General discussion


What gun possession implies

By chdchan ·
Tags: Off Topic
With gun weapons, one can protect or kill. Not too soon after Colorado shooting, Americans are tolling themselves again with the Connecticut shootout.

The U.S. is a country respecting freedom. While the police and soldiers have guns, so do the general public. With freedom in American minds, privacy is also secured by Law, hence one can kill an intruder to one's premises. The reasons behind this practice are: Americans are above-par wealthy and they need some extra security against crime (also reflected in their possession of most nuclear missiles in the world); Americans are relatively selfish and self-protecting (people are putting security of oneself above public safety by advocating gun possession, plus developing nuclear weaponry whilst disallowing poorer countries to follow suit); Americans think they are so morally superior that most people can restrain themselves from gun abuse.

In fact, if some would like to prevent crime with guns, they should first think about how easily guns can cause crime. For the first time in history, after many gun-related crimes, people from the rest of the world should become hesitating when considering emigration or traveling to the U.S. and other gun-approving countries. As Chinese ourselves, we applaud for our own better-off personal safety without undiscriminated gun possession. When guns are publicized for eliminating their inner lack of security, Americans are haunted with even greater homicidal fears.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

A price to deserve?

by chdchan In reply to What gun possession impli ...

Out of the vast population of North America, the gun-protected population is still far greater than gun-killed population, this makes the very sense....that a minor part of people should die for the majority.

Collapse -

would you like to clarify that statement

by PurpleSkys In reply to A price to deserve?

because i would not like to believe you mean it the way that i read one should die for the ``majority``

Collapse -

Don't you?

by chdchan In reply to would you like to clarify ...

Don't you mean you still want millions of guns around if your wife, kids or parents get guns pointed at their heads? What mandates your thought that they are expendable.

Collapse -


by dogknees In reply to Don't you?

But no one else is more expendable simply because I don't know them.

Collapse -

i'm the wife

by PurpleSkys In reply to Don't you?

and no i don' one is expendible...but for some reason, you think they are. I believe we have a language barrier between us as you don't get my meaning whatsoever. It's pretty simple, guns are for hunting and in extreme cases, protecting your home and family, but you will not find guns in my home, end of discussion on that topic, my husband lost that arguement. I live in a society where the chance of your scenario happening to me is slim to none, not impossible, just impropable.

Collapse -

language and culture barrier

by highlander718 In reply to i'm the wife

I believe .. (it is barrier and not barrior, right ? :-))

Collapse -


by PurpleSkys In reply to language and culture barr ...

you're right...darn spell check thank you :)

Collapse -

I didn't argue with you about

by Darryl~ Moderator In reply to i'm the wife

removing the guns from our home....the main reason they are gone is because I believed (like you) that they were not safe around our children.

Collapse -

thank you dear

by PurpleSkys In reply to I didn't argue with you a ...

i appreciate the fact that you did remove them :)

Collapse -


by dogknees In reply to i'm the wife

My response was to cdhchan's comments.

Related Discussions

Related Forums