Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Blackleaf

Anti-gun protests in London

390 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Celumnaz
Hi Celumnaz

I do not know if its that your highly intelligent, and that I am highly dumb, or the other way around, but I never seem to understand any point you make on here. Sorry  sad.gif What have environmentalists got to do with anything? Can you explain more please ? Pro Violence is when someone is pro violence. In other words they support acts of violence, and the tools of violence, or anything else that might cause violence.

All the best

Faeden

628466[/snapback]

This has nothing to do with intelligence as far as I know. More to do with thought process maybe?

I see no relationship between gun advocacy and a love of violence. Matter of fact, I think it's pretty sick to think that, but that's my opinion.

Why did I mention environmentalists? Because they use the same logic against a position I have. Just because I want to allow drilling in Alaska doesn't mean if I got the chance I'd crap on the world, or that I love to breathe dirty air... that's what pro-environment implies, that anyone opposed actually wants undrinkable water. In my opinion, it's pretty sick to think that.

pro violence is more up front. There's no implication, it's bluntly stated. If you believe in the 2nd amendment, you want to massacre everyone you can get your hands on.

I am in no way "pro-violence" having been the victim of violent attacks on many occasions, so just hearing those words makes me think "this guy's a nutter!". I know myself better than to believe this "pro-violence" trap.

Followed by emotional evidence, *for the children*, *for your religion*, every time you touch a gun a baby bunny dies... I'm expecting someone to come out with a sagely "this is worty of concern" statement... all to me are red flags for hogwash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faeden

Perhaps we are just from two different planets lol

I’m not going to get into an environmental issue here, as I will end up ranting on for ages, but many people that are pro-violence are just as ignorant on what is happening to the environment, as they are to what there pro-violence attitude does to the families of those that have suffered due to guns, and the horrors that come with guns thumbsup.gif Both pro-violence and pro-earth destroyers more than not seem to have the same selfish mentalities and that is to take take take, or do what they want regardless of the damage they do. And the ones that expose them are accused of being "anti American" or some tree hugging idiot.

Edited by Faeden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz

No, nothing I've said even leads to an environmental debate, it's an example of syntax, semantics, and how it relates to idelogical position... not the position itself.

As long as we can be civil... I don't know about the agree to disagree thing, cause at some point there needs to be a connect between the different thoughts.

See, you're lumping these "pro-violence" people in with the "ignorant" and "pro earth destroyers" as well as "big business" and "pro gun"... matter of fact your whole last post is a good example of everything I'm talking about... and you don't see it... so I can't help. You see it from the "tree hugging" side, it's a start, I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faeden
No, nothing I've said even leads to an environmental debate, it's an example of syntax, semantics, and how it relates to idelogical position... not the position itself.

As long as we can be civil... I don't know about the agree to disagree thing, cause at some point there needs to be a connect between the different thoughts.

See, you're lumping these "pro-violence" people in with the "ignorant" and "pro earth destroyers" as well as "big business" and "pro gun"... matter of fact your whole last post is a good example of everything I'm talking about... and you don't see it... so I can't help.  You see it from the "tree hugging" side, it's a start, I think...

628631[/snapback]

No I have looked into both the "tree hugging" arguments, and the "selfish supporters" arguments, and after an open minded look at both I have formed an opinion on the whole thing. Although the "tree huggers" where no angels, and I did not agree with some of what they say, especially the extremist "environmentalists" that play unfairly. But I found that over all the "tree huggers" genuinely are in it with good intentions, and want to help the planet, and the anti gun people genuinely want to stop people dying from guns. I also found that the pro-earth destroyers where obsessed with capitalism, and where all selfish, and thought about now, and what money they could squeeze out of the planet now, and to hell with the future. And I found the basic attitude of the pro gun people was that they cared more about there tradition, than the people devastated by guns, again they where very selfish and wanted to play ignorant.

I have looked at all arguments, and understood both sides of the arguments, but it seemed over all that the "environmentalists" and the "anti gun" or "anti violence" people where a lot more honest and genuine than the pro-violence and pro-earth destroying people. The environmentalists genuinely want to help a planet that is dying, because of the greed of others. A planet that is our home, that without it no one including the pro earth destroys will have.

I know its not black and white you know, and I do not know what you support, or do not support, so I am not attacking you, I am just answering your questions with my opinions, my opinions obviously differ greatly from yours.

There is a great native American saying that goes something like this……

‘When man has eaten and consumed all the resources on earth, man will then eat and consume him self’

I think that sums up the stupidity of people that keep taking from the earth and then give nothing back.

It also applies in a sense to the people that are pro weapons, they will keep up the arms race until they completely blow the planet up, unless they have not already destroyed it by polluting it of course.

All the best

Faeden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Faeden, I'm sorry but your post rather offended me. You assume that people that are pro gun are pro violent. We are not the brightest of the sparks and have no common sense. You have managed to berate Americans, white people, Christians and Southerners and the fact that you hold Michael Moore up as a valid reason for your views, in my eyes lowers your validity

You do not make me mad nor uncomfortable for I am solid in my beliefs. I also do not need your forgiveness. I am a very passive person, environmentally conservative but don't portray a pro gun activists as ignorant please. You have a very passive aggressive air about you that I've yet to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOriginalF

I don't think that people who own guns are always pro-violence, some are, some aren't. It really depends on the person and there are some very responsible gun owners out there who aren't contributing to the growing violence problem here in the US.

However I still have yet to hear one good argument as to why people need to own handguns. What purpose do they actually serve other than a tool for killing? You don't need one to hunt, you can protect yourself with a rifle (as opposed to a hand gun...see my other posts where I delineate between the two), and I don't see how a handgun will help you if you govt were to become corrupt...which again a rifle would serve the same purpose. So what is the point of keeping them around? Hobby? Safety? What? Are they really still a necessity in todays society? Why do we need something in our society that is contributing to so many deaths when it doesn't really even serve a vital function?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

It's a little hard to carry a rifle when you're climbing a mountain, where a female may be vulnerable, alone from the general population. I have had to use a handgun as self defense in such a situation several times. Not only was it against wild animals but a couple of men that I believe were capable of raping me. But, I have yet had to fire upon a living thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOriginalF

Is that the only form of self defense you can think of? Bring a tazer and a can of pepper spray the next time you go mountain climbing, a good self defense course wouldn't hurt either. I understand you want to protect yourself when vulnerable in the elements, but there are other non lethal means of self defense you could invest in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

I am very capable of fighting off ONE attacker, I believe... at least I hope, but two pfft...I don't think so. At least I don't want to find out who would win.

Up untill recently tazers could only be used if you were in arms length and in contact with the skin. They are absolutely useless in the winter with many layers of clothing.

And, pepper spray is a good deterant, but have you ever seen a 240 pound, six foot tall , man go on a blind rampage? I have, and it's not pretty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faeden

Hi Michelle

I am sorry I have offended you, I am just commenting on what I have seen and experienced, I do not think that all people that support guns are pro violence so to speak, but a majority of them I have known and talk to are, so I am only going on what I have experienced, and come into contact with.

If your not one of the people I am talking about, then I cant see why it offended you so much.

As I said before, I know its not always black and white, but lets face it, the people that are obsessed with guns are more than not obsessed with war and other type of violence too, well again the ones I know are, so maybe I have just been unlucky so far in who I have meet and talked to.

I just cant see what is positive about guns, and the violence that comes with them. I know that its human nature to fight and to be in conflict, but I hope as a human race we can move forward rather than backwards. Arming your self up to the teeth is not moving forward.

You have managed to berate Americans, white people, Christians and Southerners and the fact that you hold Michael Moore up as a valid reason for your views, in my eyes lowers your validity

No I have just commented on what I see many white people, and many southerners, and many Christians doing, and the attitude they have, and the problems they cause. I am a white person, from a Christian family, My girl friend is American. My opinion was not an attack on Christians, or white people, it was just an observation on what seems to be the problem in the places that are suffering these type of issues. Am I supposed to ignore what I see, and what I learn? And just shut up about it, just because it might offend the very people I am talking about ? That’s the problem with a lot of these things, the people that try and speak out against this type of problem are silenced, and accused of being "anti American" "racist" or "anti Christian" I am not talking about these things as an attack on any individual person or group, I am talking out against something I see as corrupt, I am using them as examples on what I see. Maybe I could ignore it like many and be politically correct, but then that is how ignorance happens isn’t it? I suppose people will always accuse you of being this and that if you make them confront uncomfortable issues that they would rather brush under the carpet.

Look at what happened in the last shooting in America in a school, many of the Christian white communities blamed it on a "godless" native American society, forgetting that it was the white Christians that took away there culture, and caused them to be in them poor communities in the first place, and do not tell me they didn’t, because we get news here too and they showed people saying just that very thing in interviews on the TV news, not all of them had that attitude, but some of them did, the interviewer looked quite shocked. Again I am not saying that every person in the white Christian communities said this or is like that, but a lot of them do, and that is apart of the problem, people blaming this and that rather than the mixture of things that built up to what ever it was that happened, they forget its society as a whole that helps breed this kind of violence.

All the best

Faeden

Edited by Faeden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

I was offended because you lumped so many people into such a tidy little package.

People that are responsible gun owners do not brag about the weapons they have. I can't help it if you have been associated with or focused on the seedier side of society.

Your average gun owners are bankers, judges, lawyers, owners of businesses, bus drivers, taxi drivers, etc, etc, etc....

Maybe the focus should be on the people that are committing the gun crimes, such as drug dealers and gangs, after all, and I don't mean any disrespect, black on black crime is the main reason for the high rate of gun crimes in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Faeden
and I don't mean any disrespect, black on black crime is the main reason for the high rate of gun crimes in the US.

No your right, and theirs nothing disrespectful about telling it like it is, but whether its black on black, white on black, or white on white, that is irrelevant, it should not be happening full stop. People in ghettos are only acting how there environment has made them, whether you be black, white or purple that is always going to be the case. I lump everyone that supports violence together yes, but they can be Christians, atheists, Muslims, black, white, whatever, I am not singling out any group or person, but in my experience pro-gun people are normally pro-war, and war is violence, its actually one of the most extreme forms of violence on the planet, and funnily enough its fought with guns.

All the best

Faeden

Edited by Faeden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheOriginalF

I agree Michelle, the focus should be placed on those who commit the crimes and not the guns themselves. A myriad of social problems combine to create the kind of violence we are seeing, however the one common denominator is the ability to posess a handgun. The thought process for a lot of anti gun folks, is to take away the common threat of handguns, it comes down to a simple fundamental question do we as a society place a higher value on the right to bare arms or human life. It's not an easy answer, but when I see statistics like the one posted here earlier that says 400,000 americans have been killed by handguns I believe something needs to be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadawanOsswe
Is that the only form of self defense you can think of? Bring a tazer and a can of pepper spray the next time you go mountain climbing, a good self defense course wouldn't hurt either. I understand you want to protect yourself when vulnerable in the elements, but there are other non lethal means of self defense you could invest in.

628755[/snapback]

oh yeah.....she could really spray mace in a bears eyes or taze a bear and get away with it rolleyes.gif its definatly a good idea to carry a 45. or somethin in the woods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PadawanOsswe

guns are not the source of the problem, the source is the jacka** that pulled the trigger!

getting rid of guns would be stupid because if we as humans dont have a military geuss what, you get taken over in a snap unless you have good aim with rocks and pointy sticks hmm.gif . I like guns, but do I wish people to be killed by em?

NO!

I like guns, but do I wish War to happen NO!

and only the few and ignorant gun owners would think otherwise, sure its sad when somebody dies by the gun, but it is THE KILLER to blame, not the gun, since the killer could have had a knife, bow,cross-bow,spear,etc... the gun is only a tool, a tool for both defense and offense.

and I wouldnt even neccessarilly kill someone in home-defense, ide probably just shoot someone in the foot so that they can be arrested. laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

sigh, i go on a rant and faedan doesn't even listen to any of it

and this is why i get the ****s with anti-gun people, because they never listen to the otherside, and always keep up with the same stupid arguments:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem

This is a good comment:

"I wouldnt even neccessarilly kill someone in home-defense, ide probably just shoot someone in the foot so that they can be arrested."

You watch too many Hollywood movies, that does not work and if it did what you going to do ask them to stand still while I turn on the light so I can shoot you in the foot, I think that comment proves your extensive knowledge on firearms.

I still am trying to work out why a rifle can't be carried while climbing a mountain and comments on keeping my gun under the bed, an unarmed burgler would never think to look there??? I hope there are no children in these houses where guns are hidden in secret places like that?

Guns are a problem in the wrong hands, I don't think anyone would dispute that the trouble is they are so easily accessible to the wrong people, gun control is about restrictinng people access to weapons, the less people that have them the less problem you have with them... everyone here trying to justify having a gun is paranoid and scared.. that already is a recipe for disaster.

March 2005: Minnesota schoolboy kills nine, then shoots himself

May 2004: Four people injured in shooting at a school in Maryland

The Columbine school killings led to calls for tighter gun controls

April 2003: Teenager shoots dead head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself

March 2001: Pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students

February 2000: Six-year-old girl shot dead by classmate in Michigan

November 1999: Thirteen-year-old girl shot dead by a classmate in New Mexico

May 1999: Student injures six pupils in shoot-out in Georgia

April 1999: Two teenagers shoot dead 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves at Columbine School in Colorado

June 1998: Two adults hurt in shooting by teenage student at high school in Virginia

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old boy shoots himself in the head after taking a girl hostage

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old shoots dead two students in school cafeteria in Oregon

April 1998: Fourteen-year-old shoots dead a teacher and wounds two students in Pennsylvania

March 1998: Two boys, 11 and 13, kill four girls and a teacher in Arkansas

December 1997: Fourteen-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky

October 1997: Sixteen-year-old boy stabs mother, then shoots dead two students at school in Mississippi, injuring several others

I wonder how many of these kids used Daddy's guns under the bed and I bet the parents of these victims love the US policy on right to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

it'll sound cold, it'll sound harse, but its the truth

those deaths account for a statistically insignificant amount of murders in the overall scheme of things.

We are looking at about 40 people killed in school shootings a year throughout all of the US, I do believe the number of times firearms are used for defensive purposes exceeds this by a huge margin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem
it'll sound cold, it'll sound harse, but its the truth

those deaths account for a statistically insignificant amount of murders in the overall scheme of things.

We are looking at about 40 people killed in school shootings a year throughout all of the US, I do believe the number of times firearms are used for defensive purposes exceeds this by a huge margin

629379[/snapback]

So that makes it OK then, I guess if you then total up how many gun related deaths through crime and street gang wars, drive by shootings etc.. etc.. etc.. the figure will far exceed defensive reasons for carrying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory

yes but killings for gangs and drugs aren't going to go down if you ban guns, thats the difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem
yes but killings for gangs and drugs aren't going to go down if you ban guns, thats the difference

629393[/snapback]

If you start controlling who carries then at least it is a start to controlling street gangs being able to carry and bear arms for defence surely contributes to the fact a gang defending themselves thinks it is justified against another gang for defensive purposes.

That is no different to you blowing an intruder away in defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bathory
If you start controlling who carries then at least it is a start to controlling street gangs being able to carry and bear arms for defence surely contributes to the fact a gang defending themselves thinks it is justified against another gang for defensive purposes.

That is no different to you blowing an intruder away in defence.

what are you on about?

a murder which is attributed to gangs is no different to a murder by some random joe against another random joe, legally that is.

By the same token, a legal defesive use of a firearm is exactly that, there is no relativity in what constitutes as a defensive use of a firearm if thats what you are trying to argue.

Gangland killings aren't about some random guy going crazy and killing a few people, so removing firearms isn't going to stop the violence because the violence is generally premeditated. You just end up changing either their tactics, or reliance on weaponry that will inevitably be smuggled in with the drugs. Remember the problem isn't legal owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Celumnaz
Lets take a look at the statistics at the Bureau of Justice, even though violent crime is down we still have almost 400,000 hand gun deaths in 2003! That is just completely unacceptable, how can we justify owning handguns when that many people have died at the hands of them?

628216[/snapback]

I know I'm the one that posted the links, and should be able to find it myself... but what links did you click on to find that stat? Everything I'm seeing is for up to 2002, bleh.

EDIT: Dangit, I can't find it! Where is it?? DoJ 2003 handgun deaths... where is it??

I see where in 2002, handgun deaths was 8,286... but I can't find anything for 2003, much less 400,000... someone? anyone? http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

Looks like handguns are less than half the total weapon of choice in total, but haven't done the math yet. I don't understand how violent crime can be down if in one year handgun deaths went up by 391,794 and the highest ever showing was in 1993 at 13,981. What's going on here?

Edited by Celumnaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

In answer to your question XSAS, it's difficult to carry a rifle climbing up a mountain because I often have to use both hands. It's difficult terrain to manage, hence the term climb as opposed to hike. If I were to have a strap with a rifle hung behind my back I would be putting myself at unnecessary risk of it getting snagged on something causing me to loose my footing and tumbling down the mountain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.