China knife attack leaves at least 33 dead and 143 wounded

How do you still not understand the simple principle that guns are built to harm people and nothing else? That runs true whether it's offensive or defensive

MAD is not an effective way to run the world, it just becomes tyranny of the majority

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

An armed people can bring down the most modern military. The American Revolution itself was only fought by an estimated third of the population who would have had very simple weapons for farming purposes - pitted against the British army which was the most powerful in the world. The people won and brought down the tyranny of King George III and his thirteen colonies.

And guns aren't just to 'kill people' - the mere act of firing a gun without the intent to kill somebody, as many yanks do, can scare away evil people wishing to do harm because they know you have a gun. It's mainly a deterrant just as it acts as a deterrant against a tyrannical and out of control government.



I'm not mocking anybody. I'm mocking you lot who post exactly what I am posting whenever there is a gun attack in America - you all go nuts and start calling for guns to be banned or tougher gun laws. Ironically though, barely anybody had anything to say (even though they read it) when I posted a thread a few weeks back on a woman who defended herself and her property using a gun against vile scumbags. Ain't that strange - just as nobody ever had anything to say when I bring up the examples of guns in Switzerland. The VAST majority of Americans use guns sensibly just as the majority of Chinese use knives sensibly.

It's like the people on here who will argue for very tough anti-smoking laws but are absolutely 100% against any tighter controls on the internet for protecting children. Hypocrites.

---

As far as i'm aware the redcoats didn't have remote controlled drones which could kill indiscriminately from above. Pretty silly comparing 19th century technology to that which the military uses today. If you think a couple of hillbillies with rifles stand a chance against the US army then I suggest you get your head examined.

"couple of hillbillies with rifles" way to generalize all gun owners..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

How do you still not understand the simple principle that guns are built to harm people and nothing else? That runs true whether it's offensive or defensive

---

How or what it was built for it entirely irrelevent. You can be against the firing of nuclear weapons until you absolutely must have to and still support having a nuclear deterrent. In a similar way, the mere sight or shot of a gun can deter an intruder in America: and it's saved thousands of people from being either killed or living in fear of break-in's.

It's all about how you use it. A gun after all does not commit murder, a person does. Just as a person can commit murder using a knfie, a baseball bat or his bare hands. Why is it then that only with guns the blame is placed with the weapon whereas it is not with other weapons used?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Don

As far as i'm aware the redcoats didn't have remote controlled drones which could kill indiscriminately from above. Pretty silly comparing 19th century technology to that which the military uses today. If you think a couple of hillbillies with rifles stand a chance against the US army then I suggest you get your head examined.

---

If the American people are ever threatened to such an extent whereby they rise up, then a third of the country would be able to take the military down - absolutely. The Egyptian armed forces along with the Syrian armed forces have/nearly fallen to some rifle wielding terrorists and both armies had spending in the billions per year using Soviet/US technology. The American army - the most advanced in the world with billions worth in bombs, information and weapons - failed against the Vietcong in Vietnam who were just a network of armed peasants firing from underground tunnels.

Either way, an armed people face a better chance than an unarmed people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emily

"couple of hillbillies with rifles" way to generalize all gun owners..

---

Was being hyperbolic...

Quote:

---

An armed people can bring down the most modern military.

---

I'd like to see casual gun owners in America try and take down the American military with nukes.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

How or what it was built for it entirely irrelevent. You can be against the firing of nuclear weapons until you absolutely must have to and still support having a nuclear deterrent. In a similar way, the mere sight or shot of a gun can deter an intruder in America: and it's saved thousands of people from being either killed or living in fear of break-in's.

It's all about how you use it. A gun after all does not commit murder, a person does. Just as a person can commit murder using a knfie, a baseball bat or his bare hands. Why is it then that only with guns the blame is placed with the weapon whereas it is not with other weapons used?



If the American people are ever threatened to such an extent whereby they rise up, then a third of the country would be able to take the military down - absolutely. The Egyptian armed forces along with the Syrian armed forces have/nearly fallen to some rifle wielding terrorists and both armies had spending in the billions per year using Soviet/US technology. The American army - the most advanced in the world with billions worth in bombs, information and weapons - failed against the Vietcong in Vietnam who were just a network of armed peasants firing from underground tunnels.

Either way, an armed people face a better chance than an unarmed people.

---

All these 'civilians can take down military' examples are either not with 1st world country examples, or 21st-century examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

I'd like to see casual gun owners in America try and take down the American military with nukes.

---

The Vietcong did it in Vietnam.

If it ever got serious in America then the millions of armed people would be able to organise themselves into militas and would have a chance of bringing down a tyrannical government. Entirely possible and that's exactly why guns were put into the constitution to protect against both foreign powers (ie the British) and their own government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

All these 'civilians can take down military' examples are either not with 1st world country examples, or 21st-century examples.

---

Er hello? Pay attention. The Vietcong vs the American military might in the 1960s and 1970s.

One was a ranshackle army made of third worlders vs the most powerful military power on the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

How or what it was built for it entirely irrelevent.

---

How on earth is it irrelevant? If you have something with ONE purpose then 100% of its uses will be for that purpose, it's not like people also use guns to make a sandwich or fix their electrics

As for "guns don't kill people" neither does a drawing pin but I know which is easier to kill someone with and oddly enough it's the one which is was designed to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The Vietcong did it in Vietnam.

If it ever got serious in America then the millions of armed people would be able to organise themselves into militas and would have a chance of bringing down a tyrannical government. Entirely possible and that's exactly why guns were put into the constitution to protect against both foreign powers (ie the British) and their own government.



Er hello? Pay attention. The Vietcong vs the American military might in the 1960s and 1970s.

One was a ranshackle army made of third worlders vs the most powerful military power on the planet.

---

The Vietcong didn't take down the American military, the American military wasn't able to take down the Vietcong. It was a stalemate rather than the American military being wiped out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

How on earth is it irrelevant? If you have something with ONE purpose then 100% of its uses will be for that purpose, it's not like people also use guns to make a sandwich or fix their electrics

---

But as I have outlined, guns are also used as a deterrant factor. How many times do I have to keep repeating the example of many US gun owners who will fire a warning shot prior to shooting an intruder? If the intruder refuses to back down after that, then of course the gun will be used for killing/harming the intruder. That's kinda errrrrr......... the point in self defence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

As for "guns don't kill people" neither does a drawing pin but I know which is easier to kill someone with and oddly enough it's the one which is was designed to

---

A gun will kill somebody when somebody picks one up and fires it. A knife will kill somebody when someone picks one up and plunges it into another human being. Whether killing is the right thing to do entirely depends on the content - that's the real debate, not what weapon was used. A weapon does not commit murder, a person does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

The Vietcong didn't take down the American military, the American military wasn't able to take down the Vietcong. It was a stalemate rather than the American military being wiped out.

---

Yes it did. It drove the yanks out of Indochina.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ert-van-es.jpg

The most powerful military in the world defeated by armed peasants. It can and it did happen.