Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun Rights

DarthKirones
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.
"I am not religious. I am a genius. I have the Universe in my hands."
-Aerogant

"Of course a jewish baby cannibalizing a jewish mommy is fine"
-Heil being retarded

"Eradicating the baby scourge from our midsts is most certainly fun. And I am proud to be your hero. Babies tremble then they hear my name.. Airmax, the hero of baby annihilation."
-Airmax
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DarthKirones
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
"I am not religious. I am a genius. I have the Universe in my hands."
-Aerogant

"Of course a jewish baby cannibalizing a jewish mommy is fine"
-Heil being retarded

"Eradicating the baby scourge from our midsts is most certainly fun. And I am proud to be your hero. Babies tremble then they hear my name.. Airmax, the hero of baby annihilation."
-Airmax
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:40:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.

How would you stop those people who commit homicide from obtaining a weapon?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.
DarthKirones
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?
"I am not religious. I am a genius. I have the Universe in my hands."
-Aerogant

"Of course a jewish baby cannibalizing a jewish mommy is fine"
-Heil being retarded

"Eradicating the baby scourge from our midsts is most certainly fun. And I am proud to be your hero. Babies tremble then they hear my name.. Airmax, the hero of baby annihilation."
-Airmax
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:57:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?
What about them? Thing is, you can never completely do away with them.

Take two scenarios. In the first society, let's call it A, the sale and possession of firearms is illegal. Now, naturally this causes the majority of the population from obtaining them (or having them). However, criminals don't care about the law, and they can go through the black market to gain access to guns.

In society B, the sale and possession of firearms is legal. The well-intended majority now has sufficient self-defense against those who would wish them harm. As imabench said, the government can not guarantee absolute protection.

Which society do you want?
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 9:58:46 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:57:02 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?
What about them? Thing is, you can never completely do away with them.

Take two scenarios. In the first society, let's call it A, the sale and possession of firearms is illegal. Now, naturally this prevents the majority of the population from obtaining them (or having them). However, criminals don't care about the law, and they can go through the black market to gain access to guns.

In society B, the sale and possession of firearms is legal. The well-intended majority now has sufficient self-defense against those who would wish them harm. As imabench said, the government can not guarantee absolute protection.

Which society do you want?
imabench
Posts: 21,229
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:00:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.

People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

The well intentioned majority is sane and doesnt have a felony on their record, it'll be more than easy enough for them to pass a background check
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
DarthKirones
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:02:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:57:02 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?
What about them? Thing is, you can never completely do away with them.

I know. You can limit them though.

Take two scenarios. In the first society, let's call it A, the sale and possession of firearms is illegal. Now, naturally this causes the majority of the population from obtaining them (or having them). However, criminals don't care about the law, and they can go through the black market to gain access to guns.

In society B, the sale and possession of firearms is legal. The well-intended majority now has sufficient self-defense against those who would wish them harm. As imabench said, the government can not guarantee absolute protection.

Which society do you want?

Okay. In how many situations are guns used in mass shootings? Take several of the school shootings in the US, or the San Bernadino Attacks. Do you think that could have been fixed with guns?

Besides, many people will not go through that much effort to go get a weapon. It would not eliminate the problem , but it would help.
"I am not religious. I am a genius. I have the Universe in my hands."
-Aerogant

"Of course a jewish baby cannibalizing a jewish mommy is fine"
-Heil being retarded

"Eradicating the baby scourge from our midsts is most certainly fun. And I am proud to be your hero. Babies tremble then they hear my name.. Airmax, the hero of baby annihilation."
-Airmax
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:04:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?

Torton is correct. Criminals will get guns regardless of legality. He's also right that the vast majority of individuals who own guns are well-intentioned. As for dealing with the "dangerous minority" as you said, the issue is not the legality of guns. You've already conceded the two aforementioned things: a) criminals can get access to guns regardless of legality, and b) the dangerous faction of gun owners are overwhelmingly a minority. It's illogical to think that banning guns would, or could, prohibit the dangerous minority from committing crimes. Allowing guns (because very few are ill-intentioned) would be both utilitarian and pragmatic. How are individuals supposed to defend themselves when attacked if there is no way to stop someone with a gun? The loss of one ill-intentioned life is usually "better" than the loss of 1 or more innocent, well-intentioned lives. Also, even if you don't have a gun, a criminal is less likely to take a chance of robbing an area where there is a high concentration of gun-owning residents. The same is true for shootings.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Nobody who support banning guns has a logical position on it. It's out of pure emotion. Facts and logic will always stand with pro gun rights.

Statistics show of 200,000+ incidents of people using guns as a way of self-defense. This comes from the government, and not the NRA.

Gun control will not reduce crime. There are over 300 million illegal guns floating here, and it's very simple for a criminal to get his gun outside of a legal store. The only people who will be affected are gun owners who follow the law.

It's worth mentioning that being pro guns rights, doesn't mean you support 0 gun control. We need gun control. Strict background checks are part of this. I support this wholeheartedly, since a law abiding citizen should be able to pass it without a doubt.

The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

Finally the issue is gun culture. It's alright to go and shoot guns for fun, but when you have that constant paranoia of being murdered, and feeling you need to carry all the time, then it has a negative impact on society. We as a society need to realize we don't need to carry a gun all the time. Incidents do happen, but they are rare.

To conclude, I think being pro gun rights is the most logical position, since banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but increases it, and it should be an option for those who really need it.

Ask me if you have any other questions. I was on the fence for along time, then I switched.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:08:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:04:14 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?

. Also, even if you don't have a gun, a criminal is less likely to take a chance of robbing an area where there is a high concentration of gun-owning residents. The same is true for shootings.

That's not always true. It's ridiculous to think you need to carry to stay safe. Living in places with low poverty, highly educated people will also keep you safe.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
mc9
Posts: 1,041
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:08:32 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Nobody who support banning guns has a logical position on it. It's out of pure emotion. Facts and logic will always stand with pro gun rights.

Statistics show of 200,000+ incidents of people using guns as a way of self-defense. This comes from the government, and not the NRA.

Gun control will not reduce crime. There are over 300 million illegal guns floating here, and it's very simple for a criminal to get his gun outside of a legal store. The only people who will be affected are gun owners who follow the law.

It's worth mentioning that being pro guns rights, doesn't mean you support 0 gun control. We need gun control. Strict background checks are part of this. I support this wholeheartedly, since a law abiding citizen should be able to pass it without a doubt.

The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

Finally the issue is gun culture. It's alright to go and shoot guns for fun, but when you have that constant paranoia of being murdered, and feeling you need to carry all the time, then it has a negative impact on society. We as a society need to realize we don't need to carry a gun all the time. Incidents do happen, but they are rare.


To conclude, I think being pro gun rights is the most logical position, since banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but increases it, and it should be an option for those who really need it.

Ask me if you have any other questions. I was on the fence for along time, then I switched.

There arent actually too much pro gun banners.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:08:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:04:14 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?

Torton is correct. Criminals will get guns regardless of legality. He's also right that the vast majority of individuals who own guns are well-intentioned. As for dealing with the "dangerous minority" as you said, the issue is not the legality of guns. You've already conceded the two aforementioned things: a) criminals can get access to guns regardless of legality, and b) the dangerous faction of gun owners are overwhelmingly a minority. It's illogical to think that banning guns would, or could, prohibit the dangerous minority from committing crimes. Allowing guns (because very few are ill-intentioned) would be both utilitarian and pragmatic. How are individuals supposed to defend themselves when attacked if there is no way to stop someone with a gun? The loss of one ill-intentioned life is usually "better" than the loss of 1 or more innocent, well-intentioned lives. Also, even if you don't have a gun, a criminal is less likely to take a chance of robbing an area where there is a high concentration of gun-owning residents. The same is true for shootings.

Not to brag, but Naperville is one of the safest places in America, and a very few % of people have guns.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
DarthKirones
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:08:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Nobody who support banning guns has a logical position on it. It's out of pure emotion. Facts and logic will always stand with pro gun rights.

Statistics show of 200,000+ incidents of people using guns as a way of self-defense. This comes from the government, and not the NRA.

Gun control will not reduce crime. There are over 300 million illegal guns floating here, and it's very simple for a criminal to get his gun outside of a legal store. The only people who will be affected are gun owners who follow the law.

It's worth mentioning that being pro guns rights, doesn't mean you support 0 gun control. We need gun control. Strict background checks are part of this. I support this wholeheartedly, since a law abiding citizen should be able to pass it without a doubt.

The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

Finally the issue is gun culture. It's alright to go and shoot guns for fun, but when you have that constant paranoia of being murdered, and feeling you need to carry all the time, then it has a negative impact on society. We as a society need to realize we don't need to carry a gun all the time. Incidents do happen, but they are rare.


To conclude, I think being pro gun rights is the most logical position, since banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but increases it, and it should be an option for those who really need it.

Ask me if you have any other questions. I was on the fence for along time, then I switched.

Thank you. This is the best response so far.
"I am not religious. I am a genius. I have the Universe in my hands."
-Aerogant

"Of course a jewish baby cannibalizing a jewish mommy is fine"
-Heil being retarded

"Eradicating the baby scourge from our midsts is most certainly fun. And I am proud to be your hero. Babies tremble then they hear my name.. Airmax, the hero of baby annihilation."
-Airmax
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:10:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:02:44 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:57:02 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?
What about them? Thing is, you can never completely do away with them.

I know. You can limit them though.

By banning guns, you would ipso facto limit them for well-intentioned, law-abiding citizens. These aren't the people that need the guns taken away. They aren't the ones that will use them for ill-will. That's creating a much larger divide in law-abiding citizens and criminals, and it is done so in a manner that puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage.

Take two scenarios. In the first society, let's call it A, the sale and possession of firearms is illegal. Now, naturally this causes the majority of the population from obtaining them (or having them). However, criminals don't care about the law, and they can go through the black market to gain access to guns.

In society B, the sale and possession of firearms is legal. The well-intended majority now has sufficient self-defense against those who would wish them harm. As imabench said, the government can not guarantee absolute protection.

Which society do you want?

Okay. In how many situations are guns used in mass shootings? Take several of the school shootings in the US, or the San Bernadino Attacks. Do you think that could have been fixed with guns?

No. Take Columbine, for example. 20 firearm laws were breached en route to that shooting. It's evident that laws don't stop ill-intentioned people from possessing firearms. [http://www.cato.org...]

Besides, many people will not go through that much effort to go get a weapon. It would not eliminate the problem , but it would help.

If they have the intentions of killing people, then they will. Again, refer back to the Columbine shooting. They evidently went through plenty of trouble (namely, 20 firearm laws) to get guns and use them adversely.
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:12:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:08:47 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:04:14 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:45:00 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:42:13 PM, Torton wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:37:25 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:32:46 PM, imabench wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

The government cannot now, nor ever will be able to, 100% guarantee your protection, which is why they allow for people to have their own ability to self-defense. That at the very least somewhat justifies gun rights being an option on the table to begin with

True, but it is impossible to tell who is buying a gun for self defense purposes, it could allow people with violent intentions to get a weapon.
People like that can get access to guns, whether they're banned or not. The only thing the former does is punish the well-intentioned majority.

I would not disagree with that. I believe that most people who get a gun are people without malicious intent. but what about that dangerous minority?

Torton is correct. Criminals will get guns regardless of legality. He's also right that the vast majority of individuals who own guns are well-intentioned. As for dealing with the "dangerous minority" as you said, the issue is not the legality of guns. You've already conceded the two aforementioned things: a) criminals can get access to guns regardless of legality, and b) the dangerous faction of gun owners are overwhelmingly a minority. It's illogical to think that banning guns would, or could, prohibit the dangerous minority from committing crimes. Allowing guns (because very few are ill-intentioned) would be both utilitarian and pragmatic. How are individuals supposed to defend themselves when attacked if there is no way to stop someone with a gun? The loss of one ill-intentioned life is usually "better" than the loss of 1 or more innocent, well-intentioned lives. Also, even if you don't have a gun, a criminal is less likely to take a chance of robbing an area where there is a high concentration of gun-owning residents. The same is true for shootings.

Not to brag, but Naperville is one of the safest places in America, and a very few % of people have guns.

Obviously what I mentioned isn't the only factor. There are definitely others. I'm just saying that, in general, more guns equates to less crime. You know what i'm talking about. :P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:14:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

This means we need to BAN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!!!! ;P
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:21:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:14:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

This means we need to BAN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!!!! ;P

The right to 360 noscope other noobs shall not be infringed!!!
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:23:22 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:21:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:14:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

This means we need to BAN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!!!! ;P

The right to 360 noscope other noobs shall not be infringed!!!

Amendment 28th --> Ratified. Lol XD
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:31:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Read my gun ban debates, I've done a lot of them
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:32:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:08:50 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Nobody who support banning guns has a logical position on it. It's out of pure emotion. Facts and logic will always stand with pro gun rights.

Statistics show of 200,000+ incidents of people using guns as a way of self-defense. This comes from the government, and not the NRA.

Gun control will not reduce crime. There are over 300 million illegal guns floating here, and it's very simple for a criminal to get his gun outside of a legal store. The only people who will be affected are gun owners who follow the law.

It's worth mentioning that being pro guns rights, doesn't mean you support 0 gun control. We need gun control. Strict background checks are part of this. I support this wholeheartedly, since a law abiding citizen should be able to pass it without a doubt.

The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

Finally the issue is gun culture. It's alright to go and shoot guns for fun, but when you have that constant paranoia of being murdered, and feeling you need to carry all the time, then it has a negative impact on society. We as a society need to realize we don't need to carry a gun all the time. Incidents do happen, but they are rare.


To conclude, I think being pro gun rights is the most logical position, since banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but increases it, and it should be an option for those who really need it.

Ask me if you have any other questions. I was on the fence for along time, then I switched.

Thank you. This is the best response so far.

No problem. I'm really passionate on this topic.

Bigger issues to deal with gun violence rest with poverty and lack of education. Everybody knows that Chicago is a very dangerous city, but people don't realize that only certain parts of the city give the place a horrible reputation. South and West Chicago are one of the worst places to live, because of it's violence. Interestingly the poverty levels in those neighborhoods are at super high levels, and high school dropout rates are more than 50%. The murder rate in South Chicago is 47 for 100,000. Compared to the countries 4.7 for 100,000 rate.

Now look at North Chicago. It's much safer, because the people are generally more educated, and there is much less poverty. The murder rate is only about 10.

The entire city has the same gun laws, but one side is dramatically safer. Now ask yourself. Will making gun control laws tougher make any difference? I would actually support loosening gun laws, because in Chicago it's a bit too ridiculous. But we need to focus on the real issues.

I'm going to turn off Politically Correct mode, and say that North Chicago has much less black people than the South. We need to focus on real issues, like fixing income equality, and getting young blacks the education they need.

https://newrepublic.com...

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
DarthKirones
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 10:33:45 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:32:00 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:08:50 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Nobody who support banning guns has a logical position on it. It's out of pure emotion. Facts and logic will always stand with pro gun rights.

Statistics show of 200,000+ incidents of people using guns as a way of self-defense. This comes from the government, and not the NRA.

Gun control will not reduce crime. There are over 300 million illegal guns floating here, and it's very simple for a criminal to get his gun outside of a legal store. The only people who will be affected are gun owners who follow the law.

It's worth mentioning that being pro guns rights, doesn't mean you support 0 gun control. We need gun control. Strict background checks are part of this. I support this wholeheartedly, since a law abiding citizen should be able to pass it without a doubt.

The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

Finally the issue is gun culture. It's alright to go and shoot guns for fun, but when you have that constant paranoia of being murdered, and feeling you need to carry all the time, then it has a negative impact on society. We as a society need to realize we don't need to carry a gun all the time. Incidents do happen, but they are rare.


To conclude, I think being pro gun rights is the most logical position, since banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but increases it, and it should be an option for those who really need it.

Ask me if you have any other questions. I was on the fence for along time, then I switched.

Thank you. This is the best response so far.

No problem. I'm really passionate on this topic.

Bigger issues to deal with gun violence rest with poverty and lack of education. Everybody knows that Chicago is a very dangerous city, but people don't realize that only certain parts of the city give the place a horrible reputation. South and West Chicago are one of the worst places to live, because of it's violence. Interestingly the poverty levels in those neighborhoods are at super high levels, and high school dropout rates are more than 50%. The murder rate in South Chicago is 47 for 100,000. Compared to the countries 4.7 for 100,000 rate.

Now look at North Chicago. It's much safer, because the people are generally more educated, and there is much less poverty. The murder rate is only about 10.

The entire city has the same gun laws, but one side is dramatically safer. Now ask yourself. Will making gun control laws tougher make any difference? I would actually support loosening gun laws, because in Chicago it's a bit too ridiculous. But we need to focus on the real issues.

I'm going to turn off Politically Correct mode, and say that North Chicago has much less black people than the South. We need to focus on real issues, like fixing income equality, and getting young blacks the education they need.

https://newrepublic.com...

http://www.neighborhoodscout.com...

Agreed. Especially income inequality. It's a problem here in Canada too, just not as much.
"I am not religious. I am a genius. I have the Universe in my hands."
-Aerogant

"Of course a jewish baby cannibalizing a jewish mommy is fine"
-Heil being retarded

"Eradicating the baby scourge from our midsts is most certainly fun. And I am proud to be your hero. Babies tremble then they hear my name.. Airmax, the hero of baby annihilation."
-Airmax
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 12:18:49 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

I'm from the uk where unlike Americans I have experienced a culture of tight gun controls and checks. People can only obtain guns if they can prove they have no mental health issues, are competent and safe handling the firearm. The person must also prove they have a legitimate use for a gun such as pest control, game shooting, pest control, putting down injured or sick farm animals, clay pidgeon shooting or hunting. The licence has to be reviewed every 3 years. Criminal record checks are also made. Guns have to be stored in documented locked gun cabinets which are checked by police upon obtaining the licence.

I am generally right wing in my views but I am strongly in favour of gun controls. I oppose strongly open and concealed carry of guns. To me it would be quite scary seeing people carrying guns around and would certainly create fear and anxiety amongst UK citizens. The gun laws have been in place for over 50 years and everyone here is content with them. No one supports unrestricted gun ownership or the carrying of guns for self defence apart from criminals. The fact the restrictions have been in place a long time mean there are many less guns per person than the USA.

I appreciate things are different in the USA.

1. it's in the constitution.
2. it's tradition.
3. There are a huge number of guns.
4. People are used to seeing guns in public places.
5. Guns help some people feel safe.
6. Guns Are useful when attacked or threatened.

The downsides though are-

1. The presence of guns in public places creates a culture where everyone feels they need a gun to be safe.
2. Criminals can obtain any weapon they want without being checked.
3. Mentally Ill people can obtain guns. In some cases they may commit mass shootings but the main issue is use of a firearm to commit suicide. Firearm suicides are more common in the USA than the uk. Pro gun people say suicidal people will use other methods of suicide but they negate the fact suicides involving a firearm are more likely to result in death then other methods used such as taking an overdose of medication.
4. Children see lots of guns and think using and having them is both Neccessary and normal.
5. People who are carrying firearms may engage in an argument. This develops Into a fist fight, it gets nasty and the firearm is used. Someone dies. If the firearm was not there it would not happen.
6. People unskilled in the operation of a firearm may cause injury or death to themselves or others due to an error handling the firearm.
7. Gang members and criminals can carry weapons openly and legally.
8. Criminals committing crime can blend in with ordinary citizens.
9. The fact gun control is a big debate in the USA but a settled issue in the UK.
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 12:22:45 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:08:32 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Nobody who support banning guns has a logical position on it. It's out of pure emotion. Facts and logic will always stand with pro gun rights.

Statistics show of 200,000+ incidents of people using guns as a way of self-defense. This comes from the government, and not the NRA.

Gun control will not reduce crime. There are over 300 million illegal guns floating here, and it's very simple for a criminal to get his gun outside of a legal store. The only people who will be affected are gun owners who follow the law.

It's worth mentioning that being pro guns rights, doesn't mean you support 0 gun control. We need gun control. Strict background checks are part of this. I support this wholeheartedly, since a law abiding citizen should be able to pass it without a doubt.

The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

Finally the issue is gun culture. It's alright to go and shoot guns for fun, but when you have that constant paranoia of being murdered, and feeling you need to carry all the time, then it has a negative impact on society. We as a society need to realize we don't need to carry a gun all the time. Incidents do happen, but they are rare.


To conclude, I think being pro gun rights is the most logical position, since banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but increases it, and it should be an option for those who really need it.

Ask me if you have any other questions. I was on the fence for along time, then I switched.

There arent actually too much pro gun banners.

Putting magazine restrictions and such still count.
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 12:23:04 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:23:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:21:35 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:14:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

This means we need to BAN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!!!! ;P

The right to 360 noscope other noobs shall not be infringed!!!

Amendment 28th --> Ratified. Lol XD

+1
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 1:27:55 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Well... Strictly sticking with your argument, without mention in the constitution, gun ownership would be (potentially) a privileged not a right. I would be very happy with that.

There are few who suggest a "ban" on all or even most guns. The pro-gun people, some already on the thread, go for the extreme that few if any actually support - that is outright bans.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:36:16 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:08:32 PM, mc9 wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
I consider myself to be undecided on Gun Rights. Try to convince me to go one way or the other (Pro/Con) WITHOUT using the US constitution as an argument.

Nobody who support banning guns has a logical position on it. It's out of pure emotion. Facts and logic will always stand with pro gun rights.

Statistics show of 200,000+ incidents of people using guns as a way of self-defense. This comes from the government, and not the NRA.

Gun control will not reduce crime. There are over 300 million illegal guns floating here, and it's very simple for a criminal to get his gun outside of a legal store. The only people who will be affected are gun owners who follow the law.

It's worth mentioning that being pro guns rights, doesn't mean you support 0 gun control. We need gun control. Strict background checks are part of this. I support this wholeheartedly, since a law abiding citizen should be able to pass it without a doubt.

The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

Finally the issue is gun culture. It's alright to go and shoot guns for fun, but when you have that constant paranoia of being murdered, and feeling you need to carry all the time, then it has a negative impact on society. We as a society need to realize we don't need to carry a gun all the time. Incidents do happen, but they are rare.


To conclude, I think being pro gun rights is the most logical position, since banning guns doesn't reduce crime, but increases it, and it should be an option for those who really need it.

Ask me if you have any other questions. I was on the fence for along time, then I switched.

There arent actually too much pro gun banners.

What mc9 said. There is no credible threat which would ban guns. The debate is about how arms and ammo should be restricted.

- should arms more powerful than guns be allowed?
- should armor piercing ammo be available?
- should background checks be mandatory on all sales?
-should there's be restrictions on magazine size?
- should automatic weapons be available without special permit?
-how and why should arms be restricted
-who should be responsible for crimes committed with a gun? The owner? Gun manufacturers?
- should gun manufactures be required to put in technology that does not allow anyone to fire a weapon, such as fingerprint technology?
tajshar2k
Posts: 2,385
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2016 2:38:15 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 10:14:22 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 2/15/2016 10:06:41 PM, tajshar2k wrote:
At 2/15/2016 9:26:47 PM, DarthKirones wrote:
The real issue with our blatant gun violence is that my mental health system is broken. People who have disorders aren't able to get help when they need it. It builds up, and they do horrific acts like what they did in Columbine and Sandy Hook. We need to expand our coverage on mental health issues, and allow the CDA to further research the topic on gun violence.

This means we need to BAN VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES!!!! ;P

You sigged me :D
"In Guns We Trust" Tajshar2k