Ron 10 #51 January 21, 2005 QuoteCan I just have a lollipop instead? No. If you do well we can stop and get Ice Cream later"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #52 January 21, 2005 QuoteNo. If you do well we can stop and get Ice Cream later The one I always used to get from my father was "on the way back". ie we could go in the toy shop "on the way back". Or that we could get an ice cream "on the way back". Then we'd just happen walk a different way back. That way it was never his fault when I didn't get what I wanted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #53 January 21, 2005 QuoteC'mon John... you've totally missed the point of this thread. You're supposed to be arguing the other side. Maybe he IS arguing the other side and has been all along... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #54 January 21, 2005 No sorry, but John's normally pro-gun and is here too - so I think that he may well have missed the point. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #55 January 21, 2005 QuoteNo sorry, but John's normally pro-gun and is here too - so I think that he may well have missed the point. i knew that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites shropshire 0 #56 January 21, 2005 whoop sorry (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #57 January 21, 2005 QuoteCould you just once answer the question? Would you rather face a crazed man that wanted to kill you if he had: A. A nice sharp pointed stick. B. A Glock .40 QuoteThe problem with this fairy-tale dream is that it just isn't possible. The history of crime around the world proves that no matter what measures are instituted to try and prevent criminals from getting guns - they don't work. Even Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, surrounded by Nazis, in what may have been the most heavily controlled neighborhood on earth, managed to smuggle in some guns with which to defend themselves. Well logic says that the more guns there are the easier they are to get. The easier they are to get the bigger chance that they will be used by a bad guy. See if they didn't exist, then no one could use one....If everyone carried one there would be more gun fights. Do you deny the basic facts? And unless you answer the question, don't bother to respond. So by your standard, we should get rid of all nuclear weapons. Don't you realize that the ability to kill from a distance makes the world a safer place? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #58 January 21, 2005 QuoteSo by your standard, we should get rid of all nuclear weapons. We should as long as EVERYONE gets rid of them. QuoteDon't you realize that the ability to kill from a distance makes the world a safer place? Only for those with the long distance weapons."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #59 January 21, 2005 Quote Only for those with the long distance weapons. Peace Through Superior Firepower? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #60 January 21, 2005 QuoteSo by your standard, we should get rid of all nuclear weapons. No, no no! We should let everyone have nuclear weapons. Otherwise law abiding people will be unable to defend themselves from the villains who will get hold of nukes whatever the law says. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #61 January 21, 2005 QuotePeace Through Superior Firepower Thats not peace. Thats fear."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #62 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuotePeace Through Superior Firepower Thats not peace. Thats fear. Not for the people with the firepower, it's not! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #63 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotePeace Through Superior Firepower Thats not peace. Thats fear. Not for the people with the firepower, it's not! Exactly, the more guns there are, the less fear. I believe this makes the case for the US to help Iran, Iraq, N. Korea etc develop nuclear weapons. The more countries that have nukes, the less likely they are to use them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #64 January 21, 2005 QuoteThe more countries that have nukes, the less likely they are to use them. Hmmmm...I really don't agree with you there. Infact having a shitload of nuclear powers is kinda worrisome. Especially with unstable folks at the helm...like Iran and N. Korea. Hell, the US experienced the worst loss of civilian life and the worst attack on the US mainland since the war of 1812 and we still didn't go nuclear. I'm not so sure about the others...I'm not so sure about China actually. Especially with all the work they're putting into their "space program."--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #65 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe more countries that have nukes, the less likely they are to use them. QuoteHmmmm...I really don't agree with you there. Infact having a shitload of nuclear powers is kinda worrisome. Especially with unstable folks at the helm...like Iran and N. Korea. Perhaps their view of the US is that we are unstable. I mean how many countries has China, Iran or N. Korea invaded lately? QuoteHell, the US experienced the worst loss of civilian life and the worst attack on the US mainland since the war of 1812 and we still didn't go nuclear. Yes but thats only because Congress refused to officially declare war. You can bet that Bush and the Neo-Conservative Christians would have used them if they could. QuoteI'm not so sure about the others...I'm not so sure about China actually. Especially with all the work they're putting into their "space program." Why would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. The US represents a lucrative market for Chinese goods. If you were a businessman, would it benefit you to try and kill your customers? We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Bush and his oil buddies only want to slow down Chinas' economic growth because they realize it will cause more competition for oil. All Bush and his buddies care about is making themselves rich and they don't care about the average person in China. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #66 January 21, 2005 QuoteYes but thats only because Congress refused to officially declare war. You can bet that Bush and the Neo-Conservative Christians would have used them if they could. Really? Prove it. That's just your opinion and you have exactly no facts to back that one up. QuoteWhy would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. The US represents a lucrative market for Chinese goods. If you were a businessman, would it benefit you to try and kill your customers? They are not "businessmen" they are a communist nation. That's a huge difference. They still see the US as an outside influence that can and will destroy their government. Not through overt military action, but through the westernizing of China. Another side note...what has the large majority of wars been faught over throughout all of history? Land. What is China starting to run out of? How many of our allies are around China and has a history of wars with China? Step outside of your box and look around (to use a cliche...since you started using cliches...)--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #67 January 21, 2005 Point of the thread: argue the other side Participants: I think only Ron for real here. Kind of like a soft hitting contest: "You go first" tap "Now me" POW "you win" I don't see any of the anti-gun regulars taking up the NRA positions either. This is obviously a trap by the anti-gunners to convert Ron to their 'side'. What they'll do with him once they get him I'm not sure. Anti-gunners - It would be easier if you just offered to purchase him from us. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #68 January 21, 2005 QuoteWhy would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. But if they nuked the USA and destroyed all the stuff they had already sold then the USA would have to buy a whole load more stuff from them to replace it. It makes perfect business sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #69 January 21, 2005 QuoteThis is obviously a trap by the anti-gunners to convert Ron to their 'side'. What they'll do with him once they get him I'm not sure. Oh, they will ignore me just like you guys do to me now. QuoteAnti-gunners - It would be easier if you just offered to purchase him from us. Do I get a say in this? All this really proves is I understand BOTH sides. They don't even try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #70 January 21, 2005 QuoteWell logic says that the more guns there are the easier they are to get. The easier they are to get the bigger chance that they will be used by a bad guy. If everyone carried one there would be more gun fights. What seems logical on the face of it, is often not true. To answer you question; yes, I would rather face an attacker with a stick, than a gun. However, I reject the premise of the question. It presumes that some law can be passed which would prevent a criminal from getting a gun, and history proves otherwise. Thus, there is nothing anyone can do which would force criminals to resort to using sticks. The question is therefore moot. The fact is, there are currently more guns in circulation than ever before, and also more people with concealed carry licenses than ever before, and yet gun crime is at a 25-year low, and gun accidents at a 100-year low. That's what I mean by "logical" often not being true. The reason in this case is that your logic ignores all other factors, such as gun safety training, public awareness advertisements, advances in design, and so forth. We already had this discussion here just a few weeks ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #71 January 21, 2005 QuoteC'mon John... you've totally missed the point of this thread. You're supposed to be arguing the other side. I tried. I just can't do it - it's not in my soul. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #72 January 21, 2005 Quotehow many countries has China, Iran or N. Korea invaded lately? Perhaps the only reason they don't is because they know the U.S. is a superpower and wouldn't stand for it. If we adopted an isolationist policy and refused to get involved in anything outside our borders, they all might well start running amok. Our power is what keeps tyrants in check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #73 January 21, 2005 QuotePerhaps the only reason they don't is because they know the U.S. is a superpower and wouldn't stand for it. I am not sure the US would come out a winner in a war against China. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #74 January 21, 2005 Depends on how you would define victory conditions. I don't doubt the US would triumph in a total war from both sides, but neither side would really be a winner afterwards. Add in potential allies and make it full on world war three, well, then I don't think anyone would be left to claim they are the winner.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #75 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteActually federal statistics say that knife attacks result in death far more often than gun attacks. Guns miss. Once the knife comes at you it's hard to miss with it. Knifes have a limited range. What's your point? An attack with a knife is more likely to result in death. Full stop, end of story. QuoteQuoteIf he can reach me, I can reach him. On the other hand, it's a whole lot easier to run away from a gun (in the hands of a lunatic). Lunitics may be great shots. You think it's easier to run froma gun with a kife than a guy with a gun? I'm going to assume you meant "easier to run from a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun?" That is the opposite of what I said. I believe it is easier to run a from a man with a gun. Most peopel stand still while they shoot, and most people miss. Simple facts. People with knives close to arms length and rarely miss. They also have unlimited "shots." Don't play hypotheticals with me, that "linatics may be great shots." The plain statistical truth is that in the real world stab wounds are more likely to be fatal and most shots fired in anger are going to miss their intended target.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
shropshire 0 #56 January 21, 2005 whoop sorry (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #57 January 21, 2005 QuoteCould you just once answer the question? Would you rather face a crazed man that wanted to kill you if he had: A. A nice sharp pointed stick. B. A Glock .40 QuoteThe problem with this fairy-tale dream is that it just isn't possible. The history of crime around the world proves that no matter what measures are instituted to try and prevent criminals from getting guns - they don't work. Even Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, surrounded by Nazis, in what may have been the most heavily controlled neighborhood on earth, managed to smuggle in some guns with which to defend themselves. Well logic says that the more guns there are the easier they are to get. The easier they are to get the bigger chance that they will be used by a bad guy. See if they didn't exist, then no one could use one....If everyone carried one there would be more gun fights. Do you deny the basic facts? And unless you answer the question, don't bother to respond. So by your standard, we should get rid of all nuclear weapons. Don't you realize that the ability to kill from a distance makes the world a safer place? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #58 January 21, 2005 QuoteSo by your standard, we should get rid of all nuclear weapons. We should as long as EVERYONE gets rid of them. QuoteDon't you realize that the ability to kill from a distance makes the world a safer place? Only for those with the long distance weapons."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 January 21, 2005 Quote Only for those with the long distance weapons. Peace Through Superior Firepower? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #60 January 21, 2005 QuoteSo by your standard, we should get rid of all nuclear weapons. No, no no! We should let everyone have nuclear weapons. Otherwise law abiding people will be unable to defend themselves from the villains who will get hold of nukes whatever the law says. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #61 January 21, 2005 QuotePeace Through Superior Firepower Thats not peace. Thats fear."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #62 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuotePeace Through Superior Firepower Thats not peace. Thats fear. Not for the people with the firepower, it's not! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #63 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotePeace Through Superior Firepower Thats not peace. Thats fear. Not for the people with the firepower, it's not! Exactly, the more guns there are, the less fear. I believe this makes the case for the US to help Iran, Iraq, N. Korea etc develop nuclear weapons. The more countries that have nukes, the less likely they are to use them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #64 January 21, 2005 QuoteThe more countries that have nukes, the less likely they are to use them. Hmmmm...I really don't agree with you there. Infact having a shitload of nuclear powers is kinda worrisome. Especially with unstable folks at the helm...like Iran and N. Korea. Hell, the US experienced the worst loss of civilian life and the worst attack on the US mainland since the war of 1812 and we still didn't go nuclear. I'm not so sure about the others...I'm not so sure about China actually. Especially with all the work they're putting into their "space program."--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #65 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe more countries that have nukes, the less likely they are to use them. QuoteHmmmm...I really don't agree with you there. Infact having a shitload of nuclear powers is kinda worrisome. Especially with unstable folks at the helm...like Iran and N. Korea. Perhaps their view of the US is that we are unstable. I mean how many countries has China, Iran or N. Korea invaded lately? QuoteHell, the US experienced the worst loss of civilian life and the worst attack on the US mainland since the war of 1812 and we still didn't go nuclear. Yes but thats only because Congress refused to officially declare war. You can bet that Bush and the Neo-Conservative Christians would have used them if they could. QuoteI'm not so sure about the others...I'm not so sure about China actually. Especially with all the work they're putting into their "space program." Why would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. The US represents a lucrative market for Chinese goods. If you were a businessman, would it benefit you to try and kill your customers? We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Bush and his oil buddies only want to slow down Chinas' economic growth because they realize it will cause more competition for oil. All Bush and his buddies care about is making themselves rich and they don't care about the average person in China. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #66 January 21, 2005 QuoteYes but thats only because Congress refused to officially declare war. You can bet that Bush and the Neo-Conservative Christians would have used them if they could. Really? Prove it. That's just your opinion and you have exactly no facts to back that one up. QuoteWhy would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. The US represents a lucrative market for Chinese goods. If you were a businessman, would it benefit you to try and kill your customers? They are not "businessmen" they are a communist nation. That's a huge difference. They still see the US as an outside influence that can and will destroy their government. Not through overt military action, but through the westernizing of China. Another side note...what has the large majority of wars been faught over throughout all of history? Land. What is China starting to run out of? How many of our allies are around China and has a history of wars with China? Step outside of your box and look around (to use a cliche...since you started using cliches...)--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #67 January 21, 2005 Point of the thread: argue the other side Participants: I think only Ron for real here. Kind of like a soft hitting contest: "You go first" tap "Now me" POW "you win" I don't see any of the anti-gun regulars taking up the NRA positions either. This is obviously a trap by the anti-gunners to convert Ron to their 'side'. What they'll do with him once they get him I'm not sure. Anti-gunners - It would be easier if you just offered to purchase him from us. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #68 January 21, 2005 QuoteWhy would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. But if they nuked the USA and destroyed all the stuff they had already sold then the USA would have to buy a whole load more stuff from them to replace it. It makes perfect business sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 10 #69 January 21, 2005 QuoteThis is obviously a trap by the anti-gunners to convert Ron to their 'side'. What they'll do with him once they get him I'm not sure. Oh, they will ignore me just like you guys do to me now. QuoteAnti-gunners - It would be easier if you just offered to purchase him from us. Do I get a say in this? All this really proves is I understand BOTH sides. They don't even try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #70 January 21, 2005 QuoteWell logic says that the more guns there are the easier they are to get. The easier they are to get the bigger chance that they will be used by a bad guy. If everyone carried one there would be more gun fights. What seems logical on the face of it, is often not true. To answer you question; yes, I would rather face an attacker with a stick, than a gun. However, I reject the premise of the question. It presumes that some law can be passed which would prevent a criminal from getting a gun, and history proves otherwise. Thus, there is nothing anyone can do which would force criminals to resort to using sticks. The question is therefore moot. The fact is, there are currently more guns in circulation than ever before, and also more people with concealed carry licenses than ever before, and yet gun crime is at a 25-year low, and gun accidents at a 100-year low. That's what I mean by "logical" often not being true. The reason in this case is that your logic ignores all other factors, such as gun safety training, public awareness advertisements, advances in design, and so forth. We already had this discussion here just a few weeks ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #71 January 21, 2005 QuoteC'mon John... you've totally missed the point of this thread. You're supposed to be arguing the other side. I tried. I just can't do it - it's not in my soul. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #72 January 21, 2005 Quotehow many countries has China, Iran or N. Korea invaded lately? Perhaps the only reason they don't is because they know the U.S. is a superpower and wouldn't stand for it. If we adopted an isolationist policy and refused to get involved in anything outside our borders, they all might well start running amok. Our power is what keeps tyrants in check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #73 January 21, 2005 QuotePerhaps the only reason they don't is because they know the U.S. is a superpower and wouldn't stand for it. I am not sure the US would come out a winner in a war against China. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #74 January 21, 2005 Depends on how you would define victory conditions. I don't doubt the US would triumph in a total war from both sides, but neither side would really be a winner afterwards. Add in potential allies and make it full on world war three, well, then I don't think anyone would be left to claim they are the winner.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #75 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteActually federal statistics say that knife attacks result in death far more often than gun attacks. Guns miss. Once the knife comes at you it's hard to miss with it. Knifes have a limited range. What's your point? An attack with a knife is more likely to result in death. Full stop, end of story. QuoteQuoteIf he can reach me, I can reach him. On the other hand, it's a whole lot easier to run away from a gun (in the hands of a lunatic). Lunitics may be great shots. You think it's easier to run froma gun with a kife than a guy with a gun? I'm going to assume you meant "easier to run from a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun?" That is the opposite of what I said. I believe it is easier to run a from a man with a gun. Most peopel stand still while they shoot, and most people miss. Simple facts. People with knives close to arms length and rarely miss. They also have unlimited "shots." Don't play hypotheticals with me, that "linatics may be great shots." The plain statistical truth is that in the real world stab wounds are more likely to be fatal and most shots fired in anger are going to miss their intended target.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
AggieDave 6 #66 January 21, 2005 QuoteYes but thats only because Congress refused to officially declare war. You can bet that Bush and the Neo-Conservative Christians would have used them if they could. Really? Prove it. That's just your opinion and you have exactly no facts to back that one up. QuoteWhy would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. The US represents a lucrative market for Chinese goods. If you were a businessman, would it benefit you to try and kill your customers? They are not "businessmen" they are a communist nation. That's a huge difference. They still see the US as an outside influence that can and will destroy their government. Not through overt military action, but through the westernizing of China. Another side note...what has the large majority of wars been faught over throughout all of history? Land. What is China starting to run out of? How many of our allies are around China and has a history of wars with China? Step outside of your box and look around (to use a cliche...since you started using cliches...)--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #67 January 21, 2005 Point of the thread: argue the other side Participants: I think only Ron for real here. Kind of like a soft hitting contest: "You go first" tap "Now me" POW "you win" I don't see any of the anti-gun regulars taking up the NRA positions either. This is obviously a trap by the anti-gunners to convert Ron to their 'side'. What they'll do with him once they get him I'm not sure. Anti-gunners - It would be easier if you just offered to purchase him from us. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #68 January 21, 2005 QuoteWhy would China want to use nukes against the US? That would be crazy. But if they nuked the USA and destroyed all the stuff they had already sold then the USA would have to buy a whole load more stuff from them to replace it. It makes perfect business sense. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #69 January 21, 2005 QuoteThis is obviously a trap by the anti-gunners to convert Ron to their 'side'. What they'll do with him once they get him I'm not sure. Oh, they will ignore me just like you guys do to me now. QuoteAnti-gunners - It would be easier if you just offered to purchase him from us. Do I get a say in this? All this really proves is I understand BOTH sides. They don't even try."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #70 January 21, 2005 QuoteWell logic says that the more guns there are the easier they are to get. The easier they are to get the bigger chance that they will be used by a bad guy. If everyone carried one there would be more gun fights. What seems logical on the face of it, is often not true. To answer you question; yes, I would rather face an attacker with a stick, than a gun. However, I reject the premise of the question. It presumes that some law can be passed which would prevent a criminal from getting a gun, and history proves otherwise. Thus, there is nothing anyone can do which would force criminals to resort to using sticks. The question is therefore moot. The fact is, there are currently more guns in circulation than ever before, and also more people with concealed carry licenses than ever before, and yet gun crime is at a 25-year low, and gun accidents at a 100-year low. That's what I mean by "logical" often not being true. The reason in this case is that your logic ignores all other factors, such as gun safety training, public awareness advertisements, advances in design, and so forth. We already had this discussion here just a few weeks ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #71 January 21, 2005 QuoteC'mon John... you've totally missed the point of this thread. You're supposed to be arguing the other side. I tried. I just can't do it - it's not in my soul. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #72 January 21, 2005 Quotehow many countries has China, Iran or N. Korea invaded lately? Perhaps the only reason they don't is because they know the U.S. is a superpower and wouldn't stand for it. If we adopted an isolationist policy and refused to get involved in anything outside our borders, they all might well start running amok. Our power is what keeps tyrants in check. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #73 January 21, 2005 QuotePerhaps the only reason they don't is because they know the U.S. is a superpower and wouldn't stand for it. I am not sure the US would come out a winner in a war against China. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #74 January 21, 2005 Depends on how you would define victory conditions. I don't doubt the US would triumph in a total war from both sides, but neither side would really be a winner afterwards. Add in potential allies and make it full on world war three, well, then I don't think anyone would be left to claim they are the winner.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #75 January 21, 2005 QuoteQuoteActually federal statistics say that knife attacks result in death far more often than gun attacks. Guns miss. Once the knife comes at you it's hard to miss with it. Knifes have a limited range. What's your point? An attack with a knife is more likely to result in death. Full stop, end of story. QuoteQuoteIf he can reach me, I can reach him. On the other hand, it's a whole lot easier to run away from a gun (in the hands of a lunatic). Lunitics may be great shots. You think it's easier to run froma gun with a kife than a guy with a gun? I'm going to assume you meant "easier to run from a guy with a knife than a guy with a gun?" That is the opposite of what I said. I believe it is easier to run a from a man with a gun. Most peopel stand still while they shoot, and most people miss. Simple facts. People with knives close to arms length and rarely miss. They also have unlimited "shots." Don't play hypotheticals with me, that "linatics may be great shots." The plain statistical truth is that in the real world stab wounds are more likely to be fatal and most shots fired in anger are going to miss their intended target.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
