Originally posted by 7ate9You think North Korea will only ever develop one nuclear missile?
I don't like guns, but I don't see trying to take them away as the whole answer. I think it comes when people get outside of tunnel vision. I'm not meaning to be totally ignorant towards them either.
North Korea is different because it's one gun and not 50 million trillion. It's the angle that situation would best be looked at... the gun.
Originally posted by WajomaAre you denying there are over 10,000 deaths per annum in the gun loving US, whilst there are less than 1,000 p.a. in Germany, France, Japan, Australia and the UK combined?
That a person that believes in liberal gun ownership wants or advocates (in the words of scottish) "thousands" dead.
Originally posted by flexmoreIt is not a good idea for psychos to have guns. I would also argue that they have no Constitutional right to a gun since persons with mental illness as you describe would not or should not qualify for participation in a "well regulated militia".
A psycho wants a gun.
This is a genuine loonie who wants to kill everyone at their highschool 5 years after they left.
This person has never committed any crime in their entire life - not even a parking fine.
What should they have to do to show that it is a good idea for them to have a gun?
And if they get a gun, then how powerful and fast should that gun be?
Persons with mental illness should be diagnosed and treated to avoid harming themselves or others with weapons of any kind.
2 edits
Originally posted by 7ate9See...I have a real problem with this argument
.....
[North Korea having Nuclear Weapons is different]
Why is it any different?
Why should a state be barred from having the right to kill lots and lots of people with nukes when other states already do possess this ability?
Why should they be held accountable for the actions of others?
How does anyone know that North Korea will use its nuclear weapons?, have they used them before?
what about other countries that aren't even allowed to develop nuclear technology as a source of energy?
isn't it the case that Nuclear weapons don't kill people....People kill people...with nuclear weapons???
Why shouldn't people be allowed to carry anthrax?...are they not being punished for all the bad people that use anthrax to kill?
You folks argue the right to bear arms when the weapons and environments you choose are such that the only function of those weapons is to kill, and remove the option of the victim to flee or fight...so why do you have a problem with the above???
(I'm waiting for this to go right over some fool's head and them saying "oh so you want millions of people to die eh?....we shouldn't listen to comments like you"!!!)
Originally posted by Agergoh so you want millions of people to die eh?....
See...I have a real problem with this argument
Why is it any different?
Why should a state be barred from having the right to kill lots and lots of people with nukes when other states already do possess this ability?
Why should they be held accountable for the actions of others?
How does anyone know that North Korea will use its nuclear weapons?, have th ...[text shortened]... want millions of people to die eh?....we shouldn't listen to comments like you"!!!)[/i]
Originally posted by Agergthis is very important ...
See...I have a real problem with this argument
Why is it any different?
Why should a state be barred from having the right to kill lots and lots of people with nukes when other states already do possess this ability?
Why should they be held accountable for the actions of others?
How does anyone know that North Korea will use its nuclear weapons?, have th ...[text shortened]... want millions of people to die eh?....we shouldn't listen to comments like you"!!!)[/i]
similarities are clear - but it is very different.
Originally posted by spruce112358Yes, and 8% of households with guns keep at least one loaded and unlocked in the presence of teenage children in the US.
It is not a good idea for psychos to have guns. I would also argue that they have no Constitutional right to a gun since persons with mental illness as you describe would not or should not qualify for participation in a "well regulated militia".
Persons with mental illness should be diagnosed and treated to avoid harming themselves or others with weapons of any kind.
Originally posted by scottishinnzCertainly not something I would recommend doing. But then I find Americans overall to be less responsible than Europeans. Europeans are more serious with a greater sense of obligation. Probably why the Swiss can have so many guns per capita and yet so few gun-related deaths.
Yes, and 8% of households with guns keep at least one loaded and [b]unlocked in the presence of teenage children in the US.[/b]
Originally posted by spruce112358" But then I find Americans overall to be less responsible than Europeans."
Certainly not something I would recommend doing. But then I find Americans overall to be less responsible than Europeans. Europeans are more serious with a greater sense of obligation. Probably why the Swiss can have so many guns per capita and yet so few gun-related deaths.
Not to mention, 'less intelligent' as is amply illustrated within the threads of this web site.
Originally posted by howardgeeProbably should have a different thread about this...
" But then I find Americans overall to be less responsible than Europeans."
Not to mention, 'less intelligent' as is amply illustrated within the threads of this web site.
But no, not less intelligent.
Less 'responsible' --as in, less of a weight on their shoulders about what they 'should' do, or think, or feel. Europeans are very socially conscious. Americans are more about 'what's in it for me?'
Europeans are more pessimistic. Americans are more fun-loving.
Europeans are quite good at ignoring a problem if they don't feel it is their 'responsibility'. Americans are more likely to chip in 'just to help out'.
Americans are much less patient as well.
Well, enough of the generalizations: 'All models are wrong, but some models are useful.'