Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Bambang · 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?

Tora · 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

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!

Tora · 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 but this is obvious! not only policemen do have ones, I bet :o

jrkp · 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 · 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

You right dear Tora, In some way, words are more harmful than guns, without any question....

.

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

Bambang · 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 .... !

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 !!!!

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.

Bambang · 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

jrkp wrote:You're right dear Tora, In some way, words are more harmful than guns, without any question.... .

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.

jrkp · 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)

Bambang · 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 · 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 · 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

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

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

Bambang · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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 · 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.

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

It would be very dangerous if everybody owned a gun.

Anuska · 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 and when you have killed every one...WHAT Are you going to kill yourself also 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 · 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

tron · 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.

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

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

Bambang · 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?

Annaa · 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.

sweetmaria · 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!!

Annaa · 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.

sweetmaria · 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!

sujuliu · 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 · 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 · 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.

MARI · 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 · 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

EIKI · 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.

ArnauEstanyol · 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 · 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 · 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!!!

sweethuman · 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

EnglishClub ESL Forums

Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?

Re: Should nobody or everybody have a gun?