002 wrote Let's dance in your world for a bit. Guns are too damn dangerous, so let's take them away. Just like in video games, all guns are gone, every last one of them, no one has a gun.

Next best thing is knives. We take knives away, yet we need knives to prepare food, so how does that work? Anyway, we can still make bows and arrows to hurt people, we can still hurt them with cars, shovels, forks, hammers, etc. You need to stop focusing on the weapon being used, because bottom line is when you have groups of people, animals, what ever together, there will be fights, and there will be deaths.

Knives are completely different from guns and there's no need to ban them.

Firstly, to attack someone with a knife you need to get up close and physical. The majority of people who do school shootings or any gun crime, are insecure and not going to get up close where the other person can hurt them. That's why they use a gun, everyone runs when they see a gun. Nobody runs when they see a knife.

Japan has taken guns away and just holding a gun can land you a life sentence, yet they still allow knives. They also have a far lower crime rate, murder rate and no gun crime compared to America. There's also never been a school shooting in Japan either.

Guns allow you to kill a lot of people, very quickly and very easily. Interesting fact, medieval archers had to train for years before using a longbow because they required so much force to shoot (between 130-200lbs of force). Modern day bows neither require nor produce anywhere near as much force as a medieval longbow. I can guarantee that 90% of people wouldn't even be strong enough to pull the bow back.

002 wrote I feel very safe in my home. At the end of the day, I have a HUGE tactical advantage over you in that based on your position on guns, I assume you don't own any. This means hat when SHTF, I can raid your house and you can't do anything about it because you're at gunpoint.

This is completely irreverent. We live on the other side of the world and neither of us will be raiding each others houses anytime soon.

002 wrote Robberys are fairly common and go bad a lot. If someone brakes into my house, I know I have guns, I point it at them and if they don't run, I shoot and I am fine. You on the other hand, what do you do? Hide in the closet hoping they don't find you? After all, you don't have guns or knives. It's all about self preservation my friend. There are bad apples in this world, make sure you can defend yourself against one.

There's been one robbery in the last ten years that I can remember around my town and the reason that there's never any robberies is because nobody has any guns to rob people with. So to say that they're very common, is completely wrong in my situation.

In the very slim chance there's a robber and that they break through my double glazed windows then my burglar alarm will go off, thus revealing that they're trying to rob me to my whole street. They'll run away at that point. If they don't, I've a hurling stick upstairs, not to mention I'd call the police too.

I've had a few disagreements with you about this topic before so I don't want to start another big argument but I can't standby while you compare car deaths which are accidents to shootings which are murders.

Motivational wrote

002 wrote Let's dance in your world for a bit. Guns are too damn dangerous, so let's take them away. Just like in video games, all guns are gone, every last one of them, no one has a gun.

Next best thing is knives. We take knives away, yet we need knives to prepare food, so how does that work? Anyway, we can still make bows and arrows to hurt people, we can still hurt them with cars, shovels, forks, hammers, etc. You need to stop focusing on the weapon being used, because bottom line is when you have groups of people, animals, what ever together, there will be fights, and there will be deaths.

Knives are completely different from guns and there's no need to ban them.

Firstly, to attack someone with a knife you need to get up close and physical. The majority of people who do school shootings or any gun crime, are insecure and not going to get up close where the other person can hurt them. That's why they use a gun, everyone runs when they see a gun. Nobody runs when they see a knife.

Japan has taken guns away and just holding a gun can land you a life sentence, yet they still allow knives. They also have a far lower crime rate, murder rate and no gun crime compared to America. There's also never been a school shooting in Japan either.

Guns allow you to kill a lot of people, very quickly and very easily. Interesting fact, medieval archers had to train for years before using a longbow because they required so much force to shoot (between 130-200lbs of force). Modern day bows neither require nor produce anywhere near as much force as a medieval longbow. I can guarantee that 90% of people wouldn't even be strong enough to pull the bow back.

002 wrote I feel very safe in my home. At the end of the day, I have a HUGE tactical advantage over you in that based on your position on guns, I assume you don't own any. This means hat when SHTF, I can raid your house and you can't do anything about it because you're at gunpoint.

This is completely irreverent. We live on the other side of the world and neither of us will be raiding each others houses anytime soon.

002 wrote Robberys are fairly common and go bad a lot. If someone brakes into my house, I know I have guns, I point it at them and if they don't run, I shoot and I am fine. You on the other hand, what do you do? Hide in the closet hoping they don't find you? After all, you don't have guns or knives. It's all about self preservation my friend. There are bad apples in this world, make sure you can defend yourself against one.

There's been one robbery in the last ten years that I can remember around my town and the reason that there's never any robberies is because nobody has any guns to rob people with. So to say that they're very common, is completely wrong in my situation.

In the very slim chance there's a robber and that they break through my double glazed windows then my burglar alarm will go off, thus revealing that they're trying to rob me to my whole street. They'll run away at that point. If they don't, I've a hurling stick upstairs, not to mention I'd call the police too.

I've had a few disagreements with you about this topic before so I don't want to start another big argument but I can't standby while you compare car deaths which are accidents to shootings which are murders.

I agree my friend

See if guns were banned and not sold in stores there are so many produced they will get them either way. You see our world today? If you ban anything in this world or not it will get out, it will hardly suppress it. Me and my family all own atleast 5 guns each(excluding my mom and her 1 baby shotgun) we don't buy them really for safety even though it's a nice backup in case of robbery. We really just buy them for getting together and blowing sh** up! It's fun to go hunting,shoot sporting clays, or go to the range. You can't ban something because the bad apples get their hands on it.

Edit about the no robberies because there are no guns, that's complete BS! 75% of the robbers now aren't even armed?? Can't pull that one.

Iit wrote See if guns were banned and not sold in stores there are so many produced they will get them either way. You see our world today? If you ban anything in this world or not it will get out, it will hardly suppress it. Me and my family all own atleast 5 guns each(excluding my mom and her 1 baby shotgun) we don't buy them really for safety even though it's a nice backup in case of robbery. We really just buy them for getting together and blowing sh** up! It's fun to go hunting,shoot sporting clays, or go to the range. You can't ban something because the bad apples get their hands on it.

Edit about the no robberies because there are no guns, that's complete BS! 75% of the robbers now aren't even armed?? Can't pull that one.

you're not seeing the big picture lol

I own a G-17 and a treacherous AR-15.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry, I know that I feel safer.
And I feel as if everyone around me is safer. And they don't even know it.

I go behind my house, and I blow through hundreds of rounds when I want to go shooting.

It doesn't affect you in any way.
And that's all that most legal gun owners do.
So don't try and say we shouldn't have them.

Illustrated wrote I own a G-17 and a treacherous AR-15.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry, I know that I feel safer.
And I feel as if everyone around me is safer. And they don't even know it.

I go behind my house, and I blow through hundreds of rounds when I want to go shooting.

It doesn't affect you in any way.
And that's all that most legal gun owners do.
So don't try and say we shouldn't have them.

Mmmmm not sure I'm onboard with your logic there. Let's switch up the weapon. Maybe I'll convince you that it should be legal.

I own 50 kilos of Sarin gas, a nerve agent banned in almost every civilized country.
I could potentially kill 50,000 people with this, but I don't have a good enough deployment system and could only kill about 10 people in reality.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry it around with me I know that if I am attacked I can just pull it out and threaten to release the gas.
The attacker will almost certainly run away. I feel safer and I feel that everyone around me is safer.

I go behind my house and I let some of it blow downwind because I like how it looks. It doesn't harm anybody, but I enjoy it.
It doesn't affect you or anybody else in any way.

Don't tell me I can't own a nerve agent just because there has been one terrorist attack in Japan which killed 12 people when two heavily armed teenagers in the US killed more people at Columbine.

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote I own a G-17 and a treacherous AR-15.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry, I know that I feel safer.
And I feel as if everyone around me is safer. And they don't even know it.

I go behind my house, and I blow through hundreds of rounds when I want to go shooting.

It doesn't affect you in any way.
And that's all that most legal gun owners do.
So don't try and say we shouldn't have them.

Mmmmm not sure I'm onboard with your logic there. Let's switch up the weapon. Maybe I'll convince you that it should be legal.

I own 50 kilos of Sarin gas, a nerve agent banned in almost every civilized country.
I could potentially kill 50,000 people with this, but I don't have a good enough deployment system and could only kill about 10 people in reality.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry it around with me I know that if I am attacked I can just pull it out and threaten to release the gas.
The attacker will almost certainly run away. I feel safer and I feel that everyone around me is safer.

I go behind my house and I let some of it blow downwind because I like how it looks. It doesn't harm anybody, but I enjoy it.
It doesn't affect you or anybody else in any way.

Don't tell me I can't own a nerve agent just because there has been one terrorist attack in Japan which killed 12 people when two heavily armed teenagers in the US killed more people at Columbine.

What are you on about..?
I don't carry my AR, buddy. How am I going to conceal a rifle?
And a pistol with a 10 round mag is not exactly a death machine.
That was a bad comparison, in all honesty.

Comparing an illegal weapon of mass destruction to small arms? Lmao that doesn't work.

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote I own a G-17 and a treacherous AR-15.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry, I know that I feel safer.
And I feel as if everyone around me is safer. And they don't even know it.

I go behind my house, and I blow through hundreds of rounds when I want to go shooting.

It doesn't affect you in any way.
And that's all that most legal gun owners do.
So don't try and say we shouldn't have them.

Mmmmm not sure I'm onboard with your logic there. Let's switch up the weapon. Maybe I'll convince you that it should be legal.

I own 50 kilos of Sarin gas, a nerve agent banned in almost every civilized country.
I could potentially kill 50,000 people with this, but I don't have a good enough deployment system and could only kill about 10 people in reality.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry it around with me I know that if I am attacked I can just pull it out and threaten to release the gas.
The attacker will almost certainly run away. I feel safer and I feel that everyone around me is safer.

I go behind my house and I let some of it blow downwind because I like how it looks. It doesn't harm anybody, but I enjoy it.
It doesn't affect you or anybody else in any way.

Don't tell me I can't own a nerve agent just because there has been one terrorist attack in Japan which killed 12 people when two heavily armed teenagers in the US killed more people at Columbine.

What are you on about..?
I don't carry my AR, buddy. How am I going to conceal a rifle?
And a pistol with a 10 round mag is not exactly a death machine.
That was a bad comparison, in all honesty.

Comparing an illegal weapon of mass destruction to small arms? Lmao that doesn't work.

But you guys are the ones always telling us that handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Breitbart confirms that and they are massively pro-gun.

So the chances of you having a mental breakdown and killing 10 people on a train with your gun are just as likely as me having one with my sarin gas and killing the same number of people.

Why can't you just let me live my life with my Sarin gas? I am actually more reasonable with it than a lot of gun owners because I ensure that my deployment device can only kill 2 people at a maximum. Your gun could kill 20 depending on the environment you're in.

I keep my sarin gas locked away in a safe that only I know the code to so it's not like my children are going to get their hands on it.

A WMD is only as good as its deployment device and mine is not capable of killing that many people, so why won't you let me have it?

I think you are irrationally afraid of Sarin gas.

The chances of you being killed by Sarin gas in the US by a terrorist is 0.
The chances of you being killed by a terrorist with a gun in the US is 1 in 20 million. Therefore Sarin gas is obviously the safer choice.

It is actually unconstitutional for you to say that I shouldn't be allowed my Sarin gas. It says I have the right to bear arms and Sarin is my weapon of choice.

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote I own a G-17 and a treacherous AR-15.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry, I know that I feel safer.
And I feel as if everyone around me is safer. And they don't even know it.

I go behind my house, and I blow through hundreds of rounds when I want to go shooting.

It doesn't affect you in any way.
And that's all that most legal gun owners do.
So don't try and say we shouldn't have them.

Mmmmm not sure I'm onboard with your logic there. Let's switch up the weapon. Maybe I'll convince you that it should be legal.

I own 50 kilos of Sarin gas, a nerve agent banned in almost every civilized country.
I could potentially kill 50,000 people with this, but I don't have a good enough deployment system and could only kill about 10 people in reality.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry it around with me I know that if I am attacked I can just pull it out and threaten to release the gas.
The attacker will almost certainly run away. I feel safer and I feel that everyone around me is safer.

I go behind my house and I let some of it blow downwind because I like how it looks. It doesn't harm anybody, but I enjoy it.
It doesn't affect you or anybody else in any way.

Don't tell me I can't own a nerve agent just because there has been one terrorist attack in Japan which killed 12 people when two heavily armed teenagers in the US killed more people at Columbine.

What are you on about..?
I don't carry my AR, buddy. How am I going to conceal a rifle?
And a pistol with a 10 round mag is not exactly a death machine.
That was a bad comparison, in all honesty.

Comparing an illegal weapon of mass destruction to small arms? Lmao that doesn't work.

But you guys are the ones always telling us that handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Breitbart confirms that and they are massively pro-gun.

So the chances of you having a mental breakdown and killing 10 people on a train with your gun are just as likely as me having one with my sarin gas and killing the same number of people.

Why can't you just let me live my life with my Sarin gas? I am actually more reasonable with it than a lot of gun owners because I ensure that my deployment device can only kill 2 people at a maximum. Your gun could kill 20 depending on the environment you're in.

I keep my sarin gas locked away in a safe that only I know the code to so it's not like my children are going to get their hands on it.

A WMD is only as good as its deployment device and mine is not capable of killing that many people, so why won't you let me have it?

I don't know why you're attempting to continue on with that horrible comparison...
Yes, shootings occur more often with pistols because they're easier to get.
Not everyone can get an AR15. I can because I'm a soldier.
On that note, being a soldier, it's literally my job to protect the American people and their rights.
And we have the right to our guns.

You and I could cross paths and never know it. And you'd never know I had a gun on me. One that would never be drawn on you. But if some psycho was going to kill you, I would draw mine, and save your life. And save my life. And others'.

The difference between us is, myself and the other gun owners here, would take up arms and risk our lives to save yours.

And your choice, is to be a helpless victim. But that's your choice.

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote I own a G-17 and a treacherous AR-15.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry, I know that I feel safer.
And I feel as if everyone around me is safer. And they don't even know it.

I go behind my house, and I blow through hundreds of rounds when I want to go shooting.

It doesn't affect you in any way.
And that's all that most legal gun owners do.
So don't try and say we shouldn't have them.

Mmmmm not sure I'm onboard with your logic there. Let's switch up the weapon. Maybe I'll convince you that it should be legal.

I own 50 kilos of Sarin gas, a nerve agent banned in almost every civilized country.
I could potentially kill 50,000 people with this, but I don't have a good enough deployment system and could only kill about 10 people in reality.

I don't kill people.
I don't intend to kill people.

In fact, when I carry it around with me I know that if I am attacked I can just pull it out and threaten to release the gas.
The attacker will almost certainly run away. I feel safer and I feel that everyone around me is safer.

I go behind my house and I let some of it blow downwind because I like how it looks. It doesn't harm anybody, but I enjoy it.
It doesn't affect you or anybody else in any way.

Don't tell me I can't own a nerve agent just because there has been one terrorist attack in Japan which killed 12 people when two heavily armed teenagers in the US killed more people at Columbine.

What are you on about..?
I don't carry my AR, buddy. How am I going to conceal a rifle?
And a pistol with a 10 round mag is not exactly a death machine.
That was a bad comparison, in all honesty.

Comparing an illegal weapon of mass destruction to small arms? Lmao that doesn't work.

But you guys are the ones always telling us that handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shooters. Breitbart confirms that and they are massively pro-gun.

So the chances of you having a mental breakdown and killing 10 people on a train with your gun are just as likely as me having one with my sarin gas and killing the same number of people.

Why can't you just let me live my life with my Sarin gas? I am actually more reasonable with it than a lot of gun owners because I ensure that my deployment device can only kill 2 people at a maximum. Your gun could kill 20 depending on the environment you're in.

I keep my sarin gas locked away in a safe that only I know the code to so it's not like my children are going to get their hands on it.

A WMD is only as good as its deployment device and mine is not capable of killing that many people, so why won't you let me have it?

I don't know why you're attempting to continue on with that horrible comparison...
Yes, shootings occur more often with pistols because they're easier to get.
Not everyone can get an AR15. I can because I'm a soldier.
On that note, being a soldier, it's literally my job to protect the American people and their rights.
And we have the right to our guns.

You and I could cross paths and never know it. And you'd never know I had a gun on me. One that would never be drawn on you. But if some psycho was going to kill you, I would draw mine, and save your life. And save my life. And others'.

The difference between us is, myself and the other gun owners here, would take up arms and risk our lives to save yours.

And your choice, is to be a helpless victim. But that's your choice.

This really shouldn't be this difficult. I'm just using pro-gun arguments against you.

I used to be a soldier so it's my job to protect people. I do that with my sarin gas.
I have the right to my sarin gas according to the constitution.

You and I could cross paths and never know that I have my sarin gas on me, but if some psycho was going to kill you I could pull out my sarin gas, threaten to release it and he would run away.
It's your choice to be a helpless victim, but that's your choice.

Why don't you explain to me why sarin gas is a bad comparison?