Sweden is now Oceania

I'm not missing the point.

I just think that putting guns in the hands of everyone is not the resolution to the problem.

Besides, law abiding citizens doesn't really have a reason to carry a gun in the first place.

 

Depends on if you want to follow the Code Civil to it's full extend or not.

 

Now I know you're missing the point. Whatever.

 

If law abiding citizens need guns to defend themself, you know the goverment is doing something wrong.

 

Gee, what an observation...

 

So why does everyone in USA, the great and oh so good country under god, carry a gun?

 

This line, together with your previous, makes you worthy of cake.

 

I'm not sure if this is good or bad.

But I do know that I should sleep.

 

Not every person in the US carries a gun, saying so is silly. That'd be like saying we all speak the same language over here.
The reason we do carry a gun is because at the time our bill of rights was written, there were a great many difficulties occurring between us and the British. The only people who had the balls to head the project knew that to survive, you had to defend yourself, vis a vis The Right to bear arms.
Do I believe that everyone should own a gun? No, obviously not everyone. But if more people who should own guns actually owned them, it might cause the people who shouldn't own guns to weigh their priorities a little better.
That's the whole argument. It's not that everyone should have a gun, it's that we need to balance things out a little more. That would mean higher gun ownership, and a higher amount of people weighing and being concerned with the consequences of their actions while wielding guns.
And personally, I don't think you've earned cake yet.

 

The cake is, virtually, a lie.

 

So, basicly what you're saying is that people should have guns to be able to take the law into their own hands? I can't see anything but trouble with public weapon possession. What if you get really drunk on some evening, and a guy in a bar pisses you off? One mistake later and you've gone and shot somebody. Shit happens? Yes, but more frequently so when there are guns involved.

 

Haha. You're just lucky because no one new CAN use yours...

Also, I really can't believe no one mentioned this, since it happened on one of the first couple days that we started to debate gun rights. Everyone knows that the best way to resolve a disagreement is to find someone impartial, so here you go.

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertrep ... eId=174851
(starts at 12:00)

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertrep ... oId=175029

Everyone here needs to watch more TV, especially if you're actually from America.

 

When the need arises, yes. But not so that people can make their own laws. Think of it as supplemental law enforcement.

Obviously, guns and alcohol do not mix. That's why it's illegal to carry a gun while intoxicated, or on the premises of an establishment that sells alcohol by the drink. Don't misunderstand me, I don't think guns are to be taken lightly or handled carelessly, and if you're not going to take the time to learn the basics of gun safety and use, you shouldn't own a gun.

 

Don't say that, reasonable people are hard to argue with!

 

Did you just purposely misconstrue everything I said just to make me look like an ass? That's pretty awesome.
Japes hit the nail on the head, as far as what I wanted to convey.
There are more than 300 million people living in this country, and not all of us are cops who are required to have a pistol at their side. The problem with guns in our country is that so many people illegally procure weapons, and while there are people who simply have guns illegally, there are others who use these unregistered weapons to commit crimes. Don't you think that a person who doesn't go out and kill people for money should be able to have a weapon at their side to defend themselves? I am in no way saying that if you have a gun, you need to shoot criminals. I'm saying that if the criminal intends to kill you, incapacitate them in some way. If you're cornered and can't escape, and the criminal intends to kill you...you may have to kill them first. Cops aren't everywhere, and they aren't always able to bail you out of a tight situation.

 

That Colbert guy looked like a fucking joke to me.


The prolem is Japes, that you can get a gun without learning the basics. It's to easy to get a gun, everyone can get it since it says so in the second amanment.


And Gross, if you are in a tight situation, a gun might not help you, since you acutally have to pull your gun to be able to use it.

But you know what you don't have to pull out to use, that can save your life in a tight situation?

You mouth, you can talk, you can negotiate.
And if you can't do that, a gun will most probaly not save you ethier.

 

@Japes+Gross: I can see your point, but I still don't agree that guns are the solution to the problem. The bar-example is just one example out of many of how wrong things might go when there are guns involved. Remember that two rights doesn't right one wrong. Whenever the flaws of a system leads to the death of innocent people, the system is a bad one and needs to be changed.

That said, I know that removing the rights of the second amendment from the people would be a virtually impossible task. But it would be a start.

Then again, it's you guys who live over there. Maybe the problems with guns aren't as big as I portrait them.

 

Ok good. Agree to disagree. I'm tired of arguing this.

Oh, and guns are awesome.