Stop and think - and you will realise that banning guns is a waste of time

[dbgtz]

The pro-drugs lobby is very powerful and spreads many lies about how drugs are harmless, linking me one article or study on them isn't going to suddenly convert me. Drugs have an affect on the brain and thats the fact of it, you only have to look at many former drug addicts to see how addled their brains have become from drug usage.

They're not the harmless sweeties their painted out to be by people like Tom.

So all of your sources are articles, but you won't accept articles as sources? Good logic there. I never even implied they were harmless, but in controlled doses can be beneficial.

The guns come from Mexico into the United States along with the illegal immigrants, not the other way around.

Source? No articles please, the anti-immigration supporters & immigrants spread lies.

[Ardemax]

And fallen under an oppressive government like Italy, Russia, France, Germany, Prussia and countless other sovereign states in that period did?

Can I also ask, since you seem to rule out America because of it's gun rights history and Second Amendment, can you name me one other country today which has not one of it's citizens in ownership of a gun? you may rule out America, but you can't rule out every single nation.

That's a rather silly question. If you tell people they can't have something then there's obviously going to be the few who do anyway.

I think I'd still feel a lot safer if our government told us that guns were illegal, rather than everyone over 18 is allowed one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So all of your sources are articles, but you won't accept articles as sources? Good logic there. I never even implied they were harmless, but in controlled doses can be beneficial.

I don't post statistics/studies barely ever as most of them are made up, I post detailed arguments along with my own thoughts.

Source? No articles please, the anti-immigration supporters & immigrants spread lies.

I'm not debating drugs, nor do I really want to - the evidence I have looked at in the past shows to me that they are dangerous and only a fool would touch them. I don't have a justify my stance as I only apply it to myself, i'd legalise drugs tommorow.

None of my business or the business of the state what drugs you want to ruin your mind with, just as it's none of your business or the business of the state whether I have a normal gun as laid out in the British/US constitution for self defence or not.

That's a rather silly question. If you tell people they can't have something then there's obviously going to be the few who do anyway.

So why did you say, and I quote;

"to the point you raised about Obama having armed guards with him: they would not be needed if every other US citizen didn't own a gun."

Here you imply that your stated goal is for not one US citizen to own a gun, which you've now admitted to me is an unattainable goal when I asked you to name one country which has 100% of it's citizens/subjects disarmed. So therefore, your stance on this issue then is that Obama and government officials are entitled to armed protection forever (even though your supposed to be totally against guns) but this principle doesn't apply to the people?

And also, if Obama and co are entitled to armed protection - this in turn implies that non-government citizens still have possession of guns (ie, the criminal class). So the deal you are offering to the vast majority of the law abiding American public is; you have your guns removed, Obama/the political class and the criminals keep theirs.

Somehow I don't see that deal being taken up, do you?

I think I'd still feel a lot safer if our government told us that guns were illegal, rather than everyone over 18 is allowed one.

You'd feel a lot safer if the only entity that had guns was the state? wow, do you need to read a history book my friend.

Or even take a look at events in Syria as we speak.

[FlyingJesus]

Dan the fact that you are seemingly completely unaware of the difference between drug cartels and drugs users makes me even more certain of the fact that you have no idea what you're arguing about. Gangs are able to keep power because they have physical (gun related) power and financial (commerce related) power, not because they're on drugs. Every single one of your retorts is nonsensical and hyperbolical, which is simply hilarious considering how many GENUINE facts and stats you choose to ignore.

Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan the fact that you are seemingly completely unaware of the difference between drug cartels and drugs users makes me even more certain of the fact that you have no idea what you're arguing about. Gangs are able to keep power because they have physical (gun related) power and financial (commerce related) power, not because they're on drugs. Every single one of your retorts is nonsensical and hyperbolical, which is simply hilarious considering how many GENUINE facts and stats you choose to ignore.

Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner
Repeating your argument does not make you the winner

Simply saying I have no argument rather than responding to the points doesn't make it so. If I have to keep repeating myself that Congressmen signing a piece of paper in Washington D.C. will not make a difference to the American criminal class in terms of guns then I will do so because it's a very simple and concise message, one that doesn't even need explaining to anybody who thinks rationally about this subject and who lives in the real world.

The concept is simple, your side of the debate say banning guns will mean no guns.... well drugs and alcohol have proved the total opposite.

It's written in stone, neighbouring Mexico is the living example.

If the US can't stop illegal aliens coming over the border in their millions, it hasn't a chance stopping guns.

[Kardan]

Simply saying I have no argument rather than responding to the points doesn't make it so.

The concept is simple, your side of the debate say banning guns will mean no guns.... well drugs and alcohol have proved the total opposite.

It's written in stone, Mexico is the living example.

Firearms are not illegal in Mexico. "the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents; given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law."

So surely you've just turned your own point in on yourself?

I for one have not said that. As I've said before, trying to ban guns in America won't work, and *could* make things worse. No matter what you do, you will never achieve a state of 'no guns'

[FlyingJesus]

You're asking me to respond to points which I've already responded to while you sit there dodging every actual point that's been posted and simply re-iterating the exact same message in every post - that you are totally unwilling to accept that different mediums have different properties and potentials, and that someone in the past believing in something makes it a universal truth. You recently said in the thread about the impact of Habbox on one's life that you've improved your debate skills whilst being here, which makes me genuinely wonder what level you were at previously. Did you simply point and laugh? Because the only progression I've seen in any argument you've ever made is from "this is my opinion, it is now fact" to "this is my opinion, it is now fact TWICE".

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'll just post this debate for people to watch, the best defence of gun rights I have seen so far.



Rational facts explained to a Briton who doesn't know much about guns, much like all of us here.

Firearms are not illegal in Mexico. "the acquisition and ownership of certain firearms and ammunition remains a constitutional right to all Mexican citizens and foreign legal residents; given the requirements and conditions to exercise such right are fulfilled in accordance to the law."

So surely you've just turned your own point in on yourself?

That's rather like the United Kingdom where gun rights are also in the constitution but have been ignored, guns aren't illegal per say, but they're very difficult to acquire legally and only certain varieties etc you can buy - they're essentially illegal to put it one way. The US also has good gun restrictions in place although not as strict, meaning most law abiding people can buy them.

There is certainly a link with guns and crime, true - but thats like with anything else, you accept the increased risk in a free society. As I have repeated over and over in these debates, gun rights aren't actually there for self defence - they're there to defend against an oppressive state.

I for one have not said that. As I've said before, trying to ban guns in America won't work, and *could* make things worse. No matter what you do, you will no achieve a state of 'no guns'

Well then you agree with me that banning guns would be fruitless and even counter productive.

You're asking me to respond to points which I've already responded to while you sit there dodging every actual point that's been posted and simply re-iterating the exact same message in every post - that you are totally unwilling to accept that different mediums have different properties and potentials, and that someone in the past believing in something makes it a universal truth.

Does this refer to the Second Amendment? again, no actual substance just vague and broad points.

What do you want done in the United States over gun rights? explain to me.

You recently said in the thread about the impact of Habbox on one's life that you've improved your debate skills whilst being here, which makes me genuinely wonder what level you were at previously. Did you simply point and laugh? Because the only progression I've seen in any argument you've ever made is from "this is my opinion, it is now fact" to "this is my opinion, it is now fact TWICE".

Sounds like a self description to me.

The logic of your side of the debate throughout has been, guns = kill people and are bad, so let's ban guns.

Of which my response has been, why not ban other things which also result in high death rates?

To which the only response you lot have had has been "OMGZ BUT GUNZ R MENT TO KILL PEOPLE" - that's not an argument or logically consistent.

So we keep hitting a dead end.

[Kardan]

I'll just post this debate for people to watch, the best defence of gun rights I have seen so far.



Rational facts explained to a Briton who doesn't know much about guns, much like all of us here.



That's rather like the United Kingdom where gun rights are also in the constitution but have been ignored, guns aren't illegal per say, but they're very difficult to acquire legally and only certain varieties etc you can buy - they're essentially illegal to put it one way. The US also has good gun restrictions in place although not as strict, meaning most law abiding people can buy them.

There is certainly a link with guns and crime, true - but thats like with anything else, you accept the increased risk in a free society. As I have repeated over and over in these debates, gun rights aren't actually there for self defence - they're there to defend against an oppressive state.



Well then you agree with me that banning guns would be fruitless and even counter productive.



Does this refer to the Second Amendment? again, no actual substance just vague and broad points.

What do you want done in the United States over gun rights? explain to me.



Sounds like a self description to me.

For the US, if you banned guns outright it would simply not work these days. You will always get people that will simply not return their weapons. For the UK, guns should remain banned.

[-:Undertaker:-]

For the US, if you banned guns outright it would simply not work these days. You will always get people that will simply not return their weapons. For the UK, guns should remain banned.

Fair enough, at least the American people will remain free if an oppressive government ever arises.

Can I ask two questions in relation to the United Kingdom then? firstly, as gun crime in this country was very low before gun bans were brought in during the 1920s does this not suggest that increased gun crime is acutually to do with culture as opposed to the mere presence of guns?

And secondly, if I were to say 'illegally' under your laws acquire a handgun and happened to experience a break in during the early hours of the morning by two men wielding large knives, if I were to shoot them men dead - should I then be prosecuted under your gun laws?