Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

I understand the answer about the 1st comment but human can also try to find some anti-weapon instead of weapons to protect themself, no ?

Like what? How can you defend yourselves?

(And by the way, I'm very anti-weapons myself, I would never buy one.)

Secondly, if protect oneself is primordial thus why the need of police ? I see a contradictory here, no ?

The police is not omnipresent. And guns can protect you against the police / the state / policestate.

you know, dramatic

In my preferred society, it would be perfectly possible to ban nuclear weapons without using state force.

So you are in favor of banning all fire weapons, as everyone can 'snap'?

And still, you haven't explained me why it is wrong to have weapons because their primary use is killing.

Though, forbidding gun use in a proper way will reduce the slaughters, as you can not kill 30 men easily with just a knife ;)

So people who are threatened by a gang shouldn't have the right to defend themselves (using a pistol against a gang is useless)? Or to defend themselves against criminals (who'd have the monopoly on semi-automatic rifles if those would be forbidden)?
(edited)

And still, you haven't explained me why it is wrong to have weapons because their primary use is killing.

So for you it's ok to kill.
Bye.

Btw, their other uses (scaring etc) are due to the primary use.

So for you it's ok to kill.
Bye.

For me, killing is acceptable in some cases, yes. And I'm pretty sure it's acceptable for you too in those cases. Bye.

And you didn't answer my other question: are you in favor of a total ban on all firearms?
(edited)

in your perfect world, there are no gangs ;-)
And for me, the right to defend yourself does not include shooting others.
But then again, forbidding something makes it more attractive anyways. If you don't forbid handguns, but only the bigger guns, there will be people looking for the bigger guns.

Anyway, my example has not been explained, it was just countered by another example. My example stays: you will not get massa shootings when you forbid guns.
Problem is, nothing is black and white, and you know that very well. You play a black card when someone tries to play white or gray. He can't deny what you're saying as there is always a truth in black, as there is in white...

I do not understand why every such tragedy will bring up that guns are bad. If teachers would have guns there would be less deaths.

Lol, that is just being naive. If teachers would have guns, there would certainly not be less deaths. The one time someone crashes in to shoot will not be better than the times a teacher snaps and shoots the children himself... It's a dark world pal
(edited)

what is more, many people would be morally unable to fire a gun at another person

I know I wouldn't be able

And still, you haven't explained me why it is wrong to have weapons because their primary use is killing.
Well, and what's wrong with Al Qaeda (or Iran) having a nuclear weapon. As long as they don't use it, what's the problem?
(edited)

Have you ever heard me asking measures against Iran because of their nuclear plans? Ever?

You're right, shouldn't have mentioned that in a reply to you, without stating that this hypocrisy is present in some circles, but not in your circles. My apologies for that.

It would be a relevant comment to the average Republican ;-)

Btw, did the ban on grenades prevent the lunatic from Liege who snapped of using them? No, it didn't. Someone who wants to take revenge on society is not going to be stopped by laws.

And don't forget that the circumstances in the States are different from the once here. Okay, in our region, the police can be everywhere within 10 minutes. In the States that's not the case ... at all.

And from American perspective, the Second Amendment is also protection AGAINST police. America ain't Europe, luckily for them.

---

Well, I see you deleted your message, so I've edited mine. Are you just awake? :p
(edited)