Veidt wrote 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?

Except you're not using 'the pro-gun argument' against me.
It does not even compare. You honestly sound like a moron.

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote 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?

Except you're not using 'the pro-gun argument' against me.
It does not even compare. You honestly sound like a moron.

Yes I am. You say that very few people are killed in the US by guns. You say that most gun owners are sane people. You say that most gun owners are sensible with their weapons and lock them away in safes or keep the safety on. You say they are good for self defence.

So why don't you stop being so irrationally afraid of Sarin gas?

And using ad hominems against me isn't going to prove me wrong. That sounds like something a crying liberal would do.

Let's compare:

Guns kill 33,000 people every year in the US
Sarin gas kills 0

Most gun owners are sane people but a few crazy people get their hands on them and kill people.
Most sarin owners, if it were legal, would be scientists who would use it safely in experiments but a few crazy people would get their hands on it.
But the most people killed in a sarin terrorist attack has been 12. So it's not that big of a deal is it in comparison with the biggest gun terrorist attack death toll of 50.

If criminals want guns they will get guns anyway.
If criminals want sarin they will get sarin anyway.

Guns are good for self defense.
Sarin could be good for self defense.

Guns are regulated so that they can't kill huge numbers of people.
Sarin deployment devices could be regulated so that it couldn't kill huge numbers of people.

Most gun owners store their guns safely.
Sarin owners could store their sarin safely too.

See how great and much more safe America could be if Sarin were legal?

Merica.

As a American we have the right to own firearms and I believe background checks should be issued when purchasing a gun because of some of the idiots that cannot handle it or are mentally incapable of owning one. These strict gun laws that some states are offering can be out of hand, how ever I believe its for the safety of some individuals whom have to be looked at on a more exclusive level. Long story short I believe that guns should not be taken away as long as he/she knows how to safely operate a fire arm.

Veidt wrote Yes I am. You say that very few people are killed in the US by guns. You say that most gun owners are sane people. You say that most gun owners are sensible with their weapons and lock them away in safes or keep the safety on. You say they are good for self defence.

Yes...?

Veidt wrote So why don't you stop being so irrationally afraid of Sarin gas?

Because it's a chemical weapon.. of mass destruction.. and you have no legal right to own that? It's quite obvious.

Veidt wrote And using ad hominems against me isn't going to prove me wrong. That sounds like something a crying liberal would do.

If you think I'm using 'ad hominem' you're mistaken. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Your point does not work, and you don't look very smart for insisting to pursue it.

Speaking of crying liberals, that's exactly what you're sounding like. So if you don't like guns, you may retreat back to your safe space now.

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote 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?

Except you're not using 'the pro-gun argument' against me.
It does not even compare. You honestly sound like a moron.

Yes I am. You say that very few people are killed in the US by guns. You say that most gun owners are sane people. You say that most gun owners are sensible with their weapons and lock them away in safes or keep the safety on. You say they are good for self defence.

So why don't you stop being so irrationally afraid of Sarin gas?

And using ad hominems against me isn't going to prove me wrong. That sounds like something a crying liberal would do.

Let's compare:

Guns kill 33,000 people every year in the US
Sarin gas kills 0

Most gun owners are sane people but a few crazy people get their hands on them and kill people.
Most sarin owners, if it were legal, would be scientists who would use it safely in experiments but a few crazy people would get their hands on it.
But the most people killed in a sarin terrorist attack has been 12. So it's not that big of a deal is it in comparison with the biggest gun terrorist attack death toll of 50.

If criminals want guns they will get guns anyway.
If criminals want sarin they will get sarin anyway.

Guns are good for self defense.
Sarin could be good for self defense.

Guns are regulated so that they can't kill huge numbers of people.
Sarin deployment devices could be regulated so that it couldn't kill huge numbers of people.

Most gun owners store their guns safely.
Sarin owners could store their sarin safely too.

See how great and much more safe America could be if Sarin were legal?

your argument is very good. I think he just keeps shooting it down because he doesn't have anything to combat it.

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote Yes I am. You say that very few people are killed in the US by guns. You say that most gun owners are sane people. You say that most gun owners are sensible with their weapons and lock them away in safes or keep the safety on. You say they are good for self defence.

Yes...?

Veidt wrote So why don't you stop being so irrationally afraid of Sarin gas?

Because it's a chemical weapon.. of mass destruction.. and you have no legal right to own that? It's quite obvious.

Veidt wrote And using ad hominems against me isn't going to prove me wrong. That sounds like something a crying liberal would do.

If you think I'm using 'ad hominem' you're mistaken. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Your point does not work, and you don't look very smart for insisting to pursue it.

Speaking of crying liberals, that's exactly what you're sounding like. So if you don't like guns, you may retreat back to your safe space now.

It's not a chemical weapon of mass destruction if my deployment device won't let it. Like I said it will only kill two people maximum and that is even if I have to use it.
Most criminals will run away at the sight of it and not risk me deploying it around them.

So saying it is a weapon of mass destruction really doesn't mean anything here. It's just a strawman attack because you can't actually address the point that Sarin has exactly the same logical reasoning to be legal as guns.

But I see that this isn't going anywhere. The point is that sarin, with the right regulations, could have just as much right to be legal as guns do except people don't have fun with sarin.

I think I've made my point quite clear to anyone willing to take the time to understand it.

Mario350 wrote im not american but i do live in the us for a month i disagree with guns that are not pistols cause assultrifles are more deadly then a pistol but if you have kids you shouldnt have guns cause the kid can get a hold of it and either shoot/kill you or their bother/sister/mother

I am sorry but I just had to reply to this. Firstly a gun is a gun. Any firearm can kill a person whether it is a assault rifle or a pistol, and obviously the difference varies. Second, if your kid gets a hold of the firearm you probably shouldn't own a gun anyway. Most people lock them up which is the normal thing to do. And just to inform you my dad works for law enforcement and is a firearms instructor, when I was a kid the guns were ALWAYS locked up.

GriFFiThs wrote I live in the UK so I have barely ever seen guns lol. I just want to know what americans think of them because yanno they have a big problem over there. Personally I say ban them but I can see why it wouldn't really work. Its better than getting more guns to protect everyone because they will always fall into the wrong hands. Anyway its not guns who kill people its the person pulling the trigger.

There is no issue with guns here in the U.S.

There are bad apples that misuse firearms here of course, but overall there is no issue. And, just because firearms are illegal in the UK doesn't stop gun crime so it doesn't work to just take them away. The U.S. and other places around the world need to control them more, but it is a legal right here to own them so they will never be able to take them away. Just my .2 cents.

Veidt wrote

Illustrated wrote

Veidt wrote Yes I am. You say that very few people are killed in the US by guns. You say that most gun owners are sane people. You say that most gun owners are sensible with their weapons and lock them away in safes or keep the safety on. You say they are good for self defence.

Yes...?

Veidt wrote So why don't you stop being so irrationally afraid of Sarin gas?

Because it's a chemical weapon.. of mass destruction.. and you have no legal right to own that? It's quite obvious.

Veidt wrote And using ad hominems against me isn't going to prove me wrong. That sounds like something a crying liberal would do.

If you think I'm using 'ad hominem' you're mistaken. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Your point does not work, and you don't look very smart for insisting to pursue it.

Speaking of crying liberals, that's exactly what you're sounding like. So if you don't like guns, you may retreat back to your safe space now.

It's not a chemical weapon of mass destruction if my deployment device won't let it. Like I said it will only kill two people maximum and that is even if I have to use it.
Most criminals will run away at the sight of it and not risk me deploying it around them.

So saying it is a weapon of mass destruction really doesn't mean anything here. It's just a strawman attack because you can't actually address the point that Sarin has exactly the same logical reasoning to be legal as guns.

But I see that this isn't going anywhere. The point is that sarin, with the right regulations, could have just as much right to be legal as guns do except people don't have fun with sarin.

I think I've made my point quite clear to anyone willing to take the time to understand it.

I'm sure I'd be able to understand your point of view if you'd provide any sort of point that makes sense, because like I've said your comparison doesn't even come close

However the fact of the matter is that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
I own guns that have never killed anyone and only make people more safe