A Warning from Canada

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Liberty_One

No, dummy. Giving up your defense is what leads to children dying in the streets. Governments kill people, they don't help people.

Yeah...they are dying like flies in all the countries where guns are banned huh? Right through Europe, on to Japan and down to Australia.

Jeez...another conspiracy theorist! LMFAO!

[Liberty_One]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Yeah...they are dying like flies in all the countries where guns are banned huh? Right through Europe, on to Japan and down to Australia.

Jeez...another conspiracy theorist! LMFAO!

Yeah, over 260 million people killed by government in the last century. No laughing matter. In the Soviet Union at their height they were killing 10,000 people a day. Does that count as "dying like flies"?

[hrdguera]

Originally Posted by Liberty_One

Yeah, over 260 million people killed by government in the last century. No laughing matter. In the Soviet Union at their height they were killing 10,000 people a day. Does that count as "dying like flies"?

If you haven't figured it out by now ....Plad is just afraid of guns, all guns.

I've met a few people like that; one of my brothers for instance.
Guns make him pee his pants. It could be the noise, that damage, or maybe he just don't trust himself.

I'm like that with heights; not buildings but climbing cliffs, peaks, and canyon walls. I've been suspended with climbing gear for a couple of hours once. When I finally got down I promised myself never again.

With guns, it different. I've been around them since I was a kid. I've shot them, loaded them, carried them too. I respect them but I'm not afraid of them unless the business end is pointed my way.

I'm no longer a hunter for sport but will hunt from necessity on the ranch. I prefer to let things live unless they are a danger. Then, the guns are just a tool to do a job.

It does bother me that our own government is stockpiling guns and ammo when I know that there is no imminent invasion.

[Wallis]

How about: "BAN PEOPLE, NOT GUNS"

[Stevomeo]

Originally Posted by Wallis

How about: "BAN PEOPLE, NOT GUNS"

I'm with you. People Suck!!! I like this guy though. http://youtu.be/_T-F_zfoDqI

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by hrdguera

If you haven't figured it out by now ....Plad is just afraid of guns, all guns.

Well at least you prove that you don't bother to read anything that doesn't agree with you so I'll repeat it from one of my earlier posts where your conspiracy side-kick made the same claim.

"I don't so much fear guns than I fear the people that are obsessed with owning them ...to the detriment of their country, it's citizen and even their own children. When the massacre happened in Australia, the public were voluntarily clambering to hand in their weapons. They saw it as the only way to try to stop it happening again; but what do we get from America... 'BO-HO! MY RIGHTS! MY RIGHTS! WAH! I WANT MY TOYS!' What a difference between two nations. So you see, THAT is what I fear; not the guns but the people who would rather see thir children shot like dogs than give up their dummies."

[Liberty_One]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I don't so much fear guns than I fear the people that are obsessed with owning them

No, people are obsessed with preserving their rights. It is no different than those who are obsessed with preserving their rights to an abortion, their right to freedom of speech or their right to marry someone of the same sex. People who stand up for abortion rights aren't obsessed with having abortions. They simply want to protect their rights to control their body. Similarly, people who stand up for their right to own a firearm aren't doing so just because they want to have "toys" as you seem to think. Your argument amounts to one massive straw man fallacy.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

...to the detriment of their country, it's citizen and even their own children.

That's your subjective opinion. Other, equally valid opinions, are that it is a major benefit to the people of this country. How many crimes are prevented each year by private gun owners? As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. One only need do a simply google search to see the countless number of times a private gun owner has protected herself or their family. To pretend that it never or rarely happens is to put your fingers in your ears.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

When the massacre happened in Australia, the public were voluntarily clambering to hand in their weapons. They saw it as the only way to try to stop it happening again;

First of all, if anyone wants to voluntarily hand over their firearm, I support their right to do so. But that has nothing to do with what you're talking about. You're not talking about voluntarily doing anything. You want to force people--with violence or threats of violence--to give up their means of personal self-defense.

Secondly, what you said is untrue. If the public had truly wanted to voluntarily hand over their firearms then they would have done so. No law would have been required. The fact that it had to be done by law shows that threats of government violence were required. Additionally you are probably mistaking the government for society. If the government was strongly in favor of banning guns, that doesn't mean society was also strongly in support.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

but what do we get from America... 'BO-HO! MY RIGHTS! MY RIGHTS! WAH! I WANT MY TOYS!'

You see, what you are positing is that individual rights have nothing to do with supporters of gun rights and that that line of reasoning is just an excuse to cover for their real reason, which is that they want their "toys." Actually what this is is your way of dodging the issue. You simply cannot win on the issue of rights, so you try and make it an issue about people wanting to play with guns. You cannot argue without resorting to this line of reasoning because you cannot win when it comes to the issue of rights and you know it. So keep it up and keep trying to claim it's about playing with guns as toys rather than an individual's right to self-defense. That's your only card and you should play it every time.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

What a difference between two nations. So you see, THAT is what I fear; not the guns but the people who would rather see thir children shot like dogs than give up their dummies."

Again, you are making straw man arguments because you cannot succeed by examining reality. People want to have access to firearms so they can protect their children, and you know this, yet you choose to make your straw man argument because you are out of bullets and you know it.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Well at least you prove that you don't bother to read anything that doesn't agree with you so I'll repeat it from one of my earlier posts where your conspiracy side-kick made the same claim.

"I don't so much fear guns than I fear the people that are obsessed with owning them ...to the detriment of their country, it's citizen and even their own children. When the massacre happened in Australia, the public were voluntarily clambering to hand in their weapons. They saw it as the only way to try to stop it happening again; but what do we get from America... 'BO-HO! MY RIGHTS! MY RIGHTS! WAH! I WANT MY TOYS!' What a difference between two nations. So you see, THAT is what I fear; not the guns but the people who would rather see thir children shot like dogs than give up their dummies."

Pladster my dear tosser, Don't you think it's a little bit of a stretch to think us Americans would rather see our kids shot like dogs? That is not the case at all. For me, there is no argument in your assertions. Absolutely, there would be less people killed by guns if guns were off the street but to think we cherish the idea of our children be shot like dogs - welllllllllllllll......

Now go smoke a bowl.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Liberty_One

No, people are obsessed with preserving their rights.

When your 'rights' cost the lives of 58,000 people over a four year period, it's clear that you are not responsible enough to have the 'right' to own guns.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...10shrtbl08.xls

That's your subjective opinion. Other, equally valid opinions, are that it is a major benefit to the people of this country.

3.6 deaths per 100,000 people! Yeah sure its beneficial.

How many crimes are prevented each year by private gun owners?

I don't know. I have given you the statistics for the number of people killed by guns for the period 2006 - 2010. Why don't you supply the statistics for how many people had their lives saved by guns over the same period?

As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

It's the same for all countries. Nobody lives in a country where we can have a policeman on duty outside our gate...just in case. Everyone else seems to manage though, why can't you?

One only need do a simply google search to see the countless number of times a private gun owner has protected herself or their family.

Then do it. Give us the statistics for how many people had their lives saved by guns between 2006-2010.

To pretend that it never or rarely happens is to put your fingers in your ears.

The point is, did it happen enough times to warrant 58,000 people getting killed by guns? I'll await your statistics. If you can't supply them, I'll put your claim down as a 'subjective opinion'.

First of all, if anyone wants to voluntarily hand over their firearm, I support their right to do so. But that has nothing to do with what you're talking about. You're not talking about voluntarily doing anything. You want to force people--with violence or threats of violence--to give up their means of personal self-defense.

Yes, in a way that would be right but to be more specific, something on the lines of the Aussie 'buyback' scheme rather than 'violence or threats of violence' How interesting though that you scream out against violence and acts of violence when it come to having your toys taken away-whilst standing up for the things that cause so much violence.

Secondly, what you said is untrue. If the public had truly wanted to voluntarily hand over their firearms then they would have done so.
No law would have been required. The fact that it had to be done by law shows that threats of government violence were required.

There were a huge number that were sickened by the Australian massacre and gave up their weapons voluntarily, even without compensation. I think the figures for the number of weapons voluntarily handed over are in one of my previous replies but without going searching for it I don't know where it is

Additionally you are probably mistaking the government for society. If the government was strongly in favor of banning guns, that doesn't mean society was also strongly in support.

Oh I'm not saying that Australians welcomed the ban only that there was a large percentage that realised that there had been enough people killed by guns and not only accepted it but handed in their weapons without even asking for compensation. I will concede that rather than saying "the public were voluntarily clambering to hand in their weapons", I should have said 'many members of the public were voluntarily clambering to hand in their weapons'.

You see, what you are positing is that individual rights have nothing to do with supporters of gun rights and that that line of reasoning is just an excuse to cover for their real reason, which is that they want their "toys."

Well actually yes, 'rights' don't come into it. I would personally like the 'right' to ride my motorbike and drive my car as fast as I bloody well please but I accept that I cannot have that right because my right to do it would infringe on the rights of others not to be put in danger by me having that right. I think that if your right to do what the hell you like puts someone else in danger then that right should be removed...or if that isn't possible, it should be seriously curtailed/restricted.

Presumably, you would not support the 'right' of a smoker to smoke in a public place knowing that his 'right' puts others in danger; why then do you support the 'right' of someone to carry a gun knowing that that right could endanger others?

Actually what this is is your way of dodging the issue. You simply cannot win on the issue of rights, so you try and make it an issue about people wanting to play with guns. You cannot argue without resorting to this line of reasoning because you cannot win when it comes to the issue of rights and you know it.

Well of course, morally, I win hands down on the issue of right. Nobody should have the right to do anything that puts another persons life in danger. You can now come back with some idiotic comment about banning all cars.

So keep it up and keep trying to claim it's about playing with guns as toys rather than an individual's right to self-defense.

Perhaps you would be better off looking at just WHY America feels the need to have guns for self-defence. Perhaps you could tell me why you feel the need to defend yourselves with weapons that are designed, not to protect an individual from a robber that enters his home but to kill as many people as possible on a battlefield in the shortest possible time? How many of you actually believe that you are going to get enough people trying to rob you at the same time that you need a weapon that will fire 10 or 20 rounds in a few seconds? If you think you need such weapons 'just in case' you get 20 burglars in your home at the same time then clearly there is something VERY wrong not only with your country....but with YOU!

People want to have access to firearms so they can protect their children, and you know this, yet you choose to make your straw man argument because you are out of bullets and you know it.

Oh cut the crap will you! Americans have nearly twice as many guns per person as do Yemenis, who live in a conflict-torn Arab nation still dealing with poverty, political unrest, a separatist Shia insurgency, an al-Qaeda branch, and the after effects of a civil war. Are you seriously telling me that you have a greater security issue than the Yemen has??? And do you think that people throughout Europe, Japan, Australia or in any other country with gun bans do not want to protect their children too?? Tell me, how do you think we do it without guns?

What I would s***est is that rather than concentrating on you 'right' to own guns, you employ your efforts in finding out just why it is that most civilised first-world countries are able to live relatively safely and peacefully without waving guns at each other and shooting each other over minor disagreements, whilst Americans clearly can't. Americans gun ownership is around 90 per 100 people. If you need that many guns to protect yourself then America has a serious problem. The developed world knows that you do not have such a problem with political or social unrest to warrant that many guns and that tells us that most of you have guns because you want them not because you need them. It is a hobby not a need.

Take a look here and then ask yourself...what the hell is wrong with us Americans
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rates-oecd.jpg

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

Pladster my dear tosser,

Woodster my old fruit..I love you too man. I hope you know that!!

Don't you think it's a little bit of a stretch to think us Americans would rather see our kids shot like dogs? That is not the case at all. For me, there is no argument in your assertions. Absolutely, there would be less people killed by guns if guns were off the street but to think we cherish the idea of our children be shot like dogs - welllllllllllllll......

Well you see old boy, that is the impression we European savages get when we see what's happening in your country. We see you having massacre after massacre, year after year and so many of the appear to involve children or young people.

We see parent weeping in cemeteries, people saying how awful it is but what we don't see is a concerted effort by the people of your country to make EVERY effort in trying to make sure that it doesn't happen again; and to us looking on, when we see on our television screens, Americans demanding the 'right' to keep the very things that have just killed a dozen of their children...well, we tend to loose all sympathy and think that your children dying by being gunned down like dogs is not too great a concern to you. Know what I mean old chap?

Now go smoke a bowl.

Alas! Alas! Woe is me my petit chou-chou!! I had to give up all forms of smoking in December 2011 having been diagnosed with emphysema. So that particular pleasure is now denied to me. That's smoking, screwing young girls, the band...all gone now. I guess all that's left now is to come over to America and get feckin' shot!!

[Liberty_One]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

When your 'rights' cost the lives of 58,000 people over a four year period, it's clear that you are not responsible enough to have the 'right' to own guns.

The majority of gun homicides take place in big cities like Chicago and DC where they have banned guns. All you have done is disarmed the victims. People like you are responsible for their deaths.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I don't know. I have given you the statistics for the number of people killed by guns for the period 2006 - 2010. Why don't you supply the statistics for how many people had their lives saved by guns over the same period?

Over the same period? Between 3.2 million and 10 million times a firearm has been used defensively by private citizens. http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

It's the same for all countries. Nobody lives in a country where we can have a policeman on duty outside our gate...just in case. Everyone else seems to manage though, why can't you?

"Seems to manage" meaning "sorry that your family was attacked." You're a really swell guy.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Yes, in a way that would be right but to be more specific, something on the lines of the Aussie 'buyback' scheme rather than 'violence or threats of violence'

And what about the people who did not want to give up their firearms? If they won't be bribed, then what?

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

How interesting though that you scream out against violence and acts of violence when it come to having your toys taken away-whilst standing up for the things that cause so much violence.

No, what's interesting is how causally you support violence. I'm against violence, you are in favor of it as long as the government does it against individual citizens and their property.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Well actually yes, 'rights' don't come into it.

Of course they do. Every human being has the right to self-defense against the initiation of force. You wish to deny people this right.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I would personally like the 'right' to ride my motorbike and drive my car as fast as I bloody well please but I accept that I cannot have that right because my right to do it would infringe on the rights of others not to be put in danger by me having that right. I think that if your right to do what the hell you like puts someone else in danger then that right should be removed...or if that isn't possible, it should be seriously curtailed/restricted.

Your argument proves too much. No one is saying that gun owners should have the right to fire bullets off in random directions. Responsible gun ownership is just like responsible vehicle ownership. What you are saying is that anything potentially dangerous should be taken away because some might use it irresponsibly. Your argument has no logic and is inconsistent and thus fails.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Presumably, you would not support the 'right' of a smoker to smoke in a public place knowing that his 'right' puts others in danger; why then do you support the 'right' of someone to carry a gun knowing that that right could endanger others?

Simply possessing a firearm does not endanger others, no matter how scary you find them.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Well of course, morally, I win hands down on the issue of right.

No, you lose. You want to use violence or threats of violence to take away the right to self-defense based on your arbitrary fear of private citizens possessing firearms.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Nobody should have the right to do anything that puts another persons life in danger.

Straw man fallacy. Possessing a firearm does not put other people's lives in danger. I notice you have never once said you think the police shouldn't possess firearms either. Why? Why do you want the public disarmed but haven't said anything about disarming the State?

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

You can now come back with some idiotic comment about banning all cars.

Why stop at cars? Why aren't you against banning all knives, baseball bats, mopeds or even cheeseburgers? Your argument is entirely based on emotions and not logic.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Perhaps you would be better off looking at just WHY America feels the need to have guns for self-defence. Perhaps you could tell me why you feel the need to defend yourselves with weapons that are designed, not to protect an individual from a robber that enters his home but to kill as many people as possible on a battlefield in the shortest possible time? How many of you actually believe that you are going to get enough people trying to rob you at the same time that you need a weapon that will fire 10 or 20 rounds in a few seconds? If you think you need such weapons 'just in case' you get 20 burglars in your home at the same time then clearly there is something VERY wrong not only with your country....but with YOU!

What's interesting is this proves that your argument is based entirely off of emotion and has nothing to do with logic whatsoever. The types of weapons you are referring to are used in only a tiny fraction of all gun homicides, yet your number one argument is about the total number of gun homicides being too high! You're grasping at whatever emotional argument you can make here and then can only ask "why do you need." Why do YOU want to disarm the public? Why do YOU want them to be unable to defend themselves, yet you have not once said anything about disarming the State. Government has killed 260 million people over the last century, but you have not once said anything about taking weapons out of the State's hands. You are all emotion and no logic.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

Oh cut the crap will you! Americans have nearly twice as many guns per person as do Yemenis, who live in a conflict-torn Arab nation still dealing with poverty, political unrest, a separatist Shia insurgency, an al-Qaeda branch, and the after effects of a civil war. Are you seriously telling me that you have a greater security issue than the Yemen has???

This is just silly. Whether or not there's an active civil war going on has nothing to do with your individual right to self-defense.

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

And do you think that people throughout Europe, Japan, Australia or in any other country with gun bans do not want to protect their children too?? Tell me, how do you think we do it without guns?

Not as well as in the US. Violent crime rates in the UK are almost double that of the US. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publica...10?view=Binaryhttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr.../violent-crime

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

What I would s***est is that rather than concentrating on you 'right' to own guns, you employ your efforts in finding out just why it is that most civilised first-world countries are able to live relatively safely and peacefully without waving guns at each other and shooting each other over minor disagreements, whilst Americans clearly can't.

Now you are going completely off the rails. Shooting each other over minor disagreements? Really?