"Gun Free Zones" around the President! Sign the petition.

[Last Starfighter]

Because the US decided that self protection and preservation was a human right. Really hard to defend against several attackers with a pencil.

And with any amendment to the constitution, it can be repealed. Look at prohibition.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

And all are heavily regulated.

I guess we can disagree to which degree they are regulated.

You feel fire arms should have additional regulations. I don't think they should.

You feel tobacco and alcohol which kill way more people each year than guns is perfectly regulated, and I don't agree.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 01:58 AM ----------

And a tanks would lower the risk of you getting car jacked, should everyone get one?

I would like to see some urban cultural ambassador try to car jack my tank.

[Wells]

You're really good at claiming I've said things I haven't'.

[hakujinbakasama]

Ofc it does. We live in societies governed by laws. The police is there to protect us from our fellow man and the army is there to protect us from other countries.
If said society wasn't filled to the brim with people with weapons they would probably have been able to do just that.
I'm very curious as to what perceived threat you want to arm your population against. Could it be against a population of gun wielders?[COLOR="red"]

1. I live in the USA. The Police are here to enforce the law. "Preventing" crime is not a requirement. "Protecting" you is not their legal requirement. This has already been settled by the USSC.

2. I've never known of a laws to stop crime from ever happening.

3. I'm not a ninja. I don't feel good about the idea about defending against a knife. I don't feel comfortable fending off someone with a large lead pipe. Ya know, I could possibly survive a knife attack or the ilk but the idea of losing an eye, limb, or mobility just doesn't sit well with me. I, the law abiding guy, gets a permanent or potential life debilitating injury and the bad guy probably gets away. Yeah, I'm really in favor of this ideal instead.

[Roxinius]

i've said it before i'll say it again when everyone gives their guns up i will give mine up that means all criminals and FBI CIA and Secret service i mean they have no reason for them if we dont have them right

[Alixie]

If I were a terrorist, Id go after unarmed civies, not the well guarded President.

[hakujinbakasama]

And, Haku, you can leave people's grandmothers out of this. Appeals to emotion have no place in a serious discussion. There are less fallacious paths that you could have taken in your rebuttal, like the one I just provided.

Yeah, decisions and opinions actually tend to change when you have to think about how they could ACTUALLY effect you and those you know. It isn't an issue of fallacy because "you" are dictating how "we" are supposed to defend our selves. That includes the elderly and or those who are easily over powered. Yet, again, I've yet to hear of the better alternative which will decrease the likely hood that they will be targeted or which will protect them in such an instance.

[Xenden]

So now we're prioritizing human life.

Nice.

We alway prioritize human life. Women and children first. In disaster situations we leave the people who are in unstable building last to save since "hey, the building is coming down anyway."

[mvaliz]

...you can always tell somebody's agenda whenever they deliberately point out Obama's "Hussein" middle name. :P

[hakujinbakasama]

If I were a terrorist, Id go after unarmed civies, not the well guarded President.

What do ya know, terrorists actually DO that.

[Roxinius]

1. I live in the USA. The Police are here to enforce the law. "Preventing" crime is not a requirement. "Protecting" you is not their legal requirement. This has already been settled by the USSC.

2. I've never known of a laws to stop crime from ever happening.

3. I'm not a ninja. I don't feel good about the idea about defending against a knife. I don't feel comfortable fending off someone with a large lead pipe. Ya know, I could possibly survive a knife attack or the ilk but the idea of losing an eye, limb, or mobility just doesn't sit well with me. I, the law abiding guy, gets a permanent or potential life debilitating injury and the bad guy probably gets away. Yeah, I'm really in favor of this ideal instead.

lets call poliece what they are they are responders more often then not with response times in the upward of 20-25 minutes they arent preventing much

[Grizzly Willy]

Yeah, decisions and opinions actually tend to change when you have to think about how they could ACTUALLY effect you and those you know. It isn't an issue of fallacy because "you" are dictating how "we" are supposed to defend our selves. That includes the elderly and or those who are easily over powered. Yet, again, I've yet to hear of the better alternative which will decrease the likely hood that they will be targeted or which will protect them in such an instance.

I've explained my argument and why the argument I was presenting was false. Did you miss that part just because it wasn't addressed to you specifically?

[Deleted]

1. I live in the USA. The Police are here to enforce the law. "Preventing" crime is not a requirement. "Protecting" you is not their legal requirement. This has already been settled by the USSC.

2. I've never known of a laws to stop crime from ever happening.

3. I'm not a ninja. I don't feel good about the idea about defending against a knife. I don't feel comfortable fending off someone with a large lead pipe. Ya know, I could possibly survive a knife attack or the ilk but the idea of losing an eye, limb, or mobility just doesn't sit well with me. I, the law abiding guy, gets a permanent or potential life debilitating injury and the bad guy probably gets away. Yeah, I'm really in favor of this ideal instead.

Cut the bullshit the police is there to protect you.
If the police is not efficient,the solution to make the police efficient.Not arming the population that is full of fools,criminals,psychopaths and whatever else that can go wild with a gun.

[blib]

1. I live in the USA. The Police are here to enforce the law. "Preventing" crime is not a requirement. "Protecting" you is not their legal requirement. This has already been settled by the USSC.

2. I've never known of a laws to stop crime from ever happening.

3. I'm not a ninja. I don't feel good about the idea about defending against a knife. I don't feel comfortable fending off someone with a large lead pipe. Ya know, I could possibly survive a knife attack or the ilk but the idea of losing an eye, limb, or mobility just doesn't sit well with me. I, the law abiding guy, gets a permanent or potential life debilitating injury and the bad guy probably gets away. Yeah, I'm really in favor of this ideal instead.

1. Your a idiot.

2. Your a moron.

3. I don't know why I'm bothering.

Protect and serve. Ring any bells? May I ask how the fact that banning guns would help prevent crime is somehow related to preventing crime not being a requirement of the police force?

Your theory is that laws doesn't stop crime. So to your mind the crime rate would stay exactly the same if we removed laws and gave everyone a gun?

How many limbs have you lost so far to this common knife attacks you keep getting put through? Question two, why are you fighting the robber? Question three do you think life is a movie and robbers aren't interested in taking your money and getting away but to horribly maim you for no reason?

[Infracted]

[Mezzolith]

I disagree with limiting all guns, but civilians do not need a goddamned assault rifle like the legally owned AR-15 and Smith & Wesson M&P15 used in the two most recent massacres.

[Veyne]

"Nope. Laws work by being enforced. No Gun-Control advocate believes that by making a law things will solve themselves. Gun-control advocates want laws followed by law enforcement."

Question. In your original sentence, because the way it's worded could potentially be interpreted two different ways, did you mean that Gun-control advocates want laws followed by the enforcement of those laws, or that Gun-control advocates want laws followed by the people who enforce the law. Because if is the latter, it's simply ridiculous to expect the law enforcement to "follow the law" and be without firearms and have to protect the public against those who choose to break the law and use guns. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume you meant the former.

I think it's pro-guns who are so desperate to keep their guns that they believe the most retarded arguments they pull out of their ass.

I will admit right now that I am on the fence on the subject. But I have seen more rational arguments from the pro-gun side than the anti-gun side. The anti-gun side, whenever I read "debates," generally tend to stick their fingers in their ears while shouting "guns are wrong," figuratively speaking. It's not simply about the "desperation" to "keep their guns." The way you imply it is that the ownership of a gun is nothing more than some gigantic dick-waggling, where anyone who owns a gun has one for the sake of saying "lol I has a gun *fires shots off into the air.*"

With a big chunk of gun advocates, you're trying to convince people who legitimately believe that their handgun is a means of self defense that they shouldn't have one anymore. Robbery victims, assault victims, rape victims, and even gun violence victims themselves. To these people, that's like the psychological equivalent of asking them to walk into a fire fight without a kevlar vest. And shouting "guns are wrong" for "obvious reasons," isn't likely going to alter their feelings one bit.

Granted, most gun-advocate arguments also aren't likely to sway someone of the anti-gun perspective, but they're not the ones with something to lose.

At the end of the day, the debate can be done better from both sides, but it would likely not change the way the other party feels at all.

The reason I am on the fence on the subject is a result of my own emotions and rational thought processing issue from every possible scenario I can think of, not based on the words someone else spoke/wrote.

[blib]

If I were a terrorist, Id go after unarmed civies, not the well guarded President.

And if I was a terrorist I would go for the weekly poker game at my friends place where I have lost several thousand.

[Super Friendly Kitty Cat]

...you can always tell somebody's agenda whenever they deliberately point out Obama's "Hussein" middle name. :P

How so?

I wanted to make sure I spelled his name correctly so I put Obama into google and his profile is to the right, and I copy/pasted it.

Something wrong with the middle name "Hussein"?

[hakujinbakasama]

I've explained my argument and why the argument I was presenting was false. Did you miss that part just because it wasn't addressed to you specifically?

lol, yes I actually did.

Cut the bullshit the police is there to protect you.
If the police is not efficient,the solution to make the police efficient.Not arming the population that is full of fools,criminals,psychopaths and whatever else that can go wild with a gun.

I agree, people really should. I've spoken to many police both active and retired. They all agree. They show up after a crime has been commuted way more than preventing one, often to extremely devastating effects. We don't live in Minority Report. Sorry to bust your bubble. The police can only respond.

1. Your a idiot.

2. Your a moron.

3. I don't know why I'm bothering.

Protect and serve. Ring any bells? May I ask how the fact that banning guns would help prevent crime is somehow related to preventing crime not being a requirement of the police force?

Your theory is that laws doesn't stop crime. So to your mind the crime rate would stay exactly the same if we removed laws and gave everyone a gun?

How many limbs have you lost so far to this common knife attacks you keep getting put through? Question two, why are you fighting the robber? Question three do you think life is a movie and robbers aren't interested in taking your money and getting away but to horribly maim you for no reason?

[Infracted]

Man obviously anything I say is going to have real weight to you. I should totally go out of my way to address your questions.

[Zechs-cenarius]

Schools aren't supposed to be high-value targets. The president is. Therefore he needs armed guards who are trustworthy and whose guns are actually controlled, unlike random joes on the street who no one knows about and might be psychos planning their personal mass murder with uncontrolled guns. That's why the president should get to have armed guns and schools don't.

Good try, pro-guns, but no. Your logic fails

Sorry for ruining your party

Im glad you value the president's life over your own or over any other citizen's life. He is just a man. A human life. The value of his life is no greater than the quadriplegic child's life that is sitting there trying to scratch his back. Again, you want an example of people kill people and not guns kill people? Look at the crime rate for firearms in switzerland. They have better firearm crime rates than England and France both of which have MUCH stricter gun laws. The problem is not guns. Its the people.