Quote:
There is a slight fallacy here. It seems like you're assuming that those who would have no problem committing such crimes would somehow have a problem with breaking a law in obtaining a gun. Still, it might be true that, with guns easier to get, more people would use them, I won't argue that, because I really don't know.
But there's no reason to own a gun unless you're going to use it. No real "good" can come of it since the only likely method of self defense is to kill that person.
Just because someone is a "criminal" doesn't mean they're a bad person(they could be stealing money to pay for someone's operation) and they certainly don't deserve to be killed.
What about stun guns, tazers, and dozens of other non lethal methods of disarming soeone? They're not cool and shiny and don't kill people, so they're not very American.
Quote:
It's not the gun culture that leads to illegal firearms use. That is about the same thing as blaming the car culture for drunk driving. Sure, if there were no guns, there would be no gun crime, but there are lots of people who enjoy shooting.
Yes it is. You're presuming there's some thickly defined line between good guy and criminal.
There isn't. In fact, where do you think illegal firearms ocme from?
Normally, your basic everyday Ammo'R'Us, but with the numbers filed off.
Just because there are lots of people that enjoy shooting, that's insane. And how many people DO own guns just because they enjoy shooting?
If someone enjoys defusing bombs, hollywood style, should we let them have a bomb? No.
Responsible law abiding gun owners COULD hurt someone. In the heat of a moment, I wouldn't trust most americans,
or most gun owners, rather, not to do something stupid.
And I must stress that most Americans . Most of the world. The only reason Switzerland has them is because those people
are extremely dormant and can be trusted with them(Not that I do agree with the insanely high level of gun ownership, either way).
I hate to sound like I'm generalising, but most Americans can not, and gun culture is exactly the reason why.
As long as people are taught to worship guns, they will worship them, they will be there, and they will be used to kill people.
senorhomsar
Quote:
Yeah statistics and logic apply to whether an individual who holds one belief or another are likely to believe lies. Most people don't know what conservative, liberal, socialist, communist, left and right, mean in a political sense, so how you can poll people along these lines is intruiging.
Because Conservatives go with what's there and don't question things as much. Even looking at the conservative son this board, it's evident.
If you don't want to be stereotyped, don't act like one.
Quote:
Thanks for proving my point, that liberals followed someone who didn't even conform to their ideals, just because he was seen as the other option.
What are ypu talking about? Communists != Liberals. Though since you live in America I Doubt they tell you any different.
Quote:
He is fat and do you believe everything he says?
I always find it hilarious that it's
Americans that call Moore fact.
And no, I don't believe everything he says. He is exagerrating things to make a point;
people forget he is an entertainer and also has to get a point across which is extremely
difficult as it conflicts with the modern american mind-set.
I've yet to see a conservative do a truly in depth documentry like any of Moore's. Like it
or not, they are good documentries that a lot of people enjoy, and nobody has really
been able to refute them. Anytime I ask anyone, they point to the exact same
web resource "Sex Lies and Videotapes", which relied mostly on mild exagerration of
statistics.
Plus, I'd rather have a neutral party debunk Moore's information, which they haven't.
Nobody has any reason to dislike Moore other than he's a liberal and has a following.
People say he's fat and stupid, and never give any reasons. That seems to be the Neo-Con
way.
Quote:
Really, I better reright the conservative manifesto then, because I'm pretty sure that a conservative can believe in changing the status quo if will truly lead to a greater good for all.
No, that's more like liberalism.
"Conservatism is any of a number of political philosophies supporting traditional values or an established social order. As the word implies, conservatives seek to conserve the existing social order or to reinstate a social order from the past."
Don't see anything about changing the world there, apart from changing it
back.
Quote:
You should work on your math - more than half is by its very nature 'most'. How do I know that the world around me isn't biased. If the tv company is run by a liberal, how do I know that the world they project isn't scewed liberal. I only have the media's hearsay to go by and I don't trust them one bit; I personally don't know enough doctors, scientists etc to give an informed opinion. Anyways, I'll only agree with (self professed) intellectuals, artists and musicians - three groups of people that I really have great time for these issues. Classing people into political categories is a vulgar exercise anyway which assumes that they have conciously made that choice and will stick by it. An event like 9/11 can change peoples beliefs.
You provided absolutely nothing to tackle my claim, so it stands.
Most smart people ARE against you on this. It's an irrefutable fact.
Quote:
Another rough generalisation; I can say that most liberals end being offensive to conservatives. You again confuse conservatives with idiots. Idiots are offensive to minorities. You should put yourself in your enemy's shoes, so how much more so with someone that you're trying to have a reasonable argument with or are you afraid you might catch bigotry of them.
How offensive liberals are doesn't matter, as we're not removing anyone's rights.
Conservatives are the ones who harbour and support these "Idiots". They are the ones that share many of their ideals.
There is nothing to suggest liberalism has an equivillent.
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
.
)
