship of its constitution. |
![]() |
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:43:58 AM Post #26 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually, no. Murders still hapen, albeit in a different way. I'll agree on the constitution part though. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Waddacku | May 13 2007, 11:49:04 AM Post #27 |
![]()
|
I said nothing about other ways, but allowing guns is supplying an even easier method for people to kill each other. |
![]() |
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:50:05 AM Post #28 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No, it really isn't that valid. If you have the intent to kill, a gun doesn't make it easier. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Waddacku | May 13 2007, 11:53:36 AM Post #29 |
![]()
|
Yes, it does. At least slightly. However, that's not the only kind of killing there is. There are those times when situations get out of hand, and then there're the psychos who flip out and start killing people, too. |
![]() |
|
| Lord Jim | May 13 2007, 11:57:37 AM Post #30 |
|
There can be only one.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No matter the weapon, a psycho will still kill many. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Serious Business · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
3:53 AM Jul 11
|
Auspice Zeta created by sakuragi-kun of the ZBTZ
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy






![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




3:53 AM Jul 11