Game, set, match.

[Avatar]

You do make a certain sense, and definitely have principles. I hope the same, that I can get through life without harming others.

I don't think anyone would argue that you're not free to make this decision for yourself, and we would respect you for standing up for these ethics.

The disagreement comes later, when we're talking about the rights of other people. Do they have the right to make their own decision? Should we use a law to take away that right? I think, for myself to take away someone else's ability to make decisions is to harm them. I'm content to let them make their own decisions, as long as that person doesn't interfere with my rights.

[Rynquald]

Well I think we've boiled this down beyond gun politics.

If I'm getting this right, you wouldn't use significant force to defend yourself unless you "snapped". While on the other hand, I would.

I think people with our two viewpoints can get along, they always have before. I'm not about to criticise you for not wanting to physically protect yourself, or even for wanting to put the fact that the world isn't a safe place out of your mind for the betterment of your life. Just don't attempt to stop me and others from being prepared and living life our way.

[jezer]

[quote="Rynquald":szqj4dvt]I think people with our two viewpoints can get along, they always have before. I'm not about to criticise you for not wanting to physically protect yourself, or even for wanting to put the fact that the world isn't a safe place out of your mind for the betterment of your life. Just don't attempt to stop me and others from being prepared and living life our way.[/quote:szqj4dvt]

I think that is the conclusion I have come to... and Avatar has eluded to as well... although we have strong viewpoints about what we think is right, and we are not afraid to point these out... we can't justify some of the means by which our former counterparts, whose fanaticism for the same ideals, seems to have lead them to do the very type's of things that they said they despised or out of the same heart. Hypocrisy is never far. But seems to keep it's distance from the humble.

[Weasel]

[quote="jezer":11r2kofg]But rynquald just proved my point... Once again... justification of owning weapons based solely on projected fears. Do you want to live your life under that weight? I choose not too.[/quote:11r2kofg]
So I presume you recommend people should not wear a seatbelts while driving a car, because that is clearly an action based on projected fear.
Poisons should not be placed in child-proof cupboards, because that is clearly an action based on projected fear.
Shall I continue?
LOL.

[jezer]

[quote="Weasel":1286gumy][quote="jezer":1286gumy]But rynquald just proved my point... Once again... justification of owning weapons based solely on projected fears. Do you want to live your life under that weight? I choose not too.[/quote:1286gumy]
So I presume you recommend people should not wear a seatbelts while driving a car, because that is clearly an action based on projected fear.
Poisons should not be placed in child-proof cupboards, because that is clearly an action based on projected fear.
Shall I continue?
LOL.[/quote:1286gumy]

There is a point when safety becomes fear... I don't think those things you suggested crosses the lines... although it's a fine line. I have a strange urge to talk about Obama, why is that?

[Tap]

Who? What? Where?

Sorry Jezer, but no matter what your viewpoint is as far as gun control is or mine for that matter, it should send off warning bells when someone who is capable of disarming you starts making preparations to do so. If your content to try to reason with your attacker and hope for the best, good luck..I'm pretty certain it won't pan out like you would hope. Criminals get off on fear, if they sense a weakness, they will use that to their advantage.
But beyond gun control as far as Osama is concerned, it's just not gun control that bothers millions, count that, MILLIONS of Americans. A far number from being the "minority". He has 5-6 quick action plans that is going to turn America on it's head. Separately, they could be examined and debated. However as things are shaping up, the so-called "checks and balances" will go out the window...maybe not immediately but with some conservatives retiring soon...it's going to be up in the air...Now worse case scenario, You are going to have a President with the major support of the Senate "forcing" the citizens to comply with new rules and regulations or face dire consequences. You can make the case that I am fear mongering and my only response would be..hear for yourself from Osama's own mouth. Watch who he puts into power and see the 90 degree turn in the direction of the country.....one quick example..Osama touts he is for energy independence...then he makes a follow-up statement that while he won't prevent companies from mining coal to convert to energy, he is going to tax them so much that they will go bankrupt.Big-mouth Biden follows up with the citizens facing the fact that all will have to pay a sharp increase in their power bill... jokes on you..where is this money going to go? Overseas

[Weasel]

[quote="jezer":30oye6up]There is a point when safety becomes fear... I don't think those things you suggested crosses the lines... although it's a fine line. I have a strange urge to talk about Obama, why is that? [/quote:30oye6up]
Ok, let's look at it a different way that will maybe make more sense to you.

If you live in certain major cities, then having a gun for self-defense is a legitimate and reasonable safety precaution. If you live in some small town in the middle of nowhere and have not even needed to lock your front door for years, having a gun for self-defense reasons would probably be an indication of unreasonable fear as you said, not reasonable safety (unless there were large wild animals roaming around that had a history of attacking humans or something).

I can only assume you either don't understand this or have not thought of this because you don't live in an environment where the chances of being faced with violent crime is just an everyday part of life, as much as carrying an umbrella is if you live somewhere where it rains a lot. It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of fact.

Your opinion is likely quite valid for your situation (whatever it may be), but you should not project that opinion on others who do not live in the same environment. Some might even consider your opinion reckless.

[jezer]

[quote="Weasel":3clo3ky4]I can only assume you either don't understand this or have not thought of this because you don't live in an environment where the chances of being faced with violent crime is just an everyday part of life, as much as carrying an umbrella is if you live somewhere where it rains a lot. It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of fact.[/quote:3clo3ky4]

Here we are back to the beginning... a statement eluding to the fact violent crime happens... because people have guns... and here in Australia where there are far less more guns on the street we have less violent crime as proved by some statistics I posted earlier... So why do you think carrying a gun makes it safer, that just pure stupidity! It's because people have them it's unsafe!

So get rid of your guns, if no one has one, no firearm crime, no need to have one, it's really very simple.

And for the record, I've been assaulted twice by people demanding my watch/money. Both times without firearms, although one person faked having a knife. I haven't armed myself just in case it happens again, although safety sense says, I'll walk a different way, or walk with someone next time if I am in those areas.

Living with threats is life, letting it effect you, is a choice.

[Tap]

Hrm..you make the case as far as geography. We can all agree on that. I'd even say you were lucky that your two altercations only managed to bang you up. Personally, while we do have different points of view on gun control, I'd also be against forcing everyone to own a gun. The issue, you shouldn't have anything "forced" on you. Forcing someone to own/not own a gun is slavery..giving them an option (with guidelines/rules) is freedom. As someone who realises just how little freedom I have, my gut feeling is even those I might be deluded into thinking I have, well maybe not so much. I'll say it again, it's one thing to hear it on talk radio but when you hear straight from the horses mouth, hell how can you ignore it?

[Weasel]

[quote="jezer":o40xbroz]So get rid of your guns, if no one has one, no firearm crime, no need to have one, it's really very simple.[/quote:o40xbroz]
And that's the problem. You outlaw guns [i:o40xbroz]here[/i:o40xbroz], the people who would otherwise own guns responsibly will not own them, but the criminal element who misuse guns will still have them. IF there were NO guns here whatsoever, then sure, there would be no problem and no need, but the FACT is there are guns here already, and if you outlaw them, you are (again) only taking them out of the hands of those who act responsibly, not the ones who would misuse them. You're dealing with ideals, I'm dealing with reality. I wish things were the way you want, but they aren't - at least not in my neck of the woods.

After saying all that, I personally do not own a gun as I have no experience with them, because I spent most of my life living in NZ where the situation is very very different, and is more like Aussie. I thought the same as you do when I lived there. I now live here, and have to adjust my attitude accordingly. We can agree to disagree if you wish, but you are projecting your values appropriate to your environment onto others where it may well be inappropriate ..weren't you earlier speaking [i:o40xbroz]against[/i:o40xbroz] projecting?

And yes, as Tap says, gun ownership should not be a [i:o40xbroz]requirement[/i:o40xbroz], but it should remain a choice here, and that choice should remain for [i:o40xbroz]all[/i:o40xbroz], not just those who would misuse guns, which is effectively what you'd achieve by outlawing them here. The guns are already in circulation here, it's too late to ban them.

[Tap]

[quote:24rhjc84]
I think I understand where Jezer is coming from, he wants to ban people.

Razz[/quote:24rhjc84]

[jezer]

[quote:3h6jquf8]IF there were NO guns here whatsoever, then sure, there would be no problem and no need, but the FACT is there are guns here already, and if you outlaw them, you are (again) only taking them out of the hands of those who act responsibly, not the ones who would misuse them. You're dealing with ideals, I'm dealing with reality. I wish things were the way you want, but they aren't - at least not in my neck of the woods. [/quote:3h6jquf8]

Oh weasel Once again... fear of what might be... your chasing your tail, and your going around in a circle. People think the only way to solve the issue is to be like the 'baddies' and have guns too... it doesn't work... you can't kill people for morality. You can't fart for pleasant smells.

Even on the radio at lunch... with the US Missile shield... Russia making threats, and counter arrangements, as a result of building the missile shield... to solve the problem... someone!... somewhere!... has to back down!

Idealistic? Yes!
Probably Going to happen? No!
The Right thing to do? You bet!

[Rynquald]

This seems like a good time to point out that pretty much every freedom we still have was won by people that refused to back down even when it was going to cost lives.

[quote="Jezer":6pjehfhb]People think the only way to solve the issue is to be like the 'baddies' and have guns too...[/quote:6pjehfhb]

That statement relies on the assertion that the initial bearers of arms are "baddies" and everyone that comes after is simply being reactionary. A gun is a tool, an inanimate object, possessing one has no bearing on any moral state.

Would you have a free nation bow down to a fascist neighbour's demands to save a war? How about if the Americans had backed down from war with the British to save lives? The American Civil War? What about the Allies in World War Two? The French resistance? And countless other wars of independence and revolutions against oppression.

Armed conflict is brutal and at the border of what we know as humanity, but it can serve a purpose. Without the willingness to kill or die for our nations and freedoms, we would at best be living in primitive anarchy, and at worst under oppressors the likes of which real history has never known.

[Weasel]

[quote="jezer":38m1y2zu]Oh weasel Once again... fear of what might be... [/quote:38m1y2zu]
Dude you do not live here, I do. This is not what [i:38m1y2zu]might be[/i:38m1y2zu], this is what is. It doesn't bother me, I don't [i:38m1y2zu]fear[/i:38m1y2zu] it, it is what it is and I accept it as part of life and living safely - I'm not walking around in denial. If you insist on telling someone they are wrong about the place they live in, when you've never been there, then that is just plain ignorance or arrogance, take your pick.

"Oh Weasel.."
Keep the moral superiority tone out of it please. If you can't handle this reality, that's your problem.

[Tap]

[quote:2p6hx77i]someone!... somewhere!... has to back down![/quote:2p6hx77i]

I wonder what the world would be had everyone backed down from Hitler?

Is this your ideal Jezer?