Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

[Bambang]

I think no one have gun is the best. In fact, in Vietnam, Vietnamese don't have any gun and, our life is peaceful. In Vietnam , from the past to now, there aren't any problem about gun. So, i think no gun, no death and we will have a good life

I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

C'mon man ! Are sure that nobody in your country has a gun. Sorry man, it really doesn't make sense at all to me.

They do use guns, but they're not easy to get, even in the black market. That's why they use knives to kill more, which is more of a slow death to me. My cousin's cousin's acquainted friends cut different parts of his body for pleasure after they stabbed him multiple times. It was the worst time his family had to endure.

To tell u the truth, I am so sorry for what had happened. But ....

based on your statement, your country and the people really neeeded guns then. Even you had to use knives to fight back. If there had been a lot of guns in Vietnam, the victims would't have been that much.

So actually you agree with me that guns are needed in certain situation, don't you?

[MissLT]

I try not to oppose or agree with the gun issue. We need careful deliberation.

[Bambang]

I try not to oppose or agree with the gun issue. We need careful deliberation.

Of course we need careful deliberation. This is a sensitive issue. I got it. But doesn't mean that it will make us hesitate to express out thoughts. This is a good forum to share our ideas. We don't need to be afraid of making mistakes in putting forward our ideas. Because in this forum, we are not talking about right or wrong. We are just sharing each other.

But when somebody's ideas is more argumentative and rational, why we have to hesitate to take and then kick out ours. Similiarly, when we are sure that our ideas are much better, we have to keep it until the end of this world or at least until we find a better one which is more argumentative and rational.

That's my point buddy. Peace.

[jrkp]

[quote="bambang
I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

[/b][/quote]

I´m not sure if what you said is true. You can fight back against an invader without using weapons, and if you check the history of mankind you can get a lot of examples about it. If your statement were true, Mahatma Ghandi hadn´t been capable of achiving India´s independence because, according to your point of view, he should have used firepower to get rid of English. It´s been proven that "pacific resistance" is as effective as it could be the usage of weapons, but sadly, we think that using them we can achieve our goals faster or at least making less effort.

I´m not trying to say that the usage of weapons are good or bad thing, I fact I agree with you that anyone who wants to carry a gun has the right to do it, because at the end of the day, guns don´t kill people, people kill people. But to use guns to expel an evasion, that doesn´t make sense to me.....

[Bambang]

[quote="bambang
I think u're really wrong. Can you imagine if Vietnamese people had no guns when they were in war with the US? If it had happened, i'm sure that most of vietnamese people would have died. your country could be free from the US invansion because both militery and civilians had guns to fight back. Do you still think that nobody should have a gun?

[/b]

I´m not sure if what you said is true. You can fight back against an invader without using weapons, and if you check the history of mankind you can get a lot of examples about it. If your statement were true, Mahatma Ghandi hadn´t been capable of achiving India´s independence because, according to your point of view, he should have used firepower to get rid of English. It´s been proven that "pacific resistance" is as effective as it could be the usage of weapons, but sadly, we think that using them we can achieve our goals faster or at least making less effort.

I´m not trying to say that the usage of weapons are good or bad thing, I fact I agree with you that anyone who wants to carry a gun has the right to do it, because at the end of the day, guns don´t kill people, people kill people. But to use guns to expel an evasion, that doesn´t make sense to me.....[/quote]


If you look at my previous posts, you'll see that there is consistency of mine on this topic. First, I do believe that the apparatus, both the militery and police officers have the right to own a gun. Even tough we can't generalize that all of them have guns, but in some positions or sections or departments or tasks, they do need a gun.

Second, Do civilians have the right to own a gun. In some conditions, my answer is "yes, they do".
The conditions are :

1. If they really need it and they have followed some tests conducted by an authorized institution to own a gun. The tests, for instance, are the shooting skill tests, physicological test, and so on.

2. If they are in a war.
I do believe that we all need a gun when we are in a war, at least to protect ourselves and family. Without guns, the people would be like still targets who have no power to fight back. The people would be like some mice that are being shot by a kid in a video game. The people will be like some objects for fun.

Let's talk about your suggested case that Mahatma Gandhi could free India from English colonialism without guns. Frankly speaking, I'm one of Gandhi admirers. I really appreciate his sincere struggle. He is one of my favorite figures in ruling his country. His consistency not only existed before the Indian independence but also after India got independence. He is a good role model for other leaders in ruling their own countries.

But you should have known how many Indian people had died to get the independence. It is still fresh in my mind that hundreds of innocent Indian people were taken to a place and then all of them were shot dead. The English troops kept pushing their machine gun triggers to shoot the innocent. And you know what the result was? None of the innocent Indian people were left alive. This case embarassed the English government before the international world.

At that time Indian people did have guns. But the number of guns and the gun technology they had were nothing compared to English'. They really needed more guns to fight back.

The independence of India can not be seen separately from the international situatuin then. At that time the issues of human right, freedom of speech, freedom of organization, freedom of press, freedom of colonialism and other freedom issues became very sensitive issues to discuss across the world. And at that time, lots of countries under the British colonialism had got their independence. And the British government had planned to free all of their colonized areas and set up an organization which is well-known called "The Brithish Commonwealth".

So besides fighting with simple guns, the Indian people tried to get the independence through the diplomatic channel. And those made India free from colonialism.

[jrkp]

First, I do believe that the apparatus, both the militery and police officers have the right to own a gun. Even tough we can't generalize that all of them have guns, but in some positions or sections or departments or tasks, they do need a gun.

Totally agree with you, I fact, that´s why weapons were created for, I mean for the usage of all the branches dedicated on the defense of countries. e.g. Army, Navy, Police, etc...

Second, Do civilians have the right to own a gun. In some conditions, my answer is "yes, they do".
The conditions are :

1. If they really need it and they have followed some tests conducted by an authorized institution to own a gun. The tests, for instance, are the shooting skill tests, physicological test, and so on.

Absolutely!!!! I couldn´t agree more with you. That´s out of the question. In my opinion, the most important one would be the psychological test with the condition that the owner must have to do it periodically because lots of things could happened that changes one person´s life.

2. If they are in a war.
I do believe that we all need a gun when we are in a war, at least to protect ourselves and family. Without guns, the people would be like still targets who have no power to fight back. The people would be like some mice that are being shot by a kid in a video game. The people will be like some objects for fun.

In this point, I don´t agree with you. First at all, we need to define what kind of war we are talking about, because as you know, nowadays there are aifferent kind of war, e.g. guerrilla war, "conventional" war, etc. If you mean with "war" as the conventional one, I think guns would be totally useless because you can´t fight against bombs, tanks, missiles with guns. And If you are in a place where a guerrilla war is happening, well, I don´t think that guns were useful either because you can´t predict when you will be attack, I mean, guns won´t stop somebody who puts a bomb in your home in the middle of the night. To me, In both cases the best choice to protect your family is run away and establish yourself in a peaceful place and try to settle there.

It is still fresh in my mind that hundreds of innocent Indian people were taken to a place and then all of them were shot dead

Yeah, I heard something about and it´s terrifying. But I bet you that there would have had more episodes like this one you mentioned if Indians hadn´t chosen the path of war instead of the pacific methods that they used.

At that time Indian people did have guns. But the number of guns and the gun technology they had were nothing compared to English'. They really needed more guns to fight back.

To fight back? I don´t understand this. Let me ask you this: what would have happened if they had fought back? I quite sure that Indians and English were still counting bodies of many, many innocent who would have been killed without any logical reason (well at least to me).

The independence of India can not be seen separately from the international situatuin then. At that time the issues of human right, freedom of speech, freedom of organization, freedom of press, freedom of colonialism and other freedom issues became very sensitive issues to discuss across the world. And at that time, lots of countries under the British colonialism had got their independence. And the British government had planned to free all of their colonized areas and set up an organization which is well-known called "The Brithish Commonwealth".

True, but you have to remember that Gandhi started his battle when he was in South Africa. It´s very famous the episode when he and some of his fellowers went to jail and put themselves there in solidarity with some guy who were found guilty even when he was innocent. I don´t think his ideals depended on the time he had to live.

So besides fighting with simple guns, the Indian people tried to get the independence through the diplomatic channel. And those made India free from colonialism.

I haven´t heard about any fight with guns during those times. Would you mind giving me some examples about it? I had understood that they didn´t use guns.

[Bambang]

First, I do believe that the apparatus, both the militery and police officers have the right to own a gun. Even tough we can't generalize that all of them have guns, but in some positions or sections or departments or tasks, they do need a gun.

Totally agree with you, I fact, that´s why weapons were created for, I mean for the usage of all the branches dedicated on the defense of countries. e.g. Army, Navy, Police, etc...



So, actually you agree with me buddy that in some extent, guns are needed.

Then, you don't have to think hard to define what kind of war it is. Whatever the war is, conventional, modern, gurilla, or ....any war,
still, we need guns, weapons, war equipment or whatever they are called.

Next, do you think that running away from war is the best choice. Do you think that leaving your people in war is the best choice. Do you think that defensing our country for freedom is useless, stupid, and wasting time. DO YOU THINK ?

In my country, if all people had been like you, we wouldn't have got our independence. We got our independence by squeezing our sweat, pouring our blood, drying our tears. Our founding fathers did everything to get the independence. Of course some of them were dead to reach it. But for us, it is not useless. We really appreciate them, thank them. They never ran away buddy !!!

[/i]

[jrkp]

So, actually you agree with me buddy that in some extent, guns are needed.

Then, you don't have to think hard to define what kind of war it is. Whatever the war is, conventional, modern, gurilla, or ....any war,
still, we need guns, weapons, war equipment or whatever they are called.

Of course, that`s out of the question!! What I wanted to express was that guns are useless to protect your family depending on what kind of war are you fighting to. In a conventional war, it doesn`t matter if you´ve got a bazzocca to defend them, because that`s a useless weapon against a bomb launched by a battleship. Whereas, in guerrila war, I wonder why weapons are useful for, if you walk down the street and step on a mine? or maybe you are driving your car with your weapons and suddendly you are ambushed?.

Next, do you think that running away from war is the best choice. Do you think that leaving your people in war is the best choice. Do you think that defensing our country for freedom is useless, stupid, and wasting time. DO YOU THINK ?

Not at all!!!! maybe you misunderstood my point of view, or at least I misunderstood yours. In one of your post, you say and I quote:

I do believe that we all need a gun when we are in a war, at least to protect ourselves and family.

.

I said that to achieve that, you don´t need a gun, because there are so much firepower involve that any weapon you manage to get will be completely useless to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY. Do you think a weapon is useful against a bomb dropped by an fighter plane? And I guess that`s the reason why in any war we see thousand and thousand of refugees trying to escape of war zones. I bet you that if you ask them the reason wht they do it, they will tell you to protect their families.

On the other hand, if you wanna defend your country, you should join the army or at least any organization which is leading the resistance against the attacker. They will tell you what to do and give guns to you (or at least they will tell you where you can get one)and how you will be more useful to fight for your country. For example, during Vietnam war, even though Vietnamese didn`t have a formal army, they managed to organize their fight against Americans and I guess that´s why they achieved the withdrawal of them.

In my country, if all people had been like you, we wouldn't have got our independence. We got our independence by squeezing our sweat, pouring our blood, drying our tears. Our founding fathers did everything to get the independence. Of course some of them were dead to reach it. But for us, it is not useless. We really appreciate them, thank them. They never ran away buddy !!!

In my country too!!! But that´s not the point!! In fact, I´m a little confused here. Ì didn`t said nothing about our founding father or our the independence of our countries. I was talking about your comment about the usage of weapons to PROTECT OUR FAMILIES during a war. I said some parents decide to run away to protect their children and to me that`s the best choice they can make for the reasons I´ve been writting so far.

[Bambang]

I don't know who misunderstood whom. But one thing for sure that you misdifine about weapons. Here I quote your post :

"I said that to achieve that, you don´t need a gun, because there are so much firepower involve that any weapon you manage to get will be completely useless to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY. Do you think a weapon is useful against a bomb dropped by an fighter plane?"


My friend, you really screwed it up !!!
I think you need to catch the meaning of weapons. And you should have known that guns and bombs are parts of weapons. How come you said that a weapon is not useful against a bomb. In fact, bombs are parts of weapons.

Then, you should have known that to defend our country we don't have to join the army. Defensing our countries is everybody's responsibility.
The point is we are responsible for what we can do and what role we can play. You can be an informan, a nurse, a cook for the fighters, or any professions you are able to do.

I wanna restate my opinion on this :

"In my country, if all people had been like you, we wouldn't have got our independence. We got our independence by squeezing our sweat, pouring our blood, drying our tears. Our founding fathers did everything to get the independence. Of course some of them were dead to reach it. But for us, it is not useless. We really appreciate them, thank them. They never ran away buddy !!! "

Then you say :

[/quote]

In my country too!!! But that´s not the point!! In fact, I´m a little confused here. Ì didn`t said nothing about our founding father or our the independence of our countries.[/quote]

Come on buddy, get the point!
I just wanted to give you an illustration that protecting families and defensing our countries are not bad. And running away from war is not good. It's even inresponsible. Our founding fathers reached freedom, independence and sovereignity with their tears, sweat and even blood. And they were good examples.

My dear friend, so please, tell me how your country got independence !!! Was it a gift from the coloniser ??? or was it coming from nowhere ???

[Snowy*]

Hi guys

First of all I can't speak and write English very
because I'm studying English now and I hope every body Try to help me and I’m sure you will find many mistakes in my Post a reply..

Secondly...
I think it's no problem if any body has a gun ..
( Don't think I like the war and I'm dangrous)
My reasons are if there is no gun people will find another weapons to fight with each other.
The problem is not about weapons...
The real problem is people...

Did any body understand what I mean ????
I hope so...