Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

No and No.

I should have picked a different example? And that somehow proves I have, personal animosity toward you?

No you didn't but then no one but you has used the word wrongdoer in reference to you.

You did though ask to be provided with examples and that is what I've been doing.

Again, you provide another fine example of what you seem to be calling "‘twisting’ words". Only you have brought up the term "wrongdoer" and say that I am trying to prove you a "wrongdoer". This in a seeming attempt to invalidate was is being said to you, so you don't have to listen.

Defend yourself all you want, that's fine but when you start just making things up, like saying people are trying to prove you a "bad person" or are accusing you of "wrongdoing", well that is just more examples of what I've been trying to tell you.

You are not reading what people are saying to you, you are just imagining what people are saying to you and then you are basing your discussion on what you are imagining and I'm just asking you to stop.

 

None of this answers the question;
Quite honestly how does one go about getting a gun that was not originally obtained legally?

 

OWB

Oh my giddy aunts LOL - As I’ve said you don’t seem acquainted with the concept of irony.

You have just written a number of replies where you claim you are not accusing me of any type of wrong doing, in which you give many examples of my supposed past and on going wrong doing.

An example of my supposed wrong doing.

And another

And another

And another

And another

And another

*

You accused me of ‘twisting’ words, I asked for examples, you put up some rather lame claims (and continue to do so) that clearly have nothing to do with me ‘twisting’ words, but everything to do with your desire to ‘prove’ I’m a wrongdoer.

And you now seem to be arguing that me defending myself from these false charges is itself ‘examples’ of my supposed bad behaviour.

Just stop making false claims and I’ll stop defending myself.

*

It seems to me that because you have no counter arguments to what I’ve presented in this thread you are trying to attack me through innuendo. It is an old (but dishonest) trick. You are hoping that if you throw enough mud some might stick. Please stop.

 

noxious

You clearly have not read my posts – I don’t think that there is going to be a paradigm shift in humanity or that criminality will come to an end. What I’m exploring is the mentality and attitudes of many pro-gunners that seems to believe that the best means of social control is through the threat of violence, intimidation and suppression.

The exact same mentality you seem to be showing. You are so frightened of the society you live in that you feel you need a gun to protect yourself from it. You want your own means of intimidation.

But why is your society so frightening to you?

I’m not actually sure you know what my theories are so I not sure you understand them.

But I would say that when people say things like – it’s not much use in the real world – they are usually trying to sound world weary and knowledgeable when they really are just trying to dismiss something they don’t know much about.

So could you please give a bit more explanation?

 

Broony

To repeat I have nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun. And to repeat again, I grew up in the countryside where many people had guns, to hunt or keep down pests, and the thing is that even with the UK’s very tough gun laws those people still have those guns.

But the hunting/pest control argument is not the one mostly used by pro-gunners the two main arguments I see and the ones I’m most interested in are that gun are needed as protection against crime and government suppression.

I know but as I’ve mentioned a few times over 80% of Americans now live in urban or suburban areas.

To repeat something I said earlier (post 269) - As I’ve said before it is possible to get a gun in the UK, many people have shot guns and if you are law abiding and seem responsible it is possible to get a license. It is just that most people don’t feel the necessity to have a gun. I mean what would I do with a shotgun in the city? Hunting, I’d rather preserve the wildlife we have rather than shoot it. Keeping down vermin, I think calling a professional exterminator would be more efficient and less time consuming that sitting out on my porch in the hope a rat will show up. As to home defence, well as I’ve said there just doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear about that here.

*

 

I'm going to the firing range in a few days with a friend to relax and we might blow holes in watermelon later. You are welcome to come and join us Balbus. We have a number of guns you can choose from

 

Broony

Thanks for the offer but I’ll be off rock climbing with my kid in a few days and anyway I grew out of getting a buzz out of shooting guns when I was 15.

Also what have watermelons ever done to me.

 

Christians like crying about this one. So do people who want me to put on shoes or comb my hair. Law does not protect your sense of decency when you're not in your home, and much as they don't like it there is NO law that says I need shoes or a comb, and when there is I will be hopping the mexican border in the opposite direction from normal.

If you believe in no gods, or own a gun, and your neighbor feels butthurt, that's his problem. If what he considers psychologically injurious limits your actions that have nothing to do with him, then he's the one trying to intimidate and control you, not the other way around.

If you continually follow your neighbor with a gun and remind him that you have a gun, that could be psychologically damaging. And it would be a crime. And if you continually try to debate god with your neighbor, and knock on his door in the night to tell him there is no god (or there are 20 gods) then that could psychologically damage him. And it would be a crime too.

 

Here you go again, providing another good example, taking two comments that were made out of context, then putting them together to try make an argument out of nothing, so you can avoid the real discussion.

In the first one first one I'm pointing out how when I disagree with you keep assuming that means I think you want you wants guns banned. Your thinking seems black or white, either I agree with you or I think you want guns banned and there is no gray area.

In the second one I am merely pointing out the simple fact that this thread is a black and white one, the OP is "should guns be outlawed in the U.S.A.?" Thus if someone in this thread says; No, guns should not be outlawed in the U.S.A. and someone says I don't agree with you. Since the thread is black and white it could be assumed that the person wants guns banned.

I don't know what you are talking about here. If you want a reply please explain.

It was a "question" a request for further information, it is in the form of a "question" and asks you you to please explain. On the other hand your "question" does not start in the form of a "question" and you start with; "So in your mind you can only have one view or another" which is a statement of fact". But it has a question mark somewhere near the end, so you really didn't mean to accuse me of anything.

As has been pointed out to you many times this threads OP is "should guns be outlawed in the U.S.A.?" The OP is not; "how much gun regulation should the USA have?" So it appears to others, that when you disagree with them that you are disagreeing with their belief that guns should not be banned.

once again you accuse me of not reading what you have posted. What proof do you have of this accusation other than I don't agree with you ?

No, merely reminding you once again what the OP is about, something you never seem to have understood.

 

No, your answer to the question is not clear at all.

Since the OP is "Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?", that is the "gun regulation" we are talking about and so why are you disagreeing with those who don't want that "gun regulation", if as you say, you don't want it either?

That is the question, rephrased so maybe you'll understand it, that I would like answered.

 

Why should it? As I've pointed out, in the interest of prevention, you seem willing to punish people for what they have not done. Just how far are you wanting to go with this "prevention"?

Does that mean that he should lose his other rights as well? What if he is "helped" by your "holistic" approach does he get back his rights?

So now you want a person to have license to own property?

 

OWB

Sorry man, but your posts seem to becoming more erratic and confused.

I’m finding it increasingly difficult to understand where you are coming from.

Are you saying that since the thread is called ‘Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?’ anyone in it can only hold one of two positions

(a) Guns should not be outlawed
(b) Guns should be outlawed

And any qualification of position (a), like wanting regulation, means you must have the position (b)?

I have nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun but I do believe that their needs to be regulation.

But that is the same as your own position. As I’ve said two people might not believe in a total ban but they might disagree as to how much something might be regulated and in what form the regulation might take.

 

OWB

The thing as I’ve already said most regulations or laws are about prevention, To me someone that has acted in an irresponsibly violent way is not a responsible citizen and so has lost the ‘right’ to own such a deadly weapon as a gun.

A ban doesn’t have to be for life, it really depends on the severity of the violence.

Most things come with regulations and responsibilities attached to them.

 

Are you really this stupid?

 

My posts seem to becoming more erratic and confused? I only wish you could see your posts through someone else's eyes, talk about posts that seem to becoming more erratic and confused.

 

OWB

No I’m not the stupid one LOL

But how stupid is for someone to basically call the moderator, of a forum they are posting to, stupid?

The thing is that I think you want to be banned it’s the only thing left to you, you have no rational, logical or reasonable argument to counter what I’ve said about the pro-gun stance so you hope to be banned so you can claim you were banned for your beliefs, you want martyrdom.

But I’m not going to ban you because of your arguments because quiet frankly they are crap arguments.

I mean for goodness sake, what are you doing, for the last few pages your main effort seems to be in trying to claim I’m doing wrong and personally insulting me and my patience only goes so far.

So I’ll close this thread in the hope that you will calm down and start acting rationally.