Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Monthly topics for discussion

Moderators: Vega, Krisi, TalkingPoint

Post Reply
User avatar
Dixie
Miss EnglishClub.com 2006
Miss EnglishClub.com 2006
Posts: 6341
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 2:08 pm
Status: English Teacher
Location: Catalunya

Post by Dixie » Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:37 pm

LennyeTran wrote: Aliens can attack us. Didn't you see the Simpsons? :lol:
You mean alien weapons are more sophisticated that human weapons? :twisted:

User avatar
MissLT
Ethereal Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
Status: Other

Post by MissLT » Thu May 03, 2007 4:40 pm

Of course. I assume they might have laser guns. Now which one would you prefer, regular guns or laser guns? I think I would choose laser guns. They just sound cooler and more of futuristic.

Besides, not only guns kill people, other objects do a good job as well. Some people get killed by stoning in some countries, remember? And did you see curse of the golden flower? That king whipped his youngest son until the dude stopped breathing.

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Thu May 03, 2007 10:22 pm

NOBODY should have a gun or other weapons.
Well, firstly, you should define weapon. As I understand it, a weapon is anything that can hurt anyone, as simple as that. So, if your statement were truth, mankind hasn´t existed because everything in our environment can be used as a weapon, even some parts of our body. For example, if you hit somebody with your head, you might hurt him badly, even you could kill him (ask Zidedine Zidane, the football player, about using the head as a weapon). Or knifes have to be eliminated because anyone can be stabbed, so we should learn to eat with our hands to avoid further aggression with them.

But if you´re talking about firepower (I mean pistol, rifles, etc) that´s another thing. To me, ban guns is an useless measure because we are the most self-destructed being living in this world. I reckon if guns didn´t exist, We would have invented another thing to replace it. I think ideally, everybody who wish to carry a gun have the right to get one, only if he fullfill the laws existing. But, sadly our current laws about it are so lax that every crazy person can get one without any problem, so we must change the laws first before let anyone to carry guns.

To sum up, I think everybody can carry a gun only if laws are changed.

User avatar
MissLT
Ethereal Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
Status: Other

Post by MissLT » Thu May 03, 2007 10:51 pm

jrkp wrote: we are the most self-destructed being living in this world. I reckon if guns didn´t exist, We would have invented another thing to replace it.
Exactly! It's people who kill people, not the object itself.

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Fri May 04, 2007 5:40 pm

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place? :roll:
That´s a good question!!! Even though that is the best thing that it would have happened to mankind, I believe that it was inevitable because part of our nature is trying to control everthing around us, and what is the most powerful tool that humans have created to achieve that goal? The answer is of course guns.

Let´s review human history to see what I am talking about. Pre-historic men made a weapons first (a knife) before they had invented the wheel. You will tell me that both are useful, and I agree with that. But in certain point, they nature betrayed them and they started to use that weapon against others humans being, only to feed their ambitions for lands. For me, this situation was wonderfully recreated by Stanley Kurbick, in his movie "2001: An space Odyssey". If you have seen it, you should remember the first chapter, when the ape touched the monolith and got his "intelligence" but instead of using it to help others, he took a piece of bone and started hitting the ones who were different of him. I can give you others examples, but to make my point clear, I think this one is enough.

And as I said in another post, if guns didn´t exist, we would have invented other thing to replace it, or maybe we would have made guns but we would have called it with other name, I don´t know.

Vinamilk
Silver Member
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:51 am
Location: Incredible land

Post by Vinamilk » Sat May 05, 2007 4:32 pm

Actually we cann't say that we don't need weapons... The important thing is that how we control the use of weapon so that crazy guys never have chance to use them

javzm
Silver Member
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 8:13 pm
Location: Costa Rica

Lets not stay in the past.

Post by javzm » Mon May 14, 2007 8:29 pm

Guns are already invented, there is nothing we can do to stop it. We should be aware of what could happen not what did happen. :D

User avatar
Chet Baker
Gold Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 2:59 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Post by Chet Baker » Tue May 15, 2007 3:10 am

It is necessary to clarify the point that "GUN" itself is no problem, well, of course, unless it is a defective gun. This question is, more or less, similar to the question "is money good or not?"

The problem usually come from the user's motivation. Let say, if a man(A) points a gun at another man(B)with intend to kill him. I guess that many people may think that "A" have a bad intention and he should be stopped. However, If "A" is a police officer and "B", let say, he is a mental patient who is trying to hurt his new born baby. In this situation, I guess that many people may suggest that "B" should be shot instantly.

People carry firearms because they need it, they feel more save when they have it. Ironically, police officer in UK do not carry firearms, but the crime rate is lower than America. :!:

nboutahar1
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:13 pm
Location: MOROCCO

Arms

Post by nboutahar1 » Tue May 15, 2007 4:30 pm

Civilians should not carry guns. With the spread of terrorism and fanatism we should not allow anyone to possess arms because they can be used to kill innocent people. A gun carrier or holder may be an insane person, a drug abuser, a religious fanatic.... We have to, instead, increase the number of policemen and policewomen in every corner to protect people's lives and employ young people because unemployment is one of the main causes for the spread of violence and crimes...
Noureddine Boutahar (Morocco)

User avatar
elmy
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:14 am
Location: Malaysia

to have or not to have a gun?

Post by elmy » Wed May 16, 2007 4:31 am

Imagine a gun was never invented, people would never know how to use it, and people would defend themselves through martial arts. What do you think? Artistic?

User avatar
Ilzy
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Use to be Latvia, since last July United Kingdom

Post by Ilzy » Sat May 19, 2007 9:13 pm

Yeah... It is sad thing about humans... All the things they invent originally with good purpose.. later they use against themselves.. Like dynamite.

I firmly belive that wars doesn't make sense at all!!!

I am a graet believer in peace!!!!

I share the opinion that if people would not have weapons they create something else...

Sadly, but fact... :cry:

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

GUNS?

Post by Bambang » Sun May 20, 2007 6:57 am

Dear friends.

Every product of technology has two sides : bad sides and good sides, so does a gun.

Guns can be used for good purposes such as to maintain security and order or maintain national defence from being attacked by outsiders. And ideally, they must be held by responsible apparatus.

The next question is " Are civilians entitled for guns ?" The answer is : DEPEND. If they use the guns for good reasons, Why not ? however, if they use it for bad things, they must be forbidden to have one.

In my opinion, as long as they can control themselves in using guns, just go ahead. The most important thing is that before getting a gun, a civilian must follow stricts procedure and process conducted by authorized institutions.

In my country, a civilian who wants to get a gun must follow some tests included technical skill test and phsycological test.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Sun May 20, 2007 7:34 am

Vinamilk wrote:Actually we cann't say that we don't need weapons... The important thing is that how we control the use of weapon so that crazy guys never have chance to use them
Yeah, i agree with you buddy.
The most important thing is controlling not banning because it is everybody's right to have what they want. As long as it is not used for bad things, WHY not ?

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Sun May 20, 2007 11:57 am

Hardi wrote:It doesn't matter, if everybody have gun or nobody. The true and greatest weapon is information.
We aren't talking about animals or information, are we?

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Sun May 20, 2007 12:04 pm

LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place? :roll:
We can't stop people from inventing anything. It's a human nature to invent and create something.That's the difference between human beings and other creatures. We, human beings have intelligence and ability to do it. So don't go against human nature. The most important thing is how we can use the advance of technology or invention for the sake of mankind.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Sun May 20, 2007 12:07 pm

Hardi wrote:
Dixie wrote:
LennyeTran wrote:The same guy who invented a gun got killed by it. Talking about the irony! Let's shift the question a bit further back also, should guns be invented in the first place? :roll:
Of course not! I always say that weapons are the worst invention of humanity. Can you imagine a world without weapons?
You mean girls without beauty at all..... Girls without boobs. No I can't.

The problem is not the weapons themselves. But how we, human beings use them for good purposes.

LTC
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 3:34 pm
Location: VietNam

Post by LTC » Mon May 21, 2007 12:01 pm

bambang wrote:
Vinamilk wrote:Actually we cann't say that we don't need weapons... The important thing is that how we control the use of weapon so that crazy guys never have chance to use them
Yeah, i agree with you buddy.
The most important thing is controlling not banning because it is everybody's right to have what they want. As long as it is not used for bad things, WHY not ?
It depend... Nobody know that when they 'll use it for bad thing. :)


<first post +____+>

popeyevn
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 2:34 pm

No Choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by popeyevn » Wed May 23, 2007 3:08 pm

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

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Re: No Choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Bambang » Thu May 24, 2007 2:30 pm

popeyevn wrote: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.

User avatar
MissLT
Ethereal Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
Status: Other

Re: No Choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by MissLT » Thu May 24, 2007 4:00 pm

bambang wrote:
popeyevn wrote: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.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Re: No Choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Bambang » Fri May 25, 2007 11:52 am

LennyeTran wrote:
bambang wrote:
popeyevn wrote: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?

User avatar
MissLT
Ethereal Member
Posts: 3925
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:05 pm
Status: Other

Post by MissLT » Mon May 28, 2007 10:20 pm

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

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Tue May 29, 2007 4:12 am

LennyeTran wrote: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. :idea:

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Re: No Choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by jrkp » Tue May 29, 2007 4:50 pm

[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.....

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Re: No Choice!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post by Bambang » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:47 am

jrkp wrote:[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
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:24 pm

bambang wrote: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...
bambang wrote: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.
bambang wrote: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.
bambang wrote: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.

bambang wrote: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).

bambang wrote: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.
bambang wrote: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.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:35 pm

jrkp wrote:
bambang wrote: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
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:48 pm

bambang wrote: 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?.

bambang wrote: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.
bambang wrote: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.
Last edited by jrkp on Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:21 am

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 ???

User avatar
Snowy*
Silver Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:18 am

Post by Snowy* » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:38 am

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... :twisted:

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

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Sun Jun 10, 2007 4:38 pm

Bambang wrote: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.
.

Well, let´s start over to see if you get my point. In my first post, I said weapons are anything that can be used to hurt you, even your own body. Of course bombs are a weapons, but when I said "weapon" in my post, I mean anything YOU manage to get in the streets, for example a knife, a stick, a gun or whatever, because I wanted to braod the discussion, considering that it was bundled up only for guns. When I said that weapons are useless to fight back against bombs is because you won`t get any weapon to repel that attack or at least is not easy. Imagine that you are at home and you see a fighter plane dropping a bomb towards your position...Are you going to shoot your gun, or hurl a knife to stop it?
Bambang wrote: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.
.


Theorically speaking, that`s true, I mean everybody have the resposability to defend their country. But the reality is that tons of people prefer protect their families and we have to respect that, well, at least I do. If your argument were true, all the lebanese would have fought against Israelis during the last war. But instead of that, we could see (or at least I do)many of them looking for shelter in Syria and the north of the country.

Ok, you can contribute in many ways for a cause, that´s true, but I think that you have to join any organization (called it whatever you want: arny, navy, resistance, etc) because in that way, your contribution will be more effective instead of doing it by your own. For example, if you were an informant and you manage to get a very valuable information that could define the course of any battle... then if you don´t know who the leader is of that battle or more important what are the mechanism to give it that information, let me tell you that information would be completely useless. Or a nurse who want to help but she/he doesn´t know where she/he have to go. In any case you have to be clear about your role during the war and someone have to tell you what it is (an organization, a leader, etc)
Bambang wrote: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.
.

Firstly, What do you mean with "not bad"? Of course it´s not bad, if fact that is the problem because many doesn´t know how to do it at the same time, I mean how can you fight for your country avoiding that your familt get hurt?. I guess you´re trying to say that defending your country and proctecting your family are compatible terms, Am I rigth? Well, if that is the case, let me tell you that I disagree with you. How come somebody will fight a war thinking about the safety of its family? Or Do you think soldiers carry their families with them and share priceless moments inside a trench? Do you think Russian soldiers carried their families with them when they had to fight back against Nazi`s attack during the WWII?. My friend, I´m sure that they put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. Would you mind telling me how I can protect my family and fight for my country at the same time?

One question... Why do you think is irresponsable running away from the war? Many people think like you, I respect that, but there are many others who don´t think in the same way that you do, because they prefer their family´s protection instead of fighting for their country and I respect that too. I´m not the one to judge them, but i respect both points of views.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:13 pm

Well my friend, it means that there's no difference between us on the definition of weapons. Guns and bombs are parts of weapons. Deal.

My friend, it's okay to broaden our discussion but you shouldn't have forgotten the main topic. As long as your topic is still related to the main topic, to me, that's even better.

My dear friend, again, I want to remind you that you can do whatever the role you can do in a war as long as you can do it. I didn't say that everybody must fight and hold a gun to fight. You can play any role suitable with you. As you also say that we can contribute in many ways for a cause.

Next, my friend, I agree with you that to make it more effective, we have to join any organization (called it whatever you want: army, navy, resistance, etc).

Buddy, I also agree with you that we have to be clear about our role during the war. That's why I say that we have to do anything to defend our country based on our own roles.

Next, let's discuss your question. But before that, I want to quote my opinion again. Here it is :
Bambang wrote: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 irresponsible. Our founding fathers reached freedom, independence and sovereignity with their tears, sweat and even blood. And they were good examples.
.

My friend, I just wanted to give you a soft language by saying "not bad". What I wanted to say is "not bad" means very good".

My friend, I am also convinced that the fighters put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. I absolutely agree with you. And I hope if someday (I hope it will not happen) your country is in a war, you'll be one of the fighters who defense your country whatever it takes. And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.



Next, Your question:

"Why do you think is irresponsable running away from the war? Many people think like you, I respect that, but there are many others who don´t think in the same way that you do, because they prefer their family´s protection instead of fighting for their country and I respect that too. I´m not the one to judge them, but i respect both points of views".

My friend, I really respect any points of view. I don't like pushing my opinion to be accepted. I also can not force you to defense your country by involving yourself in a war. I just wanna advice you to be a real man, never run way from any responsibilities including the responsibility to defense and protect your country.


By the way, you have yet to answer my question on how your country got independence. [/quote]

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:19 pm

bambang wrote:My friend, I am also convinced that the fighters put their family safe first and afterwards they went to the battlefield. I absolutely agree with you. And I hope if someday (I hope it will not happen) your country is in a war, you'll be one of the fighters who defense your country whatever it takes. And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.
Depends. Speaking strickly about war, I need to believe on the cause what I´m fighting for. As you know, some "leaders" make up any excuse to fight a war, especially when thay can`t solve our basic needs such as unemployment, crime, corruption, etc. Sadly, we have many examples, such as Iraq, The first desert war, malvinas war, etc. What I´m trying to say is that "leaders" take the defense of your country as a flag to divert the attention of the main problems that are afectting it or they take advantage of your ideals to send you to fight for their personal agendas. To make my point clear, I suppose that most of the Americans soldiers or the members of the insurgency who are fighting in Iraq believe that they have been doing it to defense their countries.
bambang wrote:And I don't really hope that you'll be the one who run away.
Well, I don´t know. As I said, If I strongly believe on the cause that I´m fighting for, of course I wouldn´t, but first I need to assure my family´s safety. If I wasn´t not able to do it, then I would run away. In other words, If I have to choose between my country and my family, I´ll choose my family, even though I can have remorses in the future. For example, If I were the only one in my family who is earning money and all of them depend on me to eat, well in that case my friend, I wouldn´t fight, even though I find trustable enough to leave them just in case that something happened to me. I couldn´t be focused on my job thinking about the future of my family without me, that situation would be absolutely unbearable to me and I would be a burden instead of a help.
bambang wrote:By the way, you have yet to answer my question on how your country got independence.
No, I hadn´t forgotten your question, the thing was that I wanted to do some reseach to answer appropriately. Yes, you right, our founding fathers fought very hard to get our independence from Spain and I´m grateful for that. But not all of my countryfellows in that time believed in the independence cause, in fact, some of them ran away to avoid a war that they didn´t want to. So, tell me, Can´t they considered as "real men" only because they didn´t fight a war whose cause they didn´t believe to? Or do you think that in that time, every and each person believe in that cause?

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:42 pm

jrkp wrote: Sadly, we have many examples, such as Iraq, The first desert war, the Malvinas war, etc. What I´m trying to say is that "leaders" take the defense of your country as a flag to divert the attention of the main problems that are affecting it or they take advantage of your ideals to send you to fight for their personal agendas. To make my point clear, I suppose that most of the Americans soldiers or the members of the insurgency who are fighting in Iraq believe that they have been doing it to defense their countries.

My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.

One thing that I want to advice you buddy:
Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.

My dear friend, to response your case on the American soldiers in Iraq, here is my point of view :

First, I agree with you that the American soldiers in Iraq are being manipulated by their leaders. They are not defensing their country. In fact, they are ruining the image of the USA before the world.

Second, Since they are not defensing their country or protecting their family, then they don't need to get involved in that occupation and invasion. On this case, I totally agree with you that they can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum to other countries for protection.


jrkp wrote: If I have to choose between my country and my family, I´ll choose my family.

My friend, both are needed to get protection. If I have to choose between the two, my choice is both. I can not separate them. To me, my family is as important as my country. Both must be protected.


jrkp wrote: Yes, you right, our founding fathers fought very hard to get our independence from Spain and I´m grateful for that. But not all of my country fellows in that time believed in the independence cause, in fact, some of them ran away to avoid a war that they didn´t want to. So, tell me, Can´t they be considered as "real men" only because they didn´t fight a war whose cause they didn´t believe to?

My honey friend, If there are two groups, one is the fighter one and the other is the escapee one, my choice will fall to the first one, the fighting group. And that is a fixed price to me. Unbargainable.

User avatar
InLove
Gold Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 12:20 pm
Location: VietNam

Post by InLove » Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:53 am

Make a peace for everybody. :)

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Sat Jun 23, 2007 7:30 pm

bambang wrote:My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.
My friend, I´m not making excuses to run away from a war. The thing is when I commit myself to do something, I have to do it right, and to achieve it, I must to be focus on what I´m doing, otherwise, I rather not to do anything. If I have to fight a war and I´m thinking in anthing but my duties on it, well I prefer put myself aside instead of turn into a burden for the cause. That´s why I said:
For example, If I were the only one in my family who is earning money and all of them depend on me to eat, well in that case my friend, I wouldn´t fight, even though I find trustable enough to leave them just in case that something happened to me. I couldn´t be focused on my job thinking about the future of my family without me, that situation would be absolutely unbearable to me and I would be a burden instead of a help.
What I´m trying to say is that I won´t expose my life is that mean jeoparidize my family´s future. To me, it´s not necessary to do that. You can help the cause abroad, for example collecting money, giving speeches at universities or other forums, explaining the reason why we are fighting for, etc.
bambang wrote:One thing that I want to advice you buddy: Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.
Depends. In this point we need to define the reason why some countries invade others. Some "leaders" make up situations to provoke invasion and in that way, take the nationalisim flag to gather the whole country against a common enemy and consolidate his power. In that situation, I won´t fight to repel them. For example, Even though the whole world knew that Iraq didn´t have any nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein did everything he could to show the opposite. We can´t forget that he kicked U.N inspectors out when they were asking for more time, and before that, he hadn´t been very supportive with them. I think he was looking for an excuse to present himself as a victim. Please don´t get me wrong. I´m not supporting U.S invasion, but I believe If Saddam were being more collaborator with U.N inspector, U.S government wouldn´t have had any excuse to lauch such a non sense war and who knows? Maybe Americans hadn´t been supported it in the first place.
On this case, I totally agree with you that they can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum to other countries for protection.
That´s my point!!!! you see, you say that because you don´t believe in the motive to fight that war. At the beginning of the war, if you were american, you would be consider as a coward just because you seek for asylum. But in any case, it´s YOUR decision and I won´t judge you just because we think different.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Bush' effective guns

Post by Bambang » Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:03 am

bambang wrote: My friend, your opinion is argumentative enough. But I just hope that all of your point of views which you have put forward are not just excuses for you to run away from a war. I also hope that you are not an irresponsible guy. And I do also hope that you are not a coward, but conversely, I do hope that you're a real man.
jrkp wrote: My friend, I´m not making excuses to run away from a war. The thing is when I commit myself to do something, I have to do it right, and to achieve it, I must focus on what I´m doing, otherwise, I rather not to do anything. If I have to fight a war and I´m thinking in anthing but my duties on it, well I prefer put myself aside instead of turning into a burden for the cause.

What I´m trying to say is that I won´t expose my life is that mean jeopardize my family´s future. To me, it´s not necessary to do that.

My friend, I have put forward my point of view on this. Here I restate it !

If there are two groups, one is the fighter one and the other is the escapee one, my choice will fall to the first one, the fighting group. And that is a fixed price to me.

My dear friend, certainly, it's up to you to choose. I also do not have intention to force my opinion to all, included you. So, on this case, we are not in same line. I belong to the first group, the fighter and you belong to the second one. No problem my friend. That's the essence of a discussion buddy. You can take my point of views and you can also get rid of them. That’s normal.
jrkp wrote: You can help the cause abroad, for example collecting money, giving speeches at universities or other forums, explaining the reason why we are fighting for, etc.

Well my friend, we can play our own roles to solve this problem. If one group fights the war inside the country and the other group fights it outside, it would be a very good synergy. Yeah, fight it inside and outside country. But my friend, your fund raising activities, speeches, or the like are useless when there are only very few people fight inside. They will not respect you and even they will not give you their hands. They will appreciate you when the majority of your people fights the war inside and a small number of the people do the fight outside and do some diplomatic approaches. So, in this case, your country needs more fighters inside. But once again my friend, that’s your choice. I can not force to take it.

bambang wrote:One thing that I want to advice you buddy: Whoever is attacking, invading, or ruining your country, and whatever their reasons for that, they are your enemies. And you should take part to dump them out of your country whatever it takes.
jrkp wrote: Depends. In this point we need to define the reason why some countries invade others. Some "leaders" make up situations to provoke invasion and in that way, take the nationalism flag to gather the whole country against a common enemy and consolidate his power. In that situation, I won´t fight to repel them. For example, Even though the whole world knew that Iraq didn´t have any nuclear weapons, Saddam Hussein did everything he could to show the opposite. We can´t forget that he kicked the U.N inspectors out when they were asking for more time, and before that, he hadn´t been very supportive with them. I think he was looking for an excuse to present himself as a victim. Please don´t get me wrong. I´m not supporting the U.S invasion, but I believe If Saddam were being more collaborative with the U.N inspector, the U.S government wouldn´t have had any excuse to launch such a non sense war and who knows? Maybe Americans hadn´t been supported it in the first place.

My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve their own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Universal of Human Right Acts. Mr Bush say he did it for the sake of the Iraqi people. Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam. He has killed uncountable innocent people in Iraq. And he has also sucked his soldiers’ blood in Iraq. Thousands of American soldiers have died for nothing but just for Bush’ personal agendas. What a pity the victims are !!! :cry:
And what a shame on Bush !!! :evil:

bambang wrote: On this case, I totally agree with you that the American soldiers can even run away from it or even from the USA and then seek asylum in other countries for protection.
jrkp wrote: That´s my point!!!! At the beginning of the war, if you were American, you would be considered as a coward just because you seek for asylum. But in any case, it´s YOUR decision and I won´t judge you just because we think differently.

My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Mon Jun 25, 2007 2:11 am

Bambang wrote:My dear friend, certainly, it's up to you to choose. I also do not have intention to force my opinion to all, included you. So, on this case, we are not in same line. I belong to the first group, the fighter and you belong to the second one. No problem my friend. That's the essence of a discussion buddy. You can take my point of views and you can also get rid of them. That’s normal.
My friend, firstly, I don´t have the intention to force your opinion, that´s not the point because, as you said, that´s the core of the discussion, when you can hear different points of views and enrichment your perception of things. Second, I have said, and I´ve been very consistent with this, that I would fight If two condition are fulfilled:

1) If I strongly believe in the cause I´m fighting for, and
2) If I can assure my family future.

I´ll give you a case where I would fight: If my country is invaded and I considered that action doesn´t have any logical justification and also, I manage to assure my family´s future without me, for example, sending them to live abroad. In this case I would fight with all my heart to defend my ideals without any distraction, so in that way, I can give my best for the cause I´m fighting for.

Bambang wrote:Well my friend, we can play our own roles to solve this problem. If one group fights the war inside the country and the other group fights it outside, it would be a very good synergy. Yeah, fight it inside and outside country. But my friend, your fund raising activities, speeches, or the like are useless when there are only very few people fight inside. They will not respect you and even they will not give you their hands. They will appreciate you when the majority of your people fights the war inside and a small number of the people do the fight outside and do some diplomatic approaches. So, in this case, your country needs more fighters inside. But once again my friend, that’s your choice. I can not force to take it.
As you said my friend, it´s a synergy. Also, It I guess it would be completely useless if you have an entire nation fighting but they don´t have enough resources to fight back, in the case that your enemy have more resources than you. So, with this idea in mind, I´ll tell you that I could be more effective doing diplomatic work instead to fight a war where I can´t be absolulety focus on my duty. But, as you said, It´s a matter of choice and more important a matter of conviction.
bambang wrote:My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve their own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Universal of Human Right Acts.
I wanna link this comment you have made with mine in the first paragraph. I´ll quote myself:
If my country is invaded and I considered that action doesn´t have any logical justification
My opinion is that we need to see an invasion in the context it takes place. I disagree with you when you said that no countries has the right to invade others. For example, Imagine that your country is attacked by an extrenal one which is lauching missiles from its territory. To me, it completely justificable to invade that country which is attacking mine. Or Are you going to do nothing to stop it just because you have to respect its sovereignty? Or are you gonna advice it to stop the attack? That´s why I said that some invasion are neccesary, but it must have a pretty good justification.
bambang wrote:Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam
I don´t know which one is the worst. To me, both are very alike and the good thing is that at the end, in some way, justice prevail. In the case of Saddam, who wasn´t an angel, well, we know how he ended up and regarding Mr Bush , well everybody hates him and he´s become in the most unpopular president in the history of the United States, and to a person who is arrogant and with the inflated ego that is some kind of punishment.
Bambang wrote:My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.
You said that because you´re thinking as a Philippine and not as American (I suppose you´re Indonesian because your location is Jakarta). Remember that Mr Bush made up a new way to "protect" them and sadly, they bought it. So, in their minds they were protecting their country and their family and I respect that, even though I didn´t agree with their arguments....

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Bush' weapons

Post by Bambang » Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:53 am

bambang wrote:My friend, no countries in this planet has the right to invade other independent countries. Iraq is an independent country. If there is a problem inside it, then the country itself should solve its own problem. Other countries just have the right to give advice or help or the like, but they don’t have the right to give "an invasion". They don’t have the right to kill others. It absolutely goes against the Declaration of Human Right Acts.
jrkp wrote:I disagree with you when you said that no countries has the right to invade others. For example, Imagine that your country is attacked by an external one which is launching missiles from its territory. To me, it's completely justifiable to invade that country which is attacking mine.

My friend, let's make straight the definition of "an invader". The country which is attacking other country is called the INVADER. In the case of yours, certainly, if your country is being attacked by another, it means that the country which is attacking yours is the INVADER.

And if your country fights back by launching the missiles too, your country is not called the invader. It’s a defense !!! Your country is trying to defense and protect its sovereignity. My friend, basically no other countries have the right to do the same thing as your country is doing. My country – you are right I’m Indonesian - also has no right to launch some missiles at the invader, and other countries do not either. All we can do is to stop it rather than re-invade the invader.

The next question is how to stop the invasion. This is a very important question.

I’d like to broaden our discussion on this. Sorry if this is too long.

I would bring the real case that's happening in Iraq.

We both agree that in this case the USA is the invader. Even the USA calls this operation as INVASION. And most of people in this planet agree that what the USA is doing in Iraq now is totally wrong. And the majority of the USA people is not even in line with the USA's policy. It's been proven that the majority of American people didn't support the party where Mr. Bush comes from. The vote for the party dropped drastically. And the opposing party won the parliamentary election by getting more than 50% of the total vote.

My point is we can not re-invade the USA just because it has done a wrong doing by invading Iraq. The solution is:

First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.

And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.

bambang wrote:Then he said Saddam was a killer. But in fact - and I’m convinced that you are in line with me in this case- Mr bush himself is the real killer. He has killed people more than he suspected to Saddam
jrkp wrote:I don´t know which one is the worst. To me, both are very alike and the good thing is that at the end, in some way, justice prevail.

Regarding Mr Bush , well everybody hates him and he´s become in the most unpopular president in the history of the United States, and to a person who is arrogant and with the inflated ego that is some kind of punishment.

Well my friend, on this case, I totally agree with you. BRAVO.


The next case :
Bambang wrote:My friend, this is a different case. The American soldiers are not defensing their country and protecting their families. In fact, they are invading other country !!! They will not be considered as cowards if they try to seek asylum in other countries. They are even considered as heroes, because they are trying to uphold justice and truth in this planet.
jrkp wrote:Remember that Mr. Bush made up a new way to "protect" them and sadly, they bought it. So, in their minds they were protecting their country and their family and I respect that, even though I didn´t agree with their arguments....

My friend, I am so sorry to say that Mr. Bush has managed to manipulate his people for the sake of his personal agendas. And I really take pity on the American soldiers. I just wanna suggest the American people to stop Mr. Bush from killing his won soldiers by sending them to Iraq. And regarding with the soldiers: My soldier friends, please think about my suggestion to seek asylum in other countries.

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:31 pm

Bambang wrote:My friend, let's make straight the definition of "an invader". The country which is attacking other country is called the INVADER.......
Why? I don´t understand why you said that. An invader is someone who enter into a place which doesn´t belong to him. As simple as that!!! According to cambridge Dictionary, This is the definition of Invade:

http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/def ... &dict=CALD
Definition
invade Show phonetics
verb
1 to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:
Concentrations of troops near the border look set to invade within the next few days.

2 to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage:
Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay.

3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way:
Maria looks set to invade the music scene with her style and image.

4 [T] to spoil a situation or quality that another person values with very noticeable and selfish behaviour:
Famous people often find their privacy is invaded by the press.


So, seeing this definitions, How come you say that a country which is attacking other is an INVADER? When I said Invader, I meant that other country´s troops putting theirs foots in yours, that all.... I rather refer to them as "attackers"

Bambang wrote:And if your country fights back by launching the missiles too, your country is not called the invader. It’s a defense !!! Your country is trying to defense and protect its sovereignity. My friend, basically no other countries have the right to do the same thing as your country is doing. My country – you are right I’m Indonesian - also has no right to launch some missiles at the invader, and other countries do not either. All we can do is to stop it rather than re-invade the invader.


Ok, you´ve gotta a point here but in some point, other measures have to be taken to stop the attack, because your country won´t be launching missiles forever. When this happen, I mean, when the missile´s launching stop being effective... What else your country should do?

Bambang wrote:First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.


Including? To me this channel have to be present in every stage of the war, It shouldn´t be abandoned in any circumstances, even in the most blooding war. I strongly believe that negociating we can achieve much more than fighting each other, of course, if both parts have the will to do it.

Bambang wrote:And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.


So, my friend, you actually agree with me that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable, only if it has a very good justification.... And that´s what I´ve been saying, in some special situation, the only possible solution is the invasion, and history has many examples of that....

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:43 pm

Yes, you are right my friend on the definition of “to invade”. I have also looked it up in the Oxford Dictionary. The definition is not much different. But my point is: there’s no debate on whether or not the American operation is called “an invasion”. It’s absolutely an invasion. They are invaders. They themselves said that too. We all know that the stupid ~ invasion is absolutely wrong. What I actually wanna say is that we don’t have to invade back the USA. We can only do that when all ways go to the dead end.
jrkp wrote:Ok, you´ve gotta a point here but in some points, other measures have to be taken to stop the attack, because your country won´t be launching missiles forever. When this happen, I mean, when the missile´s launching stop being effective... What else your country should do?
My friend, you got it wrong. I said that we could attack the USA If all approaches to stop the war fail or all ways go to the dead end. This is the last step buddy.

Here I re-quote my solution to that problem:

Bambang wrote:First of all, we have to use any resources to stop America keep doing this, included using your favorite channel: DIPLOMATIC APPROACH.
Bambang wrote:And if this still fails then we may stop America with arm forces and weapons. But remember my friend, it is only the last step when other alternatives do not work. And we do not say that this last step is an invasion, but it is a defense, protecting one country from being colonized and swept away by other. And America "deserves" that.
jrkp wrote:Including? To me this channel has to be present in every stage of the war, It shouldn´t be abandoned in any circumstances, even in the most blooding war. I strongly believe that negociating we can achieve much more than fighting each other, of course, if both parts have the will to do it.
Yes, you are right my friend. We can do the diplomatic approaches when both parties have the will to do that. When one of them or may be both do not have the will to do that, then the process will be useless. See!!! You yourself got the point. These diplomatic channels are not always applicable in every stage of war !!!! Got it my friend ???
jrkp wrote:So, my friend, you actually agree with me that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable, only if it has a very good justification....
C’mon my friend !!! Wake up !!!
I didn’t say I agree with you that in some circumstances, an invasion is acceptable. Not at all my friend. I didn’t accept any invasions. To me, an invasion is another form of colonialism. And it goes against the declaration of human right acts.

My friend, My point is I agree when we attack the invader to protect our countries and people. Once again my friend, I support the protective action instead of the invasion.
jrkp wrote:In some special situations, the only possible solution is the invasion, and history has many examples of that....
Could you please tell me which invasions you meant?
Could you please show me any “good” invasions in this planet? :evil: :evil: :evil:

:evil:

User avatar
Tora
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:57 pm
Status: Other
Location: Moscow

Post by Tora » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:07 pm

don't know what you are talking here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun :lol:

but anyhow I was told many times how private property right is violated here. many small summer cabins are located in remote places near forests. Drug addicts bent to enter it even when the owners are at home, rob them and you never know what comes next... this case I would be much glad to have a gun under my pillow to save my life. I guess when you're living in the countryside gun is a necessary thing!

User avatar
Tora
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:57 pm
Status: Other
Location: Moscow

Post by Tora » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:29 pm

dshowgina wrote:i don't think anyone should be entitled to have a private gun except the police officers. Though one claims to own a gun in the name of self-protection, no one can assure someone will not use it to threaten the others' life someday. but, everyone without a gun, it reduces the possibility that one can hurt or harm the others with a gun. i can't say it's 100% because sometimes the police officer will abuse their guns.
Oh, please, should I name ways to get guns illegally? not that I tried to :lol: but this is obvious! not only policemen do have ones, I bet :o

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:58 pm

Bambang wrote:Yes, you are right my friend. We can do the diplomatic approaches when both parties have the will to do that. When one of them or may be both do not have the will to do that, then the process will be useless. See!!! You yourself got the point. These diplomatic channels are not always applicable in every stage of war !!!! Got it my friend ???
My friend, diplomatic channels are always useful, in spite of the parts in conflict don´t have the will to negotiate, because in some point, they will reach an agreement depending on the evolution of the war. But to do that they must keep talking. What I´m was trying to explain when I said that the parts should have the will to talk is because in that way, they can understand each other and stop the war quicker.
Bambang wrote:....... My friend, My point is I agree when we attack the invader to protect our countries and people. Once again my friend, I support the protective action instead of the invasion.
Well, no question about that point!!! of course you have to attack the invader to defend your country, in fact, we´ve descussed that point in previous posts. The problem would be that we can attack the invader in many, many forms. By the way, Could you please give me some examples of "protective action"? I´d like to understand better what you´re trying to say with that....
Bambang wrote:Could you please tell me which invasions you meant?
Could you please show me any “good” invasions in this planet?
Of course, I´ll tell you the ones I can recall, but I betcha that there are more examples hanging there:

During the World War II, We can see a few good examples. When the Nazis invaded Russia, red army fought bravely and at the end, they managed to expel them. But they didn´t stay in Russia, no, they chased nazis until they reach Berlin an bring down Hitler´s administration. If you look up information, a very few books (to don´t say none) refer to that action as an invasion, even though they entered a country by force and took possesion of Berlin (See invasion definition below).

Other example would be regarding Britain performance. They stayed stand when Nazis sent fightplanes to attack them but, when Americans and Russians got involved into the war, they planned to invade Germany with them to displace Hitler from power. If you analyzed this fact carefully, they invaded Germany to stop the agression that they were suffering (Protect their country invading other).

Let´s take a look to French case. They were defeated by Germany and its army were dismantled. Afterwards, they created a resistance to fight back, but they didn´t have any success until the allies re-invaded France to kick Germans out. They weren´t called invaders (even though they entered to a country by force), they were called "liberation force" instead.

I´ll give you more recent examples. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and later on the whole world gather an multinational force to expel Iraqui army from that country, As you know, They did it but again, they didn´t stop there, no, they entered into Iraqui´s soil and established the famous paralel 30 (You must remember that). The "multinational" force invaded Iraq, but, again a few countries complained about it, or at least didn´t make such a big deal that they are making nowadays about Iraq. I betcha If they had gone to take over Baghdad in that time, the world wouldn´t have said anything about it.

In 1994, NATO invaded Kosovo to expel Serbian´s Army. In fact, they didn´t called it as an invasion, they called it as an "humanitarian war" :?:. And what about the invasion of Afghanistan? Countries which have opposed to Iraq invasion were supportive to this one, or at least they didn´t offer a strong opposition as they have been giving it regarding Iraq.(e.g. France. Germany, China, Russia, etc)...

I can give you more example: Haiti, Somalia, etc, but with those ones that I´ve written above are enough. To me, the inavasion in those cases are completely justificable....

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:15 pm

Tora wrote:don't know what you are talking here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun :lol:
You right dear Tora, In some way, words are more harmful than guns, without any question.... :wink:.

P.S. I feel strange writing such a short post in this discussion.. :D

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:21 am

jrkp wrote: Could you please give me some examples of "protective action"? I´d like to understand better what you´re trying to say with that....

My friend, the word "protective" originates from "to protect". Whatever you do to protect your country or families, thus the "protective actions". That simple huh !!!. My friend, don't make it complex by giving a lot of definitions from your dictionaries, ha ha ha .... ! :lol:

Well, my friend, you have just extremely impressed me on your history lesson. Frankly speaking, I had to recall that lesson. You are even much better than my history teacher then. You rock !!!! :wink:

But my friend....

I'd like to straighten the term of "invasion". Let's narrow the scoop of invasion just in WAR.

To me, the first country which attacks others is called "the invader". And the countries which attack back the invader are doing "protective actions". They are not called as invaders.

So, whatever the terms they use to justify their actions is actually A PLAY OF WORDS. They do it in order to get justification of what they are doing.

I'm sure you still remember Mr. Bush's reason to invade Iraq: in the name of humanitarian issue or Iraqi people.

We all have known what he actually meant on that. We have seen the disastrous impact of his "honest and sincere" operation in Iraq.

So, my friend, based on my understanding on invasion, some countries in the world war 2 you mentioned earlier didn't do invasion. They are protecting their countries.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:47 am

Tora wrote:don't know what you are talking about here guys - so long posts that I start thinking it's easier to kill with words than a gun :lol:
jrkp wrote:You're right dear Tora, In some way, words are more harmful than guns, without any question.... :wink:.
My dear Tora, you're absolutely right. We have a proverb on that. Here it is : "A tongue is much sharper and dangerous than a gun".

My friend Tora, this is a discussion forum. The more words you use to support your ideas the better. The most important thing is that your words should be relevant to the topic as well as argumentative.

My friend Tora, I really appreciate your involvement in "our war". This is a smart bright war. It's not personal. It's pure a healthy war between two "countries".

So, if you wanna get involved in this war, please read first all previous posts we both have posted so that you can understand on what we are talking about.

If you do that, then this "war" would be a triangle one. It would be more interesting because we’ll get some alternative ideas.

I don't hope you take side to one of us. I appreciate you more when you have your own positions. :wink:

jrkp
Gold Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: Venezuela

Post by jrkp » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:32 pm

Bambang wrote:]So, whatever the terms they use to justify their actions is actually A PLAY OF WORDS. They do it in order to get justification of what they are doing.
I couldn´t said it better!!!! You´re absoultely right, it´s a Play of Words!!!! You can call it as whatever you want, but at the end of the day, and according to my beloved dictionaries, an invasion is an invasion. Period. And to make my point clear, I gave you a few examples in my history class....
Bambang wrote:]I'm sure you still remember Mr. Bush's reason to invade Iraq: in the name of humanitarian issue or Iraqi people.

We all have known what he actually meant on that. We have seen the disastrous impact of his "honest and sincere" operation in Iraq.
You see, To you and, of course, to me, that´s not a good reason to invade other country, that´s why we´ve opposed to that action. But, the thing is that every invasion have a justification, some of them have enough arguments to justify it and others don´t.

Let me give you another history class. The reason why Bush´s administation launched a military action against Iraq was because the creation of the concept "preventive" war, it wasn´t for humanitarian reasons....
Bambang wrote:So, my friend, based on my understanding on invasion, some countries in the world war 2 you mentioned earlier didn't do invasion. They are protecting their countries.
So, my friend, I have to say it again, you´re actually agree with me that there are justifiable invasion,just that you call it as a protective action and I call it in that way, but at the end, it´s the same concept, don´t you think?.

P.S. The History class is free of charge... 8)

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Fri Jul 06, 2007 5:50 am

jrkp wrote: ...The reason why Bush´s administation launched a military action against Iraq was because the creation of the concept "preventive" war, it wasn´t for humanitarian reasons....
That's why I don't believe that there is a good invasion. To me, There are only two words : Attacking and protecting.

Anyway, thanks for the history classes.
I really appreciate your history lessons.
Even though your educational background is engineering, you know a lot on history.

Cool.... man !!!

lady
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:48 am

Post by lady » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:10 am

in my opinion nobody should be because it is very bad nobody should kill nobody

lady
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:48 am

Post by lady » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:10 am

in my opinion nobody should be because it is very bad nobody should kill nobody

User avatar
Danyet
Keeper of the Board
Keeper of the Board
Posts: 882
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:29 am
Status: English Teacher
Location: USA

Post by Danyet » Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:08 pm

Er...........am I the only person with a gun here? :?:

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Post by Bambang » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:57 am

danyet wrote:Er...........am I the only person with a gun here? :?:

No, you are not.

wyne
Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:15 pm
Location: china

Post by wyne » Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:39 am

Gun is not a necessity of life. Destruction is its nature, no matter what is the purpose we using it. And guns and terrorists are always together. So everyone has a gun will be a nightmare to the general public, some small unhappy things may result in unnecessary bloodshed.

norhan
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: egypt
Contact:

Post by norhan » Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:42 pm

No i don't think that we all should have guns or other weapons. the only weapon that we all should have is our knowledge.it's the most powerful weapon.

wllsp
Gold Member
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:54 am
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by wllsp » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:15 pm

TalkingPoint wrote:Would it be safer for nobody to have a gun or for everybody to have one?

What do YOU think?
Criminals already have guns and will alvays have them. So the question is if it would be safer if good citizens had guns. I feel it would be definetely safer for them to have a gun in situations when they are far from a city and the police might not arrive timely. For example my parents would definetely feel more secure if they had a gun when they spend time in a small cottage and there are few neighbours around.

guantanamo
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Post by guantanamo » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:42 pm

Very controversil topic my friend. From my point of view nobody must carry a gun.

guantanamo
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Post by guantanamo » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:46 pm

Hardi wrote:
Dixie wrote:NOBODY should have a gun or other weapons.[I am totaly agree with you but what about when someone try to open your door house in the middle at the night. I just wonder this question myself./quote] Do u include also teeth as weapons? If yes, then are wild animals still allowed to have teeth for hunting.

guantanamo
Member
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:06 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA

Post by guantanamo » Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:48 pm

[quote="norhan"]No i don't think that we all should have guns or other weapons. the only weapon that we all should have is our knowledge.it's the most powerful weapon.[wow!!! This question couldn't have been answered better.

User avatar
Alfabeto
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:58 am
Location: Spain

Post by Alfabeto » Thu Nov 22, 2007 8:45 pm

When everybody has guns the chances of shooting each other multiply. Only the police, the armed forces, and certain individuals who can prove they need guns should carry them.

brocoli
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:19 pm

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by brocoli » Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:34 pm

I think that having a gun itself is not tragedy , but using it is something different.

Wilhelm
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:07 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Wilhelm » Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:14 pm

If there was no weapons in the world today, people would be fighting each other with swords. I believe no one should have a gun. It is so easy for an accident to happen.

lxguy
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 2:18 pm
Status: English Teacher
Location: lxguy

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by lxguy » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:41 am

It would be very dangerous if everybody owned a gun.

Anuska
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:11 am
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Anuska » Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:35 pm

I think that nobody should have a gun, because, for what do we need it :?:
Only think about it. If everybody has a gun what are we going to do :?: Kill everybody :cry: and when you have killed every one...WHAT :?: :?: Are you going to kill yourself also :!: :?: :shock:no, I think that the world will be a better place if guns or any weapons doesn't exist. Because if anyone has a gun or any weapon life will be much easier, without a gun or a weapon we could not kill or injure anyone, so the besat thing is :!: weapons desapearing

Cris
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 10:10 am
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Cris » Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:53 pm

From my point of view,it 's unlogical think that the violence can be erradicated with more violence,so we don't really need guns or weapons if we are able to discussion with the others in a pacific way :wink:

tron
Silver Member
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:57 am
Status: English Learner
Location: Barcelona

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by tron » Thu Apr 24, 2008 1:04 pm

Only security agents (police, rent a cops, etc.) should have guns in my opinion, and maybe is a good thing too that they had, but if it's a radical choice between nobody and everybody, then I prefer nobody. That's the way I've been brought up, to fear guns and to try to solve things with words rather than with violence. It's very curious the disparity of opinion between Americans and Europeans in that respect, I wonder if there's something genetic in that.

User avatar
Hagurus
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:30 pm
Status: Other

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Hagurus » Thu Apr 24, 2008 5:52 pm

Somebody should have a gun, otherwise there will be chaos.

User avatar
Bambang
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1930
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 3:26 am
Location: Jakarta Indonesia

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Bambang » Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:23 am

Hagurus wrote:Somebody should have a gun, otherwise there will be chaos.
Who's that somebody?
We're all friends, right?

User avatar
Annaa
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:15 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Annaa » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:24 am

Hmm sometimes I think that life will be safer without guns,but sometimes not.E.g if u want to kill someome u can do it without gun but in a another way.
If you don`t like me remember it's mind over matter..I don't mind and you don't matter..

User avatar
sweetmaria
Platinum Member
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:16 am
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by sweetmaria » Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:08 pm

Nobody should have a gun.. NO AND NEVER!!

Because when same people get angry they take a wrong decision like useing the gun.´They can also use another things but its dont go so fast like a gun!!

Its take 2sec. to take a gun and shoot a person. and after few minutes. the person will be dead.
But it will also take 2 sec. to take a spoon,fork or pot.. but more then 10 minutes. to kill the person!!
Live your life so that when you die,you're the one who is smiling and everyone around you is crying

User avatar
Annaa
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1801
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:15 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Annaa » Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:49 am

sweetmaria wrote:Nobody should have a gun.. NO AND NEVER!!

Because when same people get angry they take a wrong decision like useing the gun.´They can also use another things but its dont go so fast like a gun!!

Its take 2sec. to take a gun and shoot a person. and after few minutes. the person will be dead.
But it will also take 2 sec. to take a spoon,fork or pot.. but more then 10 minutes. to kill the person!!




Yeah,but if someone kills you with a gun it`s better than to kill toy with something else,cuz the pain is smaller.
If you don`t like me remember it's mind over matter..I don't mind and you don't matter..

User avatar
sweetmaria
Platinum Member
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 10:16 am
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by sweetmaria » Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:53 pm

Annaa wrote:
sweetmaria wrote:Nobody should have a gun.. NO AND NEVER!!

Because when same people get angry they take a wrong decision like useing the gun.´They can also use another things but its dont go so fast like a gun!!

Its take 2sec. to take a gun and shoot a person. and after few minutes. the person will be dead.
But it will also take 2 sec. to take a spoon,fork or pot.. but more then 10 minutes. to kill the person!!




Yeah,but if someone kills you with a gun it`s better than to kill toy with something else,cuz the pain is smaller.
Yes there will be more pain but. When the murder not use a gun.. But you will have more time to run a way,and you will not be very hurt the first hit! But if is it a gun you will be half dead the first hit!
Live your life so that when you die,you're the one who is smiling and everyone around you is crying

sujuliu
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:16 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by sujuliu » Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:47 pm

Nobody should have a gun. In my opinion all thinking people must hate guns. I detest violence with my whole being. The gun violence is a serious social problem. So many people lost friends, family members, loved ones to gun violence. I think if nobody had a gun, nobody would shoot to death by a gun. by Lydia

sujuliu
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 12:16 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by sujuliu » Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:48 pm

Nobody should have a gun. The reason as following in my opinion, people must hate guns and I dislike violence with my complete.

The gun violence is a serious social problem in some countries. Under the terms of the criminologist Philip J. Cook hypothesizes that if guns were less available, criminals may likely commit the crime anyway but with less-lethal weapons. He finds that the level of gun ownership in the 50 largest U.S. cities correlates with the rate of robberies committed with guns, but not overall robbery rates.

In a word, so many people lost friends, family members, loved ones to gun violence. I think if no one had a gun, nobody will be shot by a gun. by Lydia

halfknot
Silver Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:01 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by halfknot » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:12 pm

I see the question like "Should we all live or just the stronger ones?"
And I think we should all live. The fools aren't useless.
I'm posting to improve my English. If you see any grammar/vocabulary mistake in my post, please let me know.

MARI
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:32 am
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by MARI » Tue Aug 11, 2009 6:27 pm

in my opinion ...people must not have a gun ...because it may be create a social violence ...

Vale
New Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:16 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Vale » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:26 pm

Nobody should have a gun! If someone begins using it, all the other people will follow him! We are like chicken

User avatar
EIKI
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:07 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by EIKI » Tue Jun 29, 2010 2:07 pm

I heard, in Brazil, young peaple have a gun and blackmail anoter person who is driving on the road. My Brazilian frend tolled me that it's very common in Brazil. I was very surprised and shocked. I'm Japanese, so it's incredible in Japan. I think it's necessary to gurard myself, but it's not necessary what to use a gun. In my opinion, having a gun set on awful violence in the world.

User avatar
ArnauEstanyol
Gold Member
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:58 am
Status: English Learner
Location: Catalunya

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by ArnauEstanyol » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:25 pm

It's so hard for me imagine a world without guns... To get a perfect world, guns aren't the problem. The big problem is the human being and our inexhaustible selfishness. The operation is easy and almost impossible: not selfishness= not guns. So the worst weapon and simultaneously the worst enemy we have "invented" is the selfishness.

Lourdes
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:01 pm
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by Lourdes » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:39 am

Nobody should have a gun, because an accident it's very fast arrived. Imagine there are an burglar and you fire on him, and in reality it's not a burglar but a friend come to make you a surprise. Or a child plays with the gun, he's thinking that it's a toy and he fire on her father to play to cowboy what happen? A father dies and a child is traumatized, so many stories like that just because there are a gun, it's stupide to spoil the (family) life and so many lives to be regretted. The argument to be safe is not applicable to everybody. There are some people very serious and healthy and other are unhealthy or paranoiac... we can't generalize a rule. It's for it that it's commplicated to authorize in some and not in the others...this is why nobody should have a gun.

huzur
New Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:32 am
Status: English Learner

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by huzur » Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:49 am


Nobody should have a gun! Why do we fear,from whom?
If we think negative,almost bad things will happen.

Also we are affected psychological badly ,since we distrust anything

There is no exit from this. We must relieve our mind.
We don't need a gun!!!

User avatar
sweethuman
Rough Diamond Member
Posts: 1144
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 7:18 am
Status: Other
Contact:

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Post by sweethuman » Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:45 am

No body should have guns or other weapons but only the government in a country

Post Reply