China knife attack leaves at least 33 dead and 143 wounded

[Kardan]

..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

Guns are designed to be a killing weapon, there are no ifs and buts about it. You can use it as a deterrent yes, but it is still designed to kill. If it wasn't designed to kill, you'd have a nice replica gun that didn't fire bullets.

- - - Updated - - -

It was defeated. You don't have to destroy every single tank to defeat an army. In the Russian Revolution against the Tsarist regime, the entire Tsarist army wasn't destroyed.... but it was defeated by the reds.

Jesus, am I really having to argue this?

Well you did use the words 'bring down' - as I said the US army wasn't brought down, it was simply drove out.

[FlyingJesus]

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.

King of missing the point. None of what you've said takes away from the fact that such harm is the only
only
only ONLY
only
O
N
L
Y
thing a gun is made for

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.

Just gonna carry around my RPG when I go shopping, wonder if anyone will say no when I want a discount. Fear is still harm

..no it isn't. Why can't y'all understand that guns can be used as a deterrent and to protect one's property as well?

They're a deterrent *+*BeCaUsE tHeY'rE bUiLt To KiLl*+* y'all

If poorly armed and uneducated third worlders can do it in Vietnam to the US army, then educated and well armed yanks can do it on US soil against the US army.

I thought we weren't allowed to generalise all gun owners in America or is it ok when you're claiming that they're all sane and logical upstanding members of society with Captain America-like senses of duty

If it ever comes to it in America, it'll be the anti-gun liberals cowering behind the 'gun nuts' for protection.

That's a lovely crystal ball you've got there

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well you did use the words 'bring down' - as I said the US army wasn't brought down, it was simply drove out.

The US army was defeated then by a bunch of gun-wielding third worlders. Happy?

And my point is that the same could (and was intended to happen by the Founding Fathers) and would happen in the United States of the government ever became tyrannical. So your point about 'oh some hillbillys with guns cant bring down an advanced military' is total, unsubstantiated rubbish.

[Kardan]

The US army was defeated then by a bunch of gun-wielding third worlders. Happy?

And my point is that the same could (and was intended to happen by the Founding Fathers) and would happen in the United States of the government ever became tyrannical. So your point about 'oh some hillbillys with guns cant bring down an advanced military' is total, unsubstantiated rubbish.

I never said anything about hillbillys, so might want to re-read

Also, the whole Vietnam thing doesn't deal with 21st century technology, and it's also worth noting they were fighting over Vietnam, which is a different story to fighting for American land itself. Do I honestly think 100m American civilians (That's about a third isn't it?) would be able to take down the US Military? No, I don't. If the military really wanted to win, they could simply nuke everything. 100m people firing their weapons at a nuke isn't going to do much.

[-:Undertaker:-]

King of missing the point. None of what you've said takes away from the fact that such harm is the only
only
only ONLY
only
O
N
L
Y
thing a gun is made for

Well it has the potential to do harm, yeah. And that's the point in having a gun in the first place as self defence (whether against the state or another individual) wouldn't work very well now would it without the harm principle?

Just gonna carry around my RPG when I go shopping, wonder if anyone will say no when I want a discount. Fear is still harm

Hiliariously funny.

They're a deterrent *+*BeCaUsE tHeY'rE bUiLt To KiLl*+* y'all

Built to kill, but aren't always used to kill. Their use is mainly a deterrent.

I thought we weren't allowed to generalise all gun owners in America or is it ok when you're claiming that they're all sane and logical upstanding members of society with Captain America-like senses of duty

The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens, absolutely.

That's a lovely crystal ball you've got there

Cheers, I pride myself on predicting my opponents because they're usually so predictable.

[FlyingJesus]

Law abiding citizens is not the same as superheros, you're pretending that if for some reason the US government started rounding up random people everyone would rise up and be like FOR FREEDOM AND HONOUR!!!!!!!!!!! and magically unite in the most cohesive and effective militia ever imagined because they'd all suddenly have the exact same values and sense of duty and obv they'd all be able to organise fully despite the fact that a government like that would shut down communications. You're then also in the same breath saying that guns are a deterrent and people wouldn't really use them for harm, amazing

[-:Undertaker:-]

I never said anything about hillbillys, so might want to re-read

Also, the whole Vietnam thing doesn't deal with 21st century technology

Military advances haven't actually moved on that much since that period as due to the ending of the Cold War in the 1980s, the need to keep developing at such a pace is void.

In any case, I can see you won't be happy until I can provide an example from last year (which of course I cannot) so i'll simply have to say that it's better to go down fighting tyranny and to lose than to surrender your freedoms. Do you agree? Or would you, as I suggested earlier, simply surrender yourself to a tyrannical government like a defenceless Jewish person in the 1930s? I'd take a bullet anyday than surrender myself and be turned into a lamp shade.

..and it's also worth noting they were fighting over Vietnam, which is a different story to fighting for American land itself. Do I honestly think 100m American civilians (That's about a third isn't it?) would be able to take down the US Military? No, I don't. If the military really wanted to win, they could simply nuke everything. 100m people firing their weapons at a nuke isn't going to do much.

The military wouldn't nuke everything as it would be pointless fighting then wouldn't it. What use would a dictatorship have with a piece of radioactive wasteland with no citizens left? Boy you do talk some rubbish. In any case, you don't think 100m+ Americans could bring down their armed forces. Fine. I think it's worth a shot defending our freedoms and I think it's entirely possible just as the Russian Revolution brought down a 500-year old dynasty that was seemingly immovable.

So again, you'd rather they simply gave up and handed themselves over, wouldn't you?

Law abiding citizens is not the same as superheros, you're pretending that if for some reason the US government started rounding up random people everyone would rise up and be like FOR FREEDOM AND HONOUR!!!!!!!!!!! and magically unite in the most cohesive and effective militia ever imagined because they'd all suddenly have the exact same values and sense of duty and obv they'd all be able to organise fully despite the fact that a government like that would shut down communications.

Well yes, many would - that's the point in gun rights in the first place. The yanks would likely rise up just as their ancestors did against the British, just as the Russians did against the Tsar, just as the Turks did against the occupying powers and just as the peasants in Vietnam did against the United States.

It can happen. It doesn't always happen, but at least they have the option open to defeat tyranny.

You're then also in the same breath saying that guns are a deterrent and people wouldn't really use them for harm, amazing

Guns should be used for harm when you are threatened, absolutely. You are damn right.

[FlyingJesus]

Military advances are mammoth and constantly evolving, not sure where you get your facts from but as someone who knows about military simulation technology I can tell you that there has certainly been a difference in the way warfare is conducted since the 80s in a drastic way. Again spouting nonsense about things you don't truly understand

And you keep talking about fighting a tyranny that doesn't exist while advocating for enforcing a definite tyranny of the majority...

[karter]

a moment of silence for those whose death only mattered so that they could be used as an example in support of guns

[-:Undertaker:-]

Military advances are mammoth and constantly evolving, not sure where you get your facts from but as someone who knows about military simulation technology I can tell you that there has certainly been a difference in the way warfare is conducted since the 80s in a drastic way. Again spouting nonsense about things you don't truly understand

That's true, but it's also true that guns have evolved since the 1980s. So whats your point.

And you keep talking about fighting a tyranny that doesn't exist while advocating for enforcing a definite tyranny of the majority...

The tyranny doesn't exist now, no. But one day it might. And that's why the Founders put it in.

If the guns work really well, then they'll do their job and deter a tyranny from arising in the first place.

a moment of silence for those whose death only mattered so that they could be used as an example in support of guns

I simply called for tighter controls on knives in China.