Gun Control Poll

[psyche101]

You're doing all the favors for me.

I mean, how do insrgents fight back against these invincible military's.

WHAT Invincible Military??

The US Government? Are you serious, or are you having a joke now? Maybe like Tesla, I just don't get American Humour?

1 - Your Government is an endless chain of Politicians, it's not Fiji where you have one small Island that Changes Government Overnight. "The Government" going to war is a movie style fantasy that is plain stupid in the Modern World. It would have to pass so many bureaucratic processes that you would be reading about it in the papers before anything happened. I mean seriously, you do realise the year is 2014, not 1826 don't you? It is not the Alamo in the Wild Wild West. You are not John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, or pick your favourite movie character and place here.

2 - If by some wild stroke some incredible evente happened and the US Government DID go to war against it's citizens, which is preposterous and paranoid, then WHAT is your Shotgun going to do when a B2 starts dropping bombs out of the sky, or a Nuke comes in from the other side of the country at several times the speed of sound? Get ya shotgun out and defend your property???

I have to do favours for you, you are certainly not doing any for yourself if you want to publicly express that you cannot understand why a Shotgun would hurt a person and not a tank. I honestly refuse to believe any human on the planet is actually that stupid.

Dead set, you cannot be serious about thinking you can go to war with your Government with household shotguns, they are only good for accidentally killing each other and yourselves in accidents. Not the people you intend to kill. You know even in war they take people alive don't you? You do realise killing is not the only option I hope?

[+and-then]

It strikes me as beyond ridiculous, no a couple million people with pop guns does not mean squat against one B2. You're kidding yourself if you think you can hole up and shoot it out with the US Government, which again seems more than preposterous. But a romantic scenario to play out in ones head I am sure. We are not speaking about a small island like Fiji where a coup can happen and end overnight, we are speaking of a first world power that has hundreds of politicians in the line that all need to be in loops. To think you are going to wake up one morning and find out a civil war is happening between citizens and Government in the US is indeed preposterous. And that is where the brainwashing comes in.

If you think your Government is tyrannical - vote them out!! That is what voting is for!!

You know, I don't think even a million shotguns would stop a tank, it would just keep on rolling right over top of all of the people with shotguns.

No government will long actually control and make subservient people who want to be free. The more who are killed the more who will stand up - it's an old song and we see it being played in Afghanistan and Iraq against the best military the world has known. So I think it's a bit more than a fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I don't desire such an end. But when it comes to being alive on one's knees or dead on their feet - I'll take dead every time.

[spacecowboy342]

No government will long actually control and make subservient people who want to be free. The more who are killed the more who will stand up - it's an old song and we see it being played in Afghanistan and Iraq against the best military the world has known. So I think it's a bit more than a fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I don't desire such an end. But when it comes to being alive on one's knees or dead on their feet - I'll take dead every time.

That's easy to say

[Michelle]

Well I am sure glad you got out of it OK, but I have to say, I feel the Dog would have been the biggest deterrent, and sufficient on his own. May I ask if the potential offenders incarcerated or charged for harassing you? And may I ask, did you brandish or use your gun?

You could consider moving to Australia or the UK, guns will become something you do not "need" let alone allowed.

How are guns a "useful" tool?

What concerns me with people in that situation is that they use a gun as something to hide behind instead of facing the world. Do you not feel that a woman, who has been violated in some way, who may now carry a gun is not going to have an itchy trigger finger, which has high potential to result in innocent killings? The worst part is you cannot blame anyone in that situation can one? We just have to accept that an innocent lie was taken due to fear instilled by someone completely different. Women who have had these experiences have every right to fear the world around them, and perhaps to even hate men, which is prevalent. That's not a person who should have a weapon IMHO, even though a good argument to own one exists. It is a very difficult thing to discuss with so many emotions being brought up because of potential and hypothetical situations, in the end, all I can say if banning guns removed all public gun massacre in Australia, and if that is not something of a shining achievement people wish to try and strive for, the only reason I can see to have such a dependency on gun is because people believe that is the case, and who benefits from that? A 12 Billion dollar a years industry does, that's who really wins in the end. The one obvious conspiracy that US citizens refuse to face.

The dog did a good job distracting the one behind me, when they flanked me, and I could only keep an eye on two. Yes, I did brandish the gun and told them I wouldn't waste a bullet on a warning shot. I never made a police report, because I was young and just glad I got out of the situation. Besides, there wasn't exactly anything they could be charged with and it would have been my word against theirs.

No, I do not hate men, quite the opposite in fact, or fear the world around me. This happened thirty years ago and I have never brandished a gun since, nor do I have an itchy trigger finger. I was taught to respect guns and how to use them from the time I was six. They are a fact of life that I never gave a second thought. It's no different to me than having a refrigerator. You don't ask someone if they have one, it is assumed. Even the most liberal people I know have guns.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Michelle

[psyche101]

Nice little box you have there. I suggest actually looking up living arrangements in US cities.

Australia you mean, yep, it is as good as it gets.

OK, thanks for the suggestion, it's not like we have cities in Australia or anything, just Walkabout Creek..

Having a big dog (which is subjective) isn't allowed in many communities inside of our cities.

So now we are not speaking of a "home" but an "apartments block" yes? Which have gated security, Intercom systems, and many even have full time guards wandering around you mean?

Not too mention, your scenario still included your wife being 'fast'. What if someone isn't fast,

My wife is 50, weighs 44 kilos, had cancer and 6 kids. If she can do it, I am sure that many people who think they need guns can.

can't afford putting bars on their apt (why would I invest in someone else's property), and isn't strong enough to fight 'like a man'.

I'd say the bars are just as good investment as a gun, if someone is too cheap to invest in bars, why would they invest in a gun?

They're SOL in your utopia.

SOL? Can you please extrapolate?

My Utopia is Australia, where we live without guns, and find dependency on weapons very strange.

Why are you so bent at putting those unable at such an imposition?

The rest of the world seems to get by OK without a gun in every home? Why do you think only US frail or disabled people need guns, but the rest of the world is fine without them? How do you think "those people" manage to get by in the UK and Australia?

Edited July 17, 2014 by psyche101

[psyche101]

No government will long actually control and make subservient people who want to be free. The more who are killed the more who will stand up - it's an old song and we see it being played in Afghanistan and Iraq against the best military the world has known. So I think it's a bit more than a fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I don't desire such an end. But when it comes to being alive on one's knees or dead on their feet - I'll take dead every time.

I don't think you desire such an end, I have seen a few of your posts and you seems a really sensible nice person with a good head on you shoulders.

And because of that, I won't comment on your post, because I don't really understand what you are trying to say, and do not want to put words into your mouth.

May I ask in the interests of clarification, how does the situation in Afghanistan make it plausible to consider that the US will go to war against it's own citizens? I understand the last bit, and it is a reasonable position, I feel the same way about Shariah Law, I would die before I would live under it. But there seems to be no actual reason to consider that anyones liberties would be removed or such a way would break out. Are not most soldiers ordinary folk? Why would they follow such an order? What Soldier in his right mind would shoot at his family and friends? I honestly bet none. That seems to be more of a propaganda stunt to make people think they need guns when they do not.

[psyche101]

The dog did a good job distracting the one behind me, when they flanked me, and I could only keep an eye on two. Yes, I did brandish the gun and told them I wouldn't waste a bullet on a warning shot. I never made a police report, because I was young and just glad I got out of the situation. Besides, there wasn't exactly anything they could be charged with and it would have been my word against theirs.

Thank you for sharing your personal experience, it must still bring back awful memories, thank goodness you were not hurt. I can understand why you have a personal support for guns - this is partly what I was speaking about. The impact an event like that can have.

Well, they could not be charged because they did not do anything, and it would be hard to prove their intent, although not hard to believe. Do you honestly feel a large dog would not have been enough? Had you said "sick em boy" it might be you who had to answer to police? And perhaps they might have thought twice about attempting such a low life scumbag act again? If you had no dog, with two people flanking you, it strikes me that it would have been easy for them to get the gun from you, and then use it against you. As such, it seems to me that Fido saved the day there, not the gun.

Personally, I am glad you had a dog with you that day, I hope he got extra treats that night.

No, I do not hate men, quite the opposite in fact, or fear the world around me. This happened thirty years ago and I have never brandished a gun since, nor do I have an itchy trigger finger. I was taught to respect guns and how to use them from the time I was six. They are a fact of life that I never gave a second thought. It's no different to me than having a refrigerator. You don't ask someone if they have one, it is assumed. Even the most liberal people I know have guns.

No, I do not know you well, but from what I have seen so far, you are one of the people "I am not worried about" you are a sensible person with a good head on your shoulders, like Dichecker, he could have 100 guns and I would not bat an eyelid because I know he would not have 100 guns, he would have what he needs for his rural environment, nothing more. If everyone in the US exhibited the same commons sense and restraint, there would not be the Gun Culture there is today I feel.

But surely you can see where I am coming from? One member here Kowalski I think the nick was had a bad experience, and the way she spoke of men in general sent shivers down my spine, People like her do not realise that men like me hate the men like the ones who hurt her even more than she does, because they make life in society tough by having "men" broad brushed as bad beings when some of us are really quite reasonable and are just as horrified at these actions as any female. Something we have to deal with all our lives, not just once. I can see innocent people dying from situations created like that, and I bet rags to riches many have.

The topic has managed to get a bit sidetracked anyway, my initial comment was that I feel the US public is brainwashed by the Gun Industry into believing they "need" guns and with them raking in 12 billion a year, that is not going to change, nor is legislation likely to do much as it will affect that multi billion dollar industry. Money is what makes the world turn, and looking at the globe, it seems rather obvious from an outside standpoint that strong Gun Culture is in the only place where it is also worth 12 billion dollars a year. For a mere 425 million a year, the Reagan administration sold out on fishing sending Japan back into the Ocean to hunt whales. If the Southern Whaling Operations are worth $425 million a year to sell out on whaling, $12 billion would be worth selling out citizens for too wouldn't it?

[psyche101]

Yes, but I'm not the one having consistency issues.

No you have comprehension issues if you cannot distinguish a person from a tank. Good God man.

[Michelle]

Thank you for sharing your personal experience, it must still bring back awful memories, thank goodness you were not hurt. I can understand why you have a personal support for guns - this is partly what I was speaking about. The impact an event like that can have.

Well, they could not be charged because they did not do anything, and it would be hard to prove their intent, although not hard to believe. Do you honestly feel a large dog would not have been enough? Had you said "sick em boy" it might be you who had to answer to police? And perhaps they might have thought twice about attempting such a low life scumbag act again? If you had no dog, with two people flanking you, it strikes me that it would have been easy for them to get the gun from you, and then use it against you. As such, it seems to me that Fido saved the day there, not the gun.

Personally, I am glad you had a dog with you that day, I hope he got extra treats that night.

First, the dog was a girl. Second, they would not have gotten within arms length of me to take my gun. Gun training 101, they are meant to get the offender before they get close enough to touch you.

No, I do not know you well, but from what I have seen so far, you are one of the people "I am not worried about" you are a sensible person with a good head on your shoulders, like Dichecker, he could have 100 guns and I would not bat an eyelid because I know he would not have 100 guns, he would have what he needs for his rural environment, nothing more. If everyone in the US exhibited the same commons sense and restraint, there would not be the Gun Culture there is today I feel.

Thank you...but I am the average gun owner. We are the kid's teachers, the CEO's at major corporations, the secretaries, the CPA's, the waitresses, the librarian, the housekeepers, Grandma and Grandpa. There is no way to stereotype gun owners in the US.

my initial comment was that I feel the US public is brainwashed by the Gun Industry into believing they "need" guns and with them raking in 12 billion a year,

How do you think we are brainwashed? Firearms aren't advertised except on sport/hunting TV channels or magazines you subscribe to. Viagra, yes, I'm sick to death of hearing about, but guns, no. Another analogy is your first car. It's not if you are going to buy a car but when.

It is a different mindset, but to the majority, they are incidental.

[green_dude777]

No you have comprehension issues if you cannot distinguish a person from a tank. Good God man.

I think you already addressed this with the 'tosser' post.

[green_dude777]

I don't think you desire such an end, I have seen a few of your posts and you seems a really sensible nice person with a good head on you shoulders.

And because of that, I won't comment on your post, because I don't really understand what you are trying to say, and do not want to put words into your mouth.

May I ask in the interests of clarification, how does the situation in Afghanistan make it plausible to consider that the US will go to war against it's own citizens? I understand the last bit, and it is a reasonable position, I feel the same way about Shariah Law, I would die before I would live under it. But there seems to be no actual reason to consider that anyones liberties would be removed or such a way would break out. Are not most soldiers ordinary folk? Why would they follow such an order? What Soldier in his right mind would shoot at his family and friends? I honestly bet none. That seems to be more of a propaganda stunt to make people think they need guns when they do not.

He's saying that if insurgents in these countries can put up a fight against the invincible western military, we as citizens can as well.

Did your educators have to draw the lines between the dots for you as well?

[psyche101]

First, the dog was a girl. Second, they would not have gotten within arms length of me to take my gun. Gun training 101, they are meant to get the offender before they get close enough to touch you.

My deepest apologies to the valiant canine, and deepest respects. I hope SHE still got treats that night anyway!

I thought you said they flanked you? One could not have surprised you from behind? Not meaning to nitpick, but it really seems tat would have been much worse of you just had a gun and no dog. That's what we learn with weapons in martial arts as soon as you touch one - someone out there is always a little quicker and might take it off you, then things are going to get worse all the time.

Either way, I am more than please you came away unharmed and have come away with a positive attitude.

Thank you...but I am the average gun owner. We are the kid's teachers, the CEO's at major corporations, the secretaries, the CPA's, the waitresses, the librarian, the housekeepers, Grandma and Grandpa. There is no way to stereotype gun owners in the US.

That is not what I see in the forums, no matter how much assurance I get that this is uncommon, and flick of a forum page on the Internet speak otherwise. In one forum a poster claiming to be an actual Judge ranted of the most immature gun ownership spiel I have ever seen, I was embarrassed for the entire US just over his childish and inane rants about killing intruders. He was a gutless pathetic weakling that had to hide behind words and weapons, UM is a cut above other forums to my experience and we still see some red neck comments that are somewhat over the top. Heck, I got called weak in this very thread because I said I wont, and don't own a gun. Constant taunts, bravado, and the TV shows on Gun Shops just make the entire culture look completely insane to the rest of the world. Have you seen the gun shop show with the wild 18 year old young girl swearing carrying on all the time with a shotgun over her shoulder? I mean Lord!! WTF is going on there!! All I see is US people stating they MUST have a gun, some of whom really, really, really should NOT have a gun, and threats such as that stupid [oster claiming to be a judge (I really hope not, some idiot like that in the legal system is a horrific thought) all in the one country that has a 12 billion dollar annual industry that seems to not get discussed much. How they hell do they sell 12 BILLION a year in guns? Why do average Americans need machine guns? Why do Americans say they will use them at the drop of a hat? These childish speeches of bravado do not make these people look tough at all, it makes them look somewhat insane. And when the rest of the civilised western world has woken up and thrown away guns, why the insistence they are still required in the US? Some posters say things like I THink I was Meant to Lead People out of their ignorance" and talk about taking on the Government and idiotic spiels like that.

How do you think we are brainwashed? Firearms aren't advertised except on sport/hunting TV channels or magazines you subscribe to. Viagra, yes, I'm sick to death of hearing about, but guns, no. Another analogy is your first car. It's not if you are going to buy a car but when.

It is a different mindset, but to the majority, they are incidental.

That's what got this part of the discussion flowing - Daniel said He defends the right of people to bear arms in case the Government attacks them - I mean what sort of inane logic is that? And this just happens to be coming from a country with a 12 Billion annual industry? How would one not suspect Gun Manufacturers of keeping the industry alive when people cite the second amendment as right to bear arms, and state they need that in case the Government comes and starts a war? That is the most inane and ridiculous excuse one could come up with in my opinion, and no other countries Government accepts home invasion as a reasonable excuse to keep a deadly weapon. Again - all from a country that has a 12 Billion dollar industry. I am not sure exactly who it is that might brainwashing the people, the Gun Manufacturer or the Government, but after just facing a GFC, it seems any Government would want to keep a 12 Billion dollar industry alive. That means the people have work and the Government will be getting their taxes. Nobody seems to acknowledge the the US Sold out whaling for 425 million a year, I see 12 billion as decent motivation. People are suspicious of their Government over 911 because some fat conspiracy theorist tells them to believe it, but do not think having the only strong Gun Culture in the world sitting on a 12 Billion dollar annual industry is not suspicious at all? Just the dollars alone are a red flag. We have mining to keep us afloat, Guns seems to be a very major US industry product, and I am sure many people realise that and protect it.

[psyche101]

I think you already addressed this with the 'tosser' post.

You do not seem to be "getting it" as you too repeated yourself, I felt the honor should be returned.

You finally get it do you? Not "inconsistency" when you put it in context is it. Reading is good, do more of it.

[psyche101]

He's saying that if insurgents in these countries can put up a fight against the invincible western military, we as citizens can as well.

I would have rather waited for the actual poster, but as you seem confident, that seems a silly statement. Insurgents hiding amongst women and children like the gutless cretins they are use human shields, that not skill and it is not "fight" it is the gutless act of a pathetic coward. Last I saw, OBL, Hussein and their cronies were pushing up Daisies, Obama is looking quite fit though. They didn't do so well it seems.

If you are speaking of the gutless coward who hide IED's for any innocent that's not a relevant example either. When a Soldier goes of his rocker and wanders into town slaughtering civilians, they don't seem to be able to do much at all from what I have seen.

Did your educators have to draw the lines between the dots for you as well?

Of course they did, one should always be 100% crystal clear, or you risk putting words in someones mouth don't you? I do not want to do that, I am asking honest questions and expect honest answers.

[green_dude777]

You do not seem to be "getting it" as you too repeated yourself, I felt the honor should be returned.

You finally get it do you? Not "inconsistency" when you put it in context is it. Reading is good, do more of it.

No, we got on the same page. Guns are lethal, and not like toys in any sense. Again, you referred to them as 'pop guns'. I never once said they weren't lethal. You then took issue with the term 'tool'.

Again, you criticize my reading comprehension, yet lines have to be drawn for you to see the implications of a point made. E.g. And Then's reference to how insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan can fight against a military, us born and bred Americans sure as hell can.

Seriously, if I thought you were a waste of time, I would have already stopped discussing the issue with you. With that said, I think you're getting a little blinded by whatever it is you feel, and missing some implied statements.

[green_dude777]

I would have rather waited for the actual poster, but as you seem confident, that seems a silly statement. Insurgents hiding amongst women and children like the gutless cretins they are use human shields, that not skill and it is not "fight" it is the gutless act of a pathetic coward. Last I saw, OBL, Hussein and their cronies were pushing up Daisies, Obama is looking quite fit though. They didn't do so well it seems.

If you are speaking of the gutless coward who hide IED's for any innocent that's not a relevant example either. When a Soldier goes of his rocker and wanders into town slaughtering civilians, they don't seem to be able to do much at all from what I have seen.

Of course they did, one should always be 100% crystal clear, or you risk putting words in someones mouth don't you? I do not want to do that, I am asking honest questions and expect honest answers.

And the great British Empire in the late 1700's/early 1800's couldn't be defeated. Stop singling out one tactic and look at the broader picture.

[psyche101]

No, we got on the same page. Guns are lethal, and not like toys in any sense. Again, you referred to them as 'pop guns'. I never once said they weren't lethal. You then took issue with the term 'tool'.

I think you should be able to see this is good reason for some ribbing back at you, I was not being inconsistent at all. Even Dirty Harry;s .44 magnum is a "toy" in comparison the a cannot isn't it? And one mounted on a tank? It would be like throwing blueberries at someone with a gun, wouldn't it? Just do not try to make out that I am an idiot please and we will get along fine - Guns kill people not tanks, lets not try to confuse that issue and say Guns are harmless just because they are useless against a freaking tank man.

Yes I do feel "tool" is an incorrect term used to describe a deadly weapon in that instance, and it is inappropriate. A tool is used to assist man, a weapon is used to kill. A Bow and arrow is a weapon, a gun is a weapon, they are designed to do one thing.

Again, you criticize my reading comprehension, yet lines have to be drawn for you to see the implications of a point made. E.g. And Then's reference to how insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan can fight against a military, us born and bred Americans sure as hell can.

I am just giving what I get.

What insurgents are fighting the military "Successfully"? What happens when it gets hot? The military drop a bomb.

Seriously, if I thought you were a waste of time, I would have already stopped discussing the issue with you. With that said, I think you're getting a little blinded by whatever it is you feel, and missing some implied statements.

And if I thought you were not worth speaking to, I would not explain myself to you.

I prefer people to be direct, lets leave implication behind and just be straight up honest with each other hey. If you feel I am blinded, lets discuss and see if that is the case, if I am, I will admit it. And not being facetious, but can I count on you for the same?

And the great British Empire in the late 1700's/early 1800's couldn't be defeated. Stop singling out one tactic and look at the broader picture.

You do realise the year is 2014, and military hardware has advanced since then? A drone operator can wipe out a village in another country from a comfortable desk.

[green_dude777]

I think you should be able to see this is good reason for some ribbing back at you, I was not being inconsistent at all. Even Dirty Harry;s .44 magnum is a "toy" in comparison the a cannot isn't it? And one mounted on a tank? It would be like throwing blueberries at someone with a gun, wouldn't it? Just do not try to make out that I am an idiot please and we will get along fine - Guns kill people not tanks, lets not try to confuse that issue and say Guns are harmless just because they are useless against a freaking tank man.

Yes I do feel "tool" is an incorrect term used to describe a deadly weapon in that instance, and it is inappropriate. A tool is used to assist man, a weapon is used to kill. A Bow and arrow is a weapon, a gun is a weapon, they are designed to do one thing.

I am just giving what I get.

What insurgents are fighting the military "Successfully"? What happens when it gets hot? The military drop a bomb.

And if I thought you were not worth speaking to, I would not explain myself to you.

I prefer people to be direct, lets leave implication behind and just be straight up honest with each other hey. If you feel I am blinded, lets discuss and see if that is the case, if I am, I will admit it. And not being facetious, but can I count on you for the same?

You do realise the year is 2014, and military hardware has advanced since then? A drone operator can wipe out a village in another country from a comfortable desk.

The insurgents that still exist, ten years later. Wars can be won or lost in more than one way. Are you familiar with victory by attrition?

We disagree on this core thought; The American people can defend itself as a free people from a rogue, tyrannical gov't.

I think we can, others disagree.

[MysticStrummer]

Gun control isn't much different from the failed prohibition of alcohol and the incredibly failed war on drugs. People want these things so they will have them, whether for good, evil, or neutral purposes. It's our society (system, culture, way of life, whatever you want to call it) that's the problem, not the things themselves.

[aztek]

You are the one who called me weak without a gun, which makes you a hypocrite here.

lmao, you are 12, and even less bright than i thought before,

i never said you are weak without a gun, i said you are weak fighting alone, huge difference, yep, my assessment of you stands, insecure arrogant kid, nothing more. have fun growing up.

and i see no reason to see your posts ever again, since you do not read what is written, but what you want to see, and argue with.

[Myles]

People who want marijuana legalised want it because of medicinal reasons and show proof as to why they feel it should be available.

Now that is as crazy as you say people protecting themselves against the government is.

I know many people who favor legalizing pot, and none of them for medical reasons.

[aztek]

Gun control isn't much different from the failed prohibition of alcohol and the incredibly failed war on drugs. People want these things so they will have them, whether for good, evil, or neutral purposes. It's our society (system, culture, way of life, whatever you want to call it) that's the problem, not the things themselves.

prohibition didn't exactly failed, it thought a lot, like, you make much more money from illegal trades on one hand, and fighting it on the other, exactly what we have now.

[Thorvir]

If you think that is "macho" I feel sorry for you.

You can feel sorry for me all you want to. Doesn't make my statement any less true.

And you are a hypocrite

Show me where that is true.

, I was called "weak" for not wanting to have a gun, all I said was I do not need one, I am self capable, which REALLY seems to have hit some nerves in here hey? Bit close to home is it?

I never said you were weak, so calm yourself. And, how do you think this has "hit some nerves"? How is it a "bit close to home"? You're starting to just make up stuff on the spot.

If you take guns away from every person, you wont have to have a gunfight, why do so many struggle to comprehending that bit?

Another common misconception. If you take guns away from every person, then the criminals will get guns illegally and use them against an unarmed populace. How is that so hard to comprehend? Wow.

How about this - Why the hell would you WANT to fight in the first place?

Who says I want to fight in the first place? Where does that come from?

It's about defence isn't it? Gee, such a pacifist you are.......

Again, you've confused yourself. It IS about defense. That's not hard to grasp, why are you having so much difficulty with it? Also, where did this pacifist nonsense come from? I am as far from a pacifist as one can get. You're making up stuff on the spot again. Or maybe you're referring to someone else?

Nobody in the US or Australia has guns, we get along just fine, and in Australia, we do not miss the public shootings one little bit. Last one was 1996, the same year we began banning guns.

Show me the stat that says nobody in the US has guns. And, actually, show me the stat that nobody in Australia has guns. Again, your misplaced tantrum toward me has confused you.

Yet you do not seem to think so many lives is worth your personal piece of mind?

Come again? Show me where that is true. Please. I'd rather to NOT have to shoot an assaulter, but when it comes down to it, my life or his, it's an easy choice. Best that he didn't try to assault me in the first place, that's just plain common sense.

All you are doing is showing worse and worse reasons to hang onto this archaic barbaric culture that is without doubt propagated by a very lucrative Industry that wants you to think you need guns. And they have 12 Billion reasons every year to keep that happening.

Right, our "archaic barbaric" culture.

I'll take that compared to a world where the citizens do not have the right to defend themselves, and are just considered prey. I'll take any culture that values the individual life so much that they are allowed to defend it at all costs. And you call me barbaric. Wow. Did you even think when you were posting this codswallop?

Listen, I'm not sure why you flew off the handle like this, buy my initial post was not directed at you at all. It was in general; certain people tend to think that gun-owners who would rather defend themselves with any means necessary (with guns) are weak and cowardly. And that's a complete fabrication. I pointed that out, but it must have hit a bit close to home with you. I am sorry that happened, but your internet-rage is a bit misplaced.

[Thorvir]

lmao, you are 12, and even less bright than i thought before,

i never said you are weak without a gun, i said you are weak fighting alone, huge difference, yep, my assessment of you stands, insecure arrogant kid, nothing more. have fun growing up.

and i see no reason to see your posts ever again, since you do not read what is written, but what you want to see, and argue with.

He's only 12? Ah, okay then. If that is true, I guess I can cut him some slack for being inconsistent and insulting and taking things out of context.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[aztek]

He's only 12? Ah, okay then. If that is true, I guess I can cut him some slack for being inconsistent and insulting and taking things out of context.

not sure if he's really 12, but he sounds about that old.