WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Harbal]

Does wanting to defend yourself from criminals, require indoctrination? Isn't it universal, common sense?

Of course it's common sense, but the nature of the threat, and that of the defence in response to it, is what is in question.

Maybe your attitude is justified; perhaps you would describe the daily experience of the typical American in regard to the sort of criminal threat he is likely to encounter as he goes about his daily life.

[Age]

Great! So if the members of your society are so civil and reasonable why do you need any laws against gun ownership?

That's like saying is it a legal requirement that everyone should arm themself with a gun to protect themselves from the lawless. As if owning a gun is some kind of insurance policy that unless you have a gun to protect yourself from the lawless, then it's your own fault that your personal life and everything that you deemed beloved in your world has turned to shit for not owning a gun. We simply don't have such laws like taking out insurance plans in the form of personal gun owning self-protection schemes, else your on your own, and ain't no one else going to protect you from lawless behavior available in the UK
It's not like we are against guns, we just dont see them as a necessary object to have in one's life in order to feel safe that's all. I mean it's not like they are banned, or against the law to own, because anyone can own a gun here, but people choose not to, because people here do not feel as though their life is under threat everytime they leave their front door. And that is why there are less mass shootings here in the UK than there are is the US, simply because there are less gun owners to carry out these mindless attacks.

There is no force on earth to stop the lawless from being lawless. But gun ownership is not the answer, it's a false sense of security that only perpetuates the fear of living in a lawless society. And that is why we make laws to protect ourselves from our irrational false sense of securities.

It's nothing like that. You live in a civil and reasonable society.

Everybody should arm themselves if they want to.

EVERY one SHOULD, supposedly, arm themselves AGAINST 'what', EXACTLY?

WHAT IS 'it', which people from some particular, or is that from some 'peculiar', countries BELIEVE that they SHOULD 'bear arms' AGAINST, EXACTLY?

Besides protecting "yourselves" FROM "yourselves" what else do you BELIEVE EVERY body should 'arm' "themselves" FOR, EXACTLY?

Or disarm themselves if they want to.

Are you even AWARE "skepdick" that if you were born INTO and lived WITHIN ANOTHER society/culture that you ALSO could SEE just HOW STUPID and RIDICULOUS 'your' 'should arm themselves' CLAIM IS, EXACTLY?

Guns should be neither necessary nor not necessary.

'Should' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

They simply don't occupy any space in the social discourse - they are neither an issue nor a non-issue. Gun ownership is neither the answer nor not the answer - gun ownership is not even a question.

So why do you have laws against them?

BECAUSE of the STUPID THINKING being PRESENTED here by the likes of 'one's' like 'you' "skepdick". Who HAS ALREADY, supposedly, KILLED and/or MURDERED "others".

See, if there were enough LESS guns, then there WOULD BE MORE lives SAVED, and thus MORE PROTECTION ALSO.

[Age]

And yet the alternative is depending upon the effectiveness and efficiency of your Central Government, to protect your life for you...

Maybe you don't live in the United States. But there are levels of distrust that are more than warranted.

Until a government proves to a near certainty that they can protect their Citizens (they can't), or that they even care (they don't), then, yes...I'd recommend fellow Americans to strap up.

But WHO or WHAT is 'it', EXACTLY, that 'you', people, WANT 'your governments' to 'protect' 'you' FROM, EXACTLY?

guns do NOT STOP meteors, earthquakes, floods, tidal waves, diseases, NOR ANY of those OTHER types of 'things'.

And, creating and using MORE guns to 'protect' "yourselves" from "yourselves" WITH guns does NOT make ANY logical sense AT ALL.

So, besides FROM "yourselves" what are guns supposedly meant to be 'protecting' 'you' FROM, EXACTLY?

[Dontaskme]

So why do you have laws against them?

Because of the unpredictable potential for their owners to carry out needless and mindless random acts of mass murder of the innocents, just because they've decided to lose the plot, and blow everyone to oblivion, including themself.

Same reason why cocaine and heroin, mephedrone and ketamine drugs are banned in Britian.

Their usage only serves to hinder and undermine any hope of a mature mentally balanced intelligent functioning healthy society.

I mean, lets face it, would you allow your own young child to smoke heroin, or own a gun? Who on earth would choose to kill on mass, and what irresponsible mindset must they have that would think that doing something like that was ok? I guess there are pockets of people around that are just not fit to have a gun in their possession, just as you wouldn't dream of allowing your child to own a gun. Somewhere along the line someone who is capable of laying down some laws of responsibilty has to take over, just as you wouldn't dream of giving your own child a gun ... you'd lay down a law for the child to not be allowed a gun, and that would become the right thing to do.

That's the reality, where there are some parts of the world that have people walking around with the intent to kill on mass using their gun. It's very cowardly behavior too. Thankfully, most mature mentally, and emotionally sensible well balanced intelligent people refrain from such an inhumane practice, because of laws that serve to deter people from taking it out on others their own disturbed mental states of mind...in the same manner we use to protect our own children who have under developed minds to fully understand the serious implications of their actions. So just as we wouldn't dream of arming our children with guns, or allowing them to smoke drugs, we make laws against such potential disasters and insane irresponsibly attitudes of ever having the chance to germinate the entire population with the right to take their mental states out on others. Laws serve as a useful deterrent against such potential tragic events.

[Skepdick]

So why do you have laws against them?

Because of the unpredictable potential for their owners to carry out needless and mindless random acts of mass murder of the innocents, just because they've decided to lose the plot, and blow everyone to oblivion, including themself.

Same reason why cocaine and heroin, mephedrone and ketamine drugs are banned in Britian.

Their usage only serves to hinder and undermine any hope of a mature mentally balanced intelligent functioning healthy society

But you live in a civil society with reasonable people!

You already have a mature, mentally balanced intelligent and functioning society. How are guns going to unravel that?

We know that drugs directly impact sound judgment and decision-making. We know that drugs make people impulsive, irritable aggressive and and anti-social.

Guns don't do that.

So why do you have or need laws against guns?

[Dontaskme]

You already have a mature, mentally balanced intelligent and functioning society. How are guns going to unravel that?

Yes we have because we realised we have no use for gun ownership. Just as we understand not to allow children gun ownership.

If you personally have no hangups about guns, or every gun owning American have no hang ups about guns, then so too should every child in America own a gun.

Every school child in Amercia from kindergarden to secondary school, to college and university should own a gun.

[Skepdick]

Yes we have because we realised we have no use for gun ownership. Just as we understand not to allow children gun ownership.

If you personally have no hangups about guns, or every gun owning American have no hang ups about guns, then so to should every child in America own a gun.

The absence or presence of guns has absolutely no effect on a civil, mature, mentally ballanced intelligent and functioning society.

So why do you have or need laws against them?

[Age]

LOL HOW, EXACTLY?

And, FROM 'what', EXACTLY?

If you take a class on physiology and balistics you'll get the understanding you desire.

LOOK "skepdick" 'you' come here and make CLAIMS, some of which are, seemingly, Truly ABSURD. Now, I QUESTION and/or CHALLENGE 'you' regarding 'your CLAIMS', and if 'you' are NOT CAPABLE of backing up and supporting 'your CLAIMS', which 'you' are CONTINUALLY SHOWING and PROVING here, then I suggest 'you' just STOP MAKING CLAIMS, especially the, seemingly, Truly ABSURD ONES.

'your' ABSOLUTE INABILITY TO JUST ANSWER these TWO VERY SIMPLE and VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS MEANS that 'you' have absolutely NO idea NOR clue ABOUT 'physiology' NOR 'ballistics' if 'your' think or BELIEVE that a class on these 'things' would give 'you' some understanding.

'you' MADE the, seemingly, Truly ABSURD CLAIM that 'your guns' PROTECT LIFE, which, by the way, COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS 'your' previous CLAIMS, but anyway, 'you' MADE 'that CLAIM' here now, so BE BRAVE and NOT ANOTHER True COWARD and JUST ANSWER and CLARIFY the two above CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

HOW, EXACTLY, do 'your guns', supposedly, 'protect life'? And,

FROM 'what', EXACTLY, do 'your guns', supposedly, 'protect life'?

And the Fact that you WILL NOT ANSWER these QUESTIONS OPENLY and Honestly FURTHER PROVES just how DELUDED 'you' REALLY ARE "skepdick".

Who cares about your kangaroo court?

ONCE AGAIN, the ACTUAL PROOF that 'you' ARE Truly DELUDED here "skepdick" is being SHOWN, PROVIDED, PROVED, and VERIFIED by 'your' ABSOLUTE INABILITY to JUST CLARIFY 'your' OWN CLAIMS.

If one can NOT just CLARIFY 'their' OWN CLAIMS, then they REALLY do NOT YET KNOW what 'they' are talking ABOUT and CLAIMING. And this is just BECAUSE 'they' do NOT YET HAVE the ACTUAL PROOF for 'their' OWN CLAIM.

[Dontaskme]

Yes we have because we realised we have no use for gun ownership. Just as we understand not to allow children gun ownership.

If you personally have no hangups about guns, or every gun owning American have no hang ups about guns, then so to should every child in America own a gun.

The absence or presence of guns has absolutely no effect on a civil, mature, mentally ballanced intelligent and functioning society.

So why do you have or need laws against them?

Would you supply your child with a gun to take into school each day, just in case it needs to protect itself?

[henry quirk]

I'll tell you why Henry, because you are posting on the gun thread about guns, and you own a gun.

Yes, I do and I am. This means I'm locked into the popular conversation? No. I'll stick with my odd little corner, if you don't mind (and, even if you do). Someone might come along who wants to join me in it.

[Skepdick]

Would you supply your child with a gun to take into school each day, just in case it needs to protect itself?

No. My child is not civil, mature, mentally ballanced, intelligent and socially functional yet.

That's why he's a fucking child. And that's why he goes to school.

[Harbal]

The absence or presence of guns has absolutely no effect on a civil, mature, mentally ballanced intelligent and functioning society.

So why do you have or need laws against them?

Our law says we are not allowed to kill people, so it kind of makes sense that the law also says we are not allowed to own equipment that is specifically designed to kill people. There's a kind of logic there, if you think about it hard enough.

[Skepdick]

Our law says we are not allowed to kill people, so it kind of makes sense that the law also says we are not allowed to own equipment that is specifically designed to kill people. There's a kind of logic there, if you think about it hard enough.

No logic whatsoever.

Your law doesn't say anything about killing people. Your law forbids you from murdering people.
So on this premise alone - I should be alowed to own a firearm on the premise that I don't use it for murder. Obviously!

But of course, your law does make exception - a situation in which you are in fact allowed to kill people for self-defence. It's the necessity principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_(criminal_law)

[Harbal]

No. My child is not civil, mature, mentally ballanced, intelligent and socially functional yet.

A chip off the old block, hey?

[Age]

I have seen adult human beings have 'meltdowns' when they hear that the guns that they want they are not allowed to have anymore, just like little children have 'meltdowns' when they are not allowed to have the ice cream nor candy that they want, or like when one REFUSES to live in a society where they are not allowed to own a gun, could be ANOTHER form of a 'meltdown'.

And what are we ever going to do as a society when people obtain guns they aren't allowed to have?

Probably the EXACT SAME sort of 'things' that are HAPPENING right now, when this is be written.

BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, there are people who are currently obtaining guns, that they are not allowed to have.

But I am NOT SURE what 'this' has to do with what I WROTE and SAID above here.

Send people with guns to their house?

I am NOT SURE how 'this' is linked with the above. Is there meant to be some logical link here?