|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 10, 2003 16:02:50 GMT -5
acctually he could be talking about 2 different people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rauru on Dec 11, 2003 21:58:32 GMT -5
Maybe.... lol ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Freethought on Dec 14, 2003 4:13:56 GMT -5
OK ... sorry about the amount of time i was away.
Anyhow back onto the subject at hand. Guns America Destroyed britian why because we had guns. Granted it was along time ago. Any how that queer in bowling for colinbine (howevere its spelt) he can be anti gun all he want all i can say is do it some place else. I was raised in a house hold that had guns. My brother got into a gang and got a gun. Yet we are all here. I know if we were raided by mexico and are army was torn to we could defend our selfs. Could you?
Also to the caliber remark you can have any caliber you want in britian as long as its a colectors gun. So that tells me that the rich can break the law. So not only is your goverment flawed but so is your thinking. Excel you have been force fed this belief that anti gun is the right way but have you looked at the other half of the picture with out an condesending attitude. Doubt it.
You want us to see you view and yet you prolly never taken the time to see ares.
|
|
|
|
Post by Excel on Dec 14, 2003 14:20:57 GMT -5
Freethought, you're right. I don't have a clue why any of you want to keep guns, and I probably never will. And what's all this about us and our government being flawed? Guns are an important part of our history, we faught and won 2 world wars because of them, and to be honest, we owe them alot...that's why we have collectors with these weapons. But not just anyone can start a gun collection. Besides, the guns in the 'collections of the rich' are not allowed to be in working order, which means that they are nothing more then paperweights really. Can you tell me that America isn't bound by a rich/poor divide? Are you really any better?
But even if we owe alot to guns, when they start to turn on the people they are supposed to protect, it's time to get rid of them. You may not know anyone who has died because of gun crime, but that is a very "Out of sight out of mind" opinion about them. If this gang of yours decides to come around to your house and shoot your family, would you still think that it was such a good idea to have guns around? I mean really....there are countries at war that don't have as big of a death rate as America when it comes to guns...and this is 'okay' in your opinion?
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 14, 2003 22:35:03 GMT -5
true our goverment is curropted. but whose isnt. we may have a high mortality rate but those countries at war with lower death rates also dont have as many people. you should throw in percentages to show a better comparison. im just glad i can buy a gun so that if somebody breaks into my house i can shoot him in the legs, then the stomach, then finally the head. slow death so his last thought is "crap i shouldnt have broken in here
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldAClown on Dec 17, 2003 5:17:26 GMT -5
Where you will in turn be arrested and tried for murder 1, which is alot worse then having the criminal tried for burgalry.
If this happens, i'll be sure to drop by and see you in prison where we can continue this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 17, 2003 15:39:15 GMT -5
acctually if he breaks into my house i have every legal right to kill him. its called self defence. do you know the laws of america. ill admit i dont know yours but if you dont know ours i wouldnt make statements like that. but if you do feel free to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by Excel on Dec 19, 2003 8:28:09 GMT -5
Well, I think that both American and English law is the same when it comes to things like self defence and murder.
In England, self defence is a 'foggy' subject. It's only considerd self defence if you do to them what they do to you in equal force. ZeldAClown will probably be able to explain this better then me though. But if you ask me, shooting him in the way you describe sounds alot like murder to me.
Shoot him in the leg - wounding him. (self defence)
followed by shooting him in the chest - Criticaly wounding him. (possible man slaughter)
followed by shooting him in the head - killing him. (murder)
And the fact that you intend to do it to anyone who enters your house uninvited means that's it's premeditated. Which means what ZeldAClown said. Murder 1.
Shooting him in the head -
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 19, 2003 16:21:24 GMT -5
i talked to somebody who knew far more on the subject and he told me that if i kill them in one shot its self defence. i can only shoot them more than once if the first shot failes to incapacitate him. if the first shot stops him then i fire a second shot and thats the one that kills him then its murder. so in other words if your ganna kill somebody cause they break into your house kill them in one shot. also make sure they dont fall out a window. i think you can get sued for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Excel on Dec 19, 2003 16:29:29 GMT -5
Well then I'm glad I don't live in America. I mean, if you can be legally killed just for being on someones property. >.<
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 19, 2003 16:55:47 GMT -5
not on their property. you have to acctually break into their house. but if they invite you in then kill you its murder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Freethought on Dec 26, 2003 4:23:36 GMT -5
OK excel let me start by saying its late here again so my logic and speech or english/grammer may fail me.
on the first post i have considerd what the world would be like with out guns. also if my family was killed by a gang with guns i would hate the gang not the gun the gun is just a tool. secondly my goverment is a little bit more weary on what they do to americans b/c we have guns thats why texas is so f***ed up. Also On the issue of breaking and entering, like most law and common logic states you are able to only use enough force till the person is no longer a threat. so in other words you cant cut his hands and feet off and bash his head in with a pipe thats murder. Another point those guns thats are paper weights yah usaly they remove the firing pin with is a little L almost T shaped hammer that basicly bangs the back of the bullet and most can be made or purchased rather easly and since they are collectors no questions are asked. there are loop holes in every law you just need to find them.
Now in american history there have been alot of travistys such as waco, in which the goverment steped in and killed a bunch of people because they had ammased a small aresnel of weapons and they felt they were a threat. now i know this and you do to Oh yah by the way the goverment killed most of them with one of the oklahoma city terriost watched. any how i have seen this in my life and yet i would carry a gun infact when i turn 21 i believe i will get a permit to carry them and it will be a desert eagle 50 calaber or a 357.
ither one of these will pick an avarge man up off his feet when shot at about 4 feet away. now for me to know i hold my life in my hands makes me feel great.
And i dont have to hope some bobby shows up and chases the vile criminal (whom may be carrying a gun away with his stick).
See while you feel your socitey is safer it realy is just hidden. Because out of sight out of mind.
Also as for the death rate with guns thats life with out that death rate the world would be over populated this may sound cold but that lack of population allows you to eat at night its called carring capasity and once the world reaches it there will be a sudden drop in population due to lack of resorces such as food and water. and if this happens and i have a gun but no food you know what i can get that you can ..... well i am rambling because i am tired so i am off
i also didnt proof read this so it may sound like i am a mere child with horrible grammer but i am not a child for the most part *laughs*
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Dec 28, 2003 3:14:18 GMT -5
i know id kill somebody if i didnt have food. id do that or die trying. at least i wouldnt die hungry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Excel on Jan 1, 2004 13:27:58 GMT -5
Freethought, that's a terrible arguement. Are you actually saying that guns are a form of population control?! There are far more effective ways of controlling popluation, like birth control and safe sex eduaction. Besides, the U.S is abundant with both food and water, you could probably substain a much larger poplutaion then you do now, I mean, thatis, if the American people get rid of that terrible waste psycology. I read somewhere that every year, Americans throw away enough aluminium a year to rebuild the entire U.S Air Force.
I understand that you want to be able to protect your own life...I mean who wouldn't. But if I had to kill someone to protect myself, I don't know how I could live with myself. I mean, actually knowing that the only reaso i'm alive is because somebody else had to die.
But again, if nobody had guns, then why would you need one to protect yourself? I know Aramir wrote 'easier said then done', and I agree, England isn't exactly free of gun crime. I mean, juat last week there was some shocking news on T.V about a Traffic cop who was shot and killed by some gun fanatic afetr he was pulled over for speeding. But if total disarmerment that isn't made the goal, then it will never be reached.
If the world ended or something, and I was incharge of making a new society, I would never let gun be a part of it. The dangers are just too great.
|
|
|
|
Post by rocklord2004 on Jan 1, 2004 18:27:09 GMT -5
yeah. use a stick with a big rock tied too it. its much more brutal.
|
|
