Question for people Pro-guns....

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT
 

matrix3509:
Also, how does making guns illegal stop CRIMINALS from getting them? Really, I'm dying to know.

Also, also, whom to trust with my life: myself, who knows how to operate a firearm safely and responsibly; or an incompetent police force? I don't think the decision is a hard one.

Thats the one thing Im curious about. Just because you make it illegal for law-abiding citizens to own firearms, criminals will still have them.

C.S.Strowbridge:

Interestingly, the states with stricter gun control laws have lower rates gun violence. So gun control laws do help.

If you're gonna start quoting Richard Florida's work, you'd be be prepared to defend it.

Because, in my opinion, it fails on a variety of levels.

First off, he didn't chart gun crime, per se. He counted firearms-related deaths. That included accidental deaths, suicides, and people who shot their assailants in self-defense.

Secondly, while he purports a positive correlation between stricter gun controls and fewer gun deaths, he failed to address several of the outstanding problems in that assertion. One of which was the District of Columbia, which at the time of his analysis, had some fairly strict gun laws in place... and yet was pretty much at the top of the list in firearms deaths even with the data he was using, and well over the top in terms of actual murders.

Thirdly, while he purports a lack of correlation between a variety of factors typically associated between gun crime and actual gun deaths, the choice to include all varieties of gun deaths will have a definite skewing effect on that analysis.

And finally, when you actually plot a map of murders committed against his chart of firearms deaths, the numbers skew drastically. Alaska, for example, rapidly shifts from "worst in the nation", to "par for the course", dropping from 20.9 per 100,000 in Florida's analysis, to 4.4 per 100,000. Why? Well, Alaska has a suicide rate of about 20 per 100,000... and most men tend to use a gun to commit suicide. You could, I suppose, argue that taking guns away from everyone (bear in mind that pretty much nobody needs more than a single-shot weapon to do the deed, so you'd have to ban ALL firearms) might reduce that, but quite a few studies show that people who want to kill themselves, much like people who want to kill others, will find a way regardless of what roadblocks you throw in their path.

Needless to say, Florida was a classic example of someone working with an agenda and the intent to manipulate the data in whatever means necessary in order to "prove" his bias. Given that the suicide rate is almost three times the murder rate, Florida's study, oft-cited by gun control proponents, is effectively reduced to an indictment of the method people choose to end their own lives.

C.S.Strowbridge:

tsb247:

gufftroad:

you seem to forget the 30+ bombs he had in his house made out of common materials.if he didnt have the gun he would have used a bomb. a bomb may not have injured as many people but it would have killed more

Not just bombs, but chemical devices as well! The fact is that tragic mass-murders can, and will happen ergardless of guns laws. Firearms are not the only tools that can be used to commit crime. I find it odd that people tend to forget that.

I would also argue that homemade bombs/grenades/chemical weapons could in fact be more devastating than a few hundred poorly-aimed shots. They tend to take out swaths of innocents (indescriminately) in less than a second. The worst part is that there is no way to regulate those!

If that's true, why can't honest law-abiding citizens buy military bombs / grenades / chemical weapons. After all, if you outlaw sarin gas, only outlaws will have sarin gas.

Not being able to 100% stop something negative from happening doesn't mean you should not at least try to reduce the chances of it from happening.

That is very much a slippery slope kind of argument. You will find precious few (if any) people arguing for the legality of grenades, bombs, and sarin gas. There is a limit to those freedoms, and it generally stops at firearms - up to full-auto.

Destructive devices are already impractical as they require expensive liscencing and are EXTREMELY (I can't stress this enough) cost-prohibitive.

Trippy Turtle:

spartan231490:
Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

That's like saying if there were no guns there would be no gun crime. I don't think anyone would deny that. And police officers shoot plenty of people who aren't carrying guns. I think spartan was just trying to say accidental shootings aren't very common, and the perceived stupidity of the general populace doesn't seem to contribute much to it. The presumably well-trained police (oxymoron lol) don't fair any better.

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

That's definitely something to keep in mind, but even a well placed gunshot in center-mass is not guaranteed to save you from an assailant. Non-lethal defenses like pepper spray and tasers give you even less of a chance. I am not saying they aren't a good choice for self-defense, I'm only saying there are reasons the Navy Seals don't use pepper spray. Most shooting victims survive, but that's not a point I want to argue. If you shoot, you shoot to kill. That's not a pleasant thought but it's the law and it should be. 'Shoot to stop' is more accurate, but I don't like to pussyfoot around the implications here.

In the United States you are only permitted to use lethal force to prevent the imminent threat of death or serious injury. In most states, you are also obligated to exhaust other options (attempt to escape). The rules for specific circumstances can vary between states. I'm just saying if the laws are observed it's not something that is going to be treated lightly.

senordesol:
You can't ignore a real bullet to the heart or brain though.

If you shoot an assailant in the head you're doing it wrong.

Maleval:
It's kinda funny, how every time a story about some gun-involving massacre comes out from the US everyone's doing the whole "we need guns so that criminals are scared to shoot someone" routine. Somehow the possibility of "ANYONE in his immediate area and beyond packing" never stopped all those people.

It stops tons of people. But when crimes are prevented or thwarted they don't make headlines.

Andrew Pate:

senordesol:
Head over to R&P Moth_Monk, all will be revealed.

But in short: What works in the UK won't work in the US. We Americans (Most of us, anyway) know this, which is why we are so adamant in our defense of the individual right to own firearms.

yes, "your right to bear arms, as part of an organised militia", as the full statement is made.

Personally I don't think gun control is the answer. I shoot and I live in the UK, I have shot rifles, shotguns and pistols prior to the ban following the Hungerford tragedy. I have never once pointed a gun at a person (outside of my military service). I believe proper education and training is the key to proper and correct firearm use. Would help if you had to be a 25 or so before you could OWn your own gun though. at least by then you might have matured enough to know not to shoot people with it.

I'm sorry if this is not relevant to your post, but you have reminded me of a pet peeve lol. I don't know if this was your intention, but you have paraphrased the second amendment in a way that may muddy it's meaning and even put it in quotes as if that was the original text. I only mention it because we get a lot of people over here trying misconstrue it's meaning or pretend we don't know for certain what it was intended to mean. Obviously, we do know what it was intended to mean because the people who authored it wrote volumes on the subject lol. It means, in a nutshell, that the federal government cannot prevent individuals from arming themselves. If the Second Amendment was intended only to grant the states the ability to arm a militia at its discretion, or any such thing, it's nothing anybody ever heard of until the late twentieth century. It certainly would come as a shock to the author himself.

Now whether it's a good law or not is another question. If it's not, there are a few ways we can go about ratifying a new Amendment. Let's just be sure our facts are straight. We can't get in the habit of interpreting the Bill of Rights to mean the opposite of what it says.

maninahat:
What's alarming is that in the shooter's state, gun sales have balooned. Either people want to buy guns before potential gun control appears, or they think they're Charles Bronson, and plan to protect theatres from crazed gunmen. That latter one gets on my goat especially.

This happens frequently after events like this, or just anything that makes headlines. It's not as big a deal as some would like to believe. Everyone who has been meaning to get their concealed weapon permit for the past fifteen years just got it. Or they said "Shit. 'Bout time for my bi-annual ammo-nition run". No cause for alarm.

I'll just echo everyone on "criminals will have guns anyway."

Also, I shoot rifles for sport. It's a hobby. I'd rather the cops not walk in and take my hobby away because some jackasses want to shoot people instead of clay pigeons or whatever.

KnightDragul:

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

Once again Americans read this document as if it was written with this centuries capabilities and morals but in truth it came from a simpler time, and by continuing to try and run our now complex societies off a document from such a time it will continue to lead to needless bloodshed.

Though I do agree that it won't change anytime soon. Small minds form the largest most violent mobs.

Yeah your right the Bill of Rights is soooo dated and is totally no longer relevant in complex and modern societies. Freedom of speech, bah who needs it? my government tells me everything I need to know and the commies don't need the right disagree. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process and right to trial by jury, totally unnecessary in today's modern times the police are there to do a job and they always get it right.

The second amendment is not about hunting or the sporting use of guns it is about ensuring that the people have a means to defend themselves from the actions of a corrupt or Tyrannical government. Remember the men who drafted the constitution and the bill of rights were fighting a war for independence from just such a Tyrannical government. And that most certainly is still relevant in today's society, just look at the middle east for the last couple years with the people's of several different nations fighting to overthrow their corrupt governments.

If you want a better understanding of the 2nd amendment take the time to watch this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgLEGibyXs&feature=player_embedded

Of the original 10 Amendments in my opinion there is really only one that could possibly be argued does not belong in modern times and that could be the third amendment, protection from quartering of troops. At the time the bill of rights was written this was a big issue, it no longer is. That said it being there really has little to no effects now a days and it does have historical significance of being one of the first 10 amendments so why mess with it?

easternflame:

Buretsu:

easternflame:
Unfortunately for those people, these things do happen every once in a while and I do not believe that lives should be at stake for the sake of collecting something.

Then we should probably ban any sort of knife or sword collection as well.

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

Not exactly. But we already know how much of a whiz this guy was with explosives and traps. He sets up traps at all but one of the entrances of the theater. When they all go off, the crowd will all try to escape, and now he has them corralled, waiting for them by the only exit. They're easy targets for him to start stabbing and cutting as they all try to get away.

Raytan941:

Yeah your right the Bill of Rights is soooo dated and is totally no longer relevant in complex and modern societies. Freedom of speech, bah who needs it? my government tells me everything I need to know and the commies don't need the right disagree. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process and right to trial by jury, totally unnecessary in today's modern times the police are there to do a job and they always get it right.

The second amendment is not about hunting or the sporting use of guns it is about ensuring that the people have a means to defend themselves from the actions of a corrupt or Tyrannical government. Remember the men who drafted the constitution and the bill of rights were fighting a war for independence from just such a Tyrannical government. And that most certainly is still relevant in today's society, just look at the middle east for the last couple years with the people's of several different nations fighting to overthrow their corrupt governments.

If you want a better understanding of the 2nd amendment take the time to watch this video,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgLEGibyXs&feature=player_embedded

Of the original 10 Amendments in my opinion there is really only one that could possibly be argued does not belong in modern times and that could be the third amendment, protection from quartering of troops. At the time the bill of rights was written this was a big issue, it no longer is. That said it being there really has little to no effects now a days and it does have historical significance of being one of the first 10 amendments so why mess with it?

Oh no? What would you characterize missile launchers on the tops of London flats?

senordesol:

Oh no? What would you characterize missile launchers on the tops of London flats?

A privately owned building letting the government use their roofs? Flats are owned by business, not the people living in their. It's one thing if the owners move tenants out to make room for troops, but merely placing the missile launchers there isn't quartering.

senordesol:

Oh no? What would you characterize missile launchers on the tops of London flats?

I was speaking purely for the US since that is where the Bill of Rights was drafted, but your right its very unfortunate that things like that are allowed to happen in London because I don't think it would fly in the US.

Buretsu:

easternflame:

Buretsu:

Then we should probably ban any sort of knife or sword collection as well.

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

Not exactly. But we already know how much of a whiz this guy was with explosives and traps. He sets up traps at all but one of the entrances of the theater. When they all go off, the crowd will all try to escape, and now he has them corralled, waiting for them by the only exit. They're easy targets for him to start stabbing and cutting as they all try to get away.

Or three guys swarm him and disarm him before that happens. You are missing the point.

Buretsu:

senordesol:

Oh no? What would you characterize missile launchers on the tops of London flats?

A privately owned building letting the government use their roofs? Flats are owned by business, not the people living in their. It's one thing if the owners move tenants out to make room for troops, but merely placing the missile launchers there isn't quartering.

They have still turned residences into a military installation. That would not fly here.

easternflame:

Buretsu:

easternflame:

You can't bust open a door in the theater and kill 14 people and injure 38 with a sword.

Not exactly. But we already know how much of a whiz this guy was with explosives and traps. He sets up traps at all but one of the entrances of the theater. When they all go off, the crowd will all try to escape, and now he has them corralled, waiting for them by the only exit. They're easy targets for him to start stabbing and cutting as they all try to get away.

Or three guys swarm him and disarm him before that happens. You are missing the point.

Three guys could have swarmed him and disarmed him before he fired his first shot. I think you're missing the point.

KnightDragul:

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

To rewrite it, you would, again, need quite a large amount of support within the federal government. A lot of people are already arguing that the arms the amendment talks about doesn't cover the current assortment of weaponry, but to be honest, its written in such a vague and broad way so that the states can make their own laws regarding gun control and there are some states that make it as difficult as possible to get those semi-automatic rifles. Remember, few countries have fully banned the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles.

KnightDragul:

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

That part was later rectified to cover almost all people with the inclusion of new amendments, including the 14th Amendment, (Which guaranteed minorities the same rights as white citizens.) and the 19th amendment (Woman's suffrage)

Yes, the constitution is an old document written in a time where people had a different set of morals, but, for the most part, the Constitution has held up remarkably well.

Because there is little reason to remove the right or the tools from the populace.

THo we have crap laws and rules dealing with the issues, fed ok's any and all carry permit, you should rack up violations for brandishing, losing it under some circumstances, mis use, misfires that cause injury or damage. If you travel with it and people see it and are spook and you are not defending a life that's a fcking violation.

X amount of violations = fines and suspensions , 50$/1 month if you get another one in less than 6 months its 200$/6 months, another one in less than 6 months 600$/1 year.

And law enforcement is not exempt, if they are doing something they are not suppose to they get hit with fines and suspensions as well.

If you are constantly getting violations or harm someone your not suppose to you lose that permit.

Also would not seeing the Fed/ATF permits for automatic, silencers and explosives be streamlined into a tiered setup that has the same violation setup.

Oh if you didn't know "repurposing" fireworks or anything else to take out a tree stump on your land is federal crime.

While we are at it a gun registry for all Pistols, automatics, silencers ,ect would be nice.

Also if you go for the advanced permits you get an automatic mental and physical health background check, this check focuses on externalizing emotion/temper whatever as long as it dose not reasonably lead to abuse of the weapon,if turned down for any reason it can be appealed in court of course.

To pay for it a 1% tax on firearms and bullets would be nice.

But this would go over as well as banning firearms altogether. LOL

maddawg IAJI:

KnightDragul:

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

To rewrite it, you would, again, need quite a large amount of support within the federal government. A lot of people are already arguing that the arms the amendment talks about doesn't cover the current assortment of weaponry, but to be honest, its written in such a vague and broad way so that the states can make their own laws regarding gun control and there are some states that make it as difficult as possible to get those semi-automatic rifles. Remember, few countries have fully banned the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles.

KnightDragul:

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

That part was later rectified to cover almost all people with the inclusion of new amendments, including the 14th Amendment, (Which guaranteed minorities the same rights as white citizens.) and the 19th amendment (Woman's suffrage)

Yes, the constitution is an old document written in a time where people had a different set of morals, but, for the most part, the Constitution has held up remarkably well.

Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

easternflame:

maddawg IAJI:

KnightDragul:

I'm not being rude just stating an idea of history as I see it. Americans always say its our Constitutional right to bear arms but two little things bother me which alot of people never really give an answer to.

1) This.... Document was written in a time when all weapons were muskets and flintlock pistols? Has anyone considered not removing/repeal just revise it? i.e. Simply saying people don't have the right to a gun that can dispense 300 round a minute....or whatever.

To rewrite it, you would, again, need quite a large amount of support within the federal government. A lot of people are already arguing that the arms the amendment talks about doesn't cover the current assortment of weaponry, but to be honest, its written in such a vague and broad way so that the states can make their own laws regarding gun control and there are some states that make it as difficult as possible to get those semi-automatic rifles. Remember, few countries have fully banned the use and sale of semi-automatic rifles.

KnightDragul:

2) The Document in question has a great gag line in it (no offence).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the time the definition of 'all men' didn't include so dubbed Negros, Orientals or Injuns. Only white man had a creator pretty much in the eyes of the major populace back then all the others evolved like beasts and merely mimicked white settlers apparently.

That part was later rectified to cover almost all people with the inclusion of new amendments, including the 14th Amendment, (Which guaranteed minorities the same rights as white citizens.) and the 19th amendment (Woman's suffrage)

Yes, the constitution is an old document written in a time where people had a different set of morals, but, for the most part, the Constitution has held up remarkably well.

Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

Osaka school massacre
Akihabara massacre
this guy killed 4 people stealing cars with knives
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/maksim-gelman-accused-killing-4-stabbing-carjacking-spree-caught-daylong-manhunt-article-1.136301
this guy killed 6 over an xbox dispute
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210953,00.html
Daegu subway fire killed hundreds with two milk cartons of a flamable fluid like gas or paint thinner

According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

easternflame:
Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

I can't give you a time where 14 people were killed by a sword, but I can give you at least one example of a time when a couple of guys with knives caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

There are also dozens of serial killers who killed dozens of people with nothing but blades, bludgeoning tools and choking weapons, Like Ted Bundy (At least 36, total number unknown) or John Wayne Gacy (33) or even Luis Alfredo Garavito (172-400+). Crime happens and the psychos don't normally have access to AK-47s. The majority of murders, suicides, robberies, etc etc are not done with Semi-automatic rifles. They're done with pistols, they're done with knives, they're done with shotguns. There is no reason to punish the few people who legally went out of their ways to obtain a gun that they enjoy shooting and/or collecting because of one incident.

Remember, just because they own a certain type gun, doesn't mean they're psychotic.

maddawg IAJI:

easternflame:
Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

I can't give you a time where 14 people were killed by a sword, but I can give you at least one example of a time when a couple of guys with knives caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

There are also dozens of serial killers who killed dozens of people with nothing but blades, bludgeoning tools and choking weapons, Like Ted Bundy (At least 36, total number unknown) or John Wayne Gacy (33) or even Luis Alfredo Garavito (172-400+). Crime happens and the psychos don't normally have access to AK-47s. The majority of murders, suicides, robberies, etc etc are not done with Semi-automatic rifles. They're done with pistols, they're done with knives, they're done with shotguns. There is no reason to punish the few people who legally went out of their ways to obtain a gun that they enjoy shooting and/or collecting because of one incident.

Remember, just because they own a certain type gun, doesn't mean they're psychotic.

you sir have just out classed me i bow to you

Deshara:

acturisme:

cotss2012:
Because there's a difference between "crime" and "gun crime", and they respond in opposite ways to gun laws.

Basically, for every person that you spare from death by bullet wound, you're getting a mugging, a rape, and two deaths by knife wound in return.

We're just better at math than you are.

TLDR
Still, this is the smartest response to the OP.

The drop in deaths from accidental discharges would more than make up for the amount of people who'd die from not having a gun, not even counting the amount of people those people who're out to "defend themselves" kill in the name of the change in their pockets.

So does that make being defenseless "by law" morally superior to defending yourself and family?

gufftroad:

maddawg IAJI:

easternflame:
Not with that rifle. My point is, there are certain weapons that are only used by psychos.
EDIT: Something happened, couldn't finish.
And the ones that do collect those weapons will have to make due without them. The day someone butchers 14 people and injures 38 with a sword we can talk.

I can't give you a time where 14 people were killed by a sword, but I can give you at least one example of a time when a couple of guys with knives caused the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

There are also dozens of serial killers who killed dozens of people with nothing but blades, bludgeoning tools and choking weapons, Like Ted Bundy (At least 36, total number unknown) or John Wayne Gacy (33) or even Luis Alfredo Garavito (172-400+). Crime happens and the psychos don't normally have access to AK-47s. The majority of murders, suicides, robberies, etc etc are not done with Semi-automatic rifles. They're done with pistols, they're done with knives, they're done with shotguns. There is no reason to punish the few people who legally went out of their ways to obtain a gun that they enjoy shooting and/or collecting because of one incident.

Remember, just because they own a certain type gun, doesn't mean they're psychotic.

you sir have just out classed me i bow to you

I'm not saying they are. That's why I said, if GOOD people want to collect them, they will have to hold back.
Although that's pretty much what I can counter from this. You sir, have convinced me. And that is not an easy thing to do. You earn an internet.

easternflame:

I'm not saying they are. That's why I said, if GOOD people want to collect them, they will have to hold back.
Although that's pretty much what I can counter from this. You sir, have convinced me. And that is not an easy thing to do. You earn an internet.

why should we punish good people for the misdoings of bad people

*Comes into the thread, and clicks onto my mouse*
*Suddenly my hand catches on fire*

image

Oh jeez, this thread has some serious heat going. Alright now to post-

OT: If gun laws were to be made in the USA where a citizen cannot carry a gun, even the retired police officers and what not- I believe we're in serious trouble. The crime rate might go down, or by a large margin- but there's to many gangs and groups in USA who will use the black market to get weapons regardless. With that, people who are following this rule shall be defenseless.

I'm not suggesting everyone can carry guns.. that would be bad too. We have way to many that easily snap and attack people on the streets, so everyone having guns or allowed to will make everyone sort of fearful, scared. Not to mention some (or most) will abuse this, kill someone and say "I was defending myself!" My arguments on this might not be good but trying to think about the long run.

Overall, I suggest the security is increased within every place especially at big events like movie premieres.

Caramel Frappe:
*Comes into the thread, and clicks onto my mouse*
*Suddenly my hand catches on fire*

image

Oh jeez, this thread has some serious heat going. Alright now to post-

OT: If gun laws were to be made in the USA where a citizen cannot carry a gun, even the retired police officers and what not- I believe we're in serious trouble. The crime rate might go down, or by a large margin- but there's to many gangs and groups in USA who will use the black market to get weapons regardless. With that, people who are following this rule shall be defenseless.

I'm not suggesting everyone can carry guns.. that would be bad too. We have way to many that easily snap and attack people on the streets, so everyone having guns or allowed to will make everyone sort of fearful, scared. Not to mention some (or most) will abuse this, kill someone and say "I was defending myself!" My arguments on this might not be good but trying to think about the long run.

Overall, I suggest the security is increased within every place especially at big events like movie premieres.

For fucks sake, all I'm saying is, I don't mean that ALL PEOPLE who buy assault rifles are psychos

Gun control may work in the UK where it's difficult for criminals to obtain firearms, but that's just not an option everywhere else. Plus, we love our guns and being able to defend ourselves. The police can't protect you; they only clean up the mess. If someone breaks into MY house, I'd feel much better with a 12 gauge in my hand than I would hiding in the closet waiting for the cops to show up.

Edit: also, violent crime rates are even lower in countries like Sweden who had (until recently) compulsory military service and LOTS of guns.

easternflame:

Caramel Frappe:
*Comes into the thread, and clicks onto my mouse*
*Suddenly my hand catches on fire*

image

Oh jeez, this thread has some serious heat going. Alright now to post-

OT: If gun laws were to be made in the USA where a citizen cannot carry a gun, even the retired police officers and what not- I believe we're in serious trouble. The crime rate might go down, or by a large margin- but there's to many gangs and groups in USA who will use the black market to get weapons regardless. With that, people who are following this rule shall be defenseless.

I'm not suggesting everyone can carry guns.. that would be bad too. We have way to many that easily snap and attack people on the streets, so everyone having guns or allowed to will make everyone sort of fearful, scared. Not to mention some (or most) will abuse this, kill someone and say "I was defending myself!" My arguments on this might not be good but trying to think about the long run.

Overall, I suggest the security is increased within every place especially at big events like movie premieres.

For fucks sake, all I'm saying is, I don't mean that ALL PEOPLE who buy assault rifles are psychos

.. I never read any of your previous posts to know what you said, but I will say this- you got a very nice Avatar. I like it quite a bit, has a nice texture and highlighting detail to it. I know it's off topic but I love Avatars like that.

Anyways with that said, .. I still don't know why you're getting on me lol. Maybe you quoted the wrong person? Because I never mentioned anything about assault rifles my friend, and some who do buy them might just want to show off as a collection anyways, who knows really.

Caramel Frappe:

easternflame:

Caramel Frappe:
*Comes into the thread, and clicks onto my mouse*
*Suddenly my hand catches on fire*

image

Oh jeez, this thread has some serious heat going. Alright now to post-

OT: If gun laws were to be made in the USA where a citizen cannot carry a gun, even the retired police officers and what not- I believe we're in serious trouble. The crime rate might go down, or by a large margin- but there's to many gangs and groups in USA who will use the black market to get weapons regardless. With that, people who are following this rule shall be defenseless.

I'm not suggesting everyone can carry guns.. that would be bad too. We have way to many that easily snap and attack people on the streets, so everyone having guns or allowed to will make everyone sort of fearful, scared. Not to mention some (or most) will abuse this, kill someone and say "I was defending myself!" My arguments on this might not be good but trying to think about the long run.

Overall, I suggest the security is increased within every place especially at big events like movie premieres.

For fucks sake, all I'm saying is, I don't mean that ALL PEOPLE who buy assault rifles are psychos

.. I never read any of your previous posts to know what you said, but I will say this- you got a very nice Avatar. I like it quite a bit, has a nice texture and highlighting detail to it. I know it's off topic but I love Avatars like that.

Anyways with that said, .. I still don't know why you're getting on me lol. Maybe you quoted the wrong person? Because I never mentioned anything about assault rifles my friend, and some who do buy them might just want to show off as a collection anyways, who knows really.

Lol sorry, QUoted the wrong guy.
And he was a pretty cool dude... Shame on me. Anyway, sorry and thank you.

gufftroad:

easternflame:

I'm not saying they are. That's why I said, if GOOD people want to collect them, they will have to hold back.
Although that's pretty much what I can counter from this. You sir, have convinced me. And that is not an easy thing to do. You earn an internet.

why should we punish good people for the misdoings of bad people

For fucks sake, all I'm saying is, I don't mean that ALL PEOPLE who buy assault rifles are psychos

gufftroad:

Biosophilogical:

gufftroad:
-snip-

GunsmithKitten:

It is rather amusing that he thinks we're allowed to defend ourselves, as long as it's nothing that'll hurt the person trying to kill us or give us an unfair advantage. After all, rapists and home invaders deserve a fair fight!

Holy flying donkey-genitals! I kind of expected this many responses though, so I shouldn't sound (read?) so shocked.

I do think you are allowed to defend yourself. And I do think you are allowed to do so at the expense of the safety of your assailant(s). What I do not consider acceptable is putting anyone else in danger to do so. So unless you and your assailant are alone in the middle of a street, with no openings (alleys, windows, doors or the like) that could hold other people (within reasonable firing range, after all, a person in an alley fifty metres behind you isn't at risk if your assailant is in front of you), then any use of a firearm could potentially harm people not involved in the conflict (and more than likely not responsible for it). And honestly, I don't give two shits what the other person did, because when you endanger someone who isn't responsible for your current situation, you overstep the line, you do exactly what the person causing you problems is doing, so by your logic, if you used a firearm for self-defense, anyone else in the vicinity who is potentially endangered by your actions could stop you from doing so, even if it meant endangering another person to do so, because by endangering someone not responsible for your predicament, you've created a completely new scenario of victimisation, and you are most certainly not the victim in that one.

Short version: You can defend yourself. You can do so at the expense of the one responsible for the problem (provided such action would actually relieve the problem in any way). What you cannot do is defend yourself at the expense of people not responsible for the problem.

so what you are saying is the tweaker with a rusty knife pointed at me has more of a right to safety then a law abiding citizen

and most of the time guns are used in self defense roughly 91%of the time not a single shot is fired i got this information from the National Crime Victimization Survey

Okay, please use punctuation next time ... please?

Now that I've got my anal side out of the way (I'm going to be unable to poop and eventually explode), I have no idea what you are saying with the first bit. Honestly, I haven't the foggiest idea, so could you please quote me back and elaborate a bit?

The second bit, what you've basically said is that guns are symbolic protection? At which point, you might as well start a market of water-guns that are indistinguishable from the real thing (apart from the lack of bullet-shooting), because simply the threat of a gun is enough. And besides, saying "I have a bomb, but I won't use it, I just want it for symbolic self-defense" is just insane. If your intention is to use a gun[1], then you shouldn't have it (because you risk the safety of everyone around you), and if your intention is to simply have the 'threat' of a gun, but not use it, then you don't need a real weapon in the first place (just a very convincing fake, maybe a tazer-in-disguise), neither of which is an argument in favour of firearms as self-defense.

[1] Obviously for self-defense outside of your private property.

tsb247:

That is very much a slippery slope kind of argument. You will find precious few (if any) people arguing for the legality of grenades, bombs, and sarin gas. There is a limit to those freedoms, and it generally stops at firearms - up to full-auto.

Destructive devices are already impractical as they require expensive liscencing and are EXTREMELY (I can't stress this enough) cost-prohibitive.

Explosives/Incendiaries/Poisons can be made quite easily by anyone with little determination and enough cash for a short shopping trip. Ban of them is an inconvenience, not an insurmountable obstacle.
Certainly, home made items may not be as reliable or effective as the real thing - but that's semantics.

What is this ridiculous misconception that "criminals will get a gun"? Who are "criminals" ? Every criminal person out in society? Is this some faceless blob that encompasses everybody who's ever broken the law? Remove guns from the circulation in society and most of them will disappear from the streets. Anybody who's truly devoting their time and resources will eventually get a hold of a weapon, but it erases a whole deal of accidents, heat of the moment issues and poor guys making mistakes that last lifetimes. If getting a hold of a gun becomes an expensive affair then that changes the circumstances for most criminals that any idiot would feel the need to be "protected" from.

It naturally does nothing to prevent those people from being born into poverty and kept there by true criminals, but it would at least sort out of many of the perceived dangers that the media has programmed into the minds of most plebs out there.

Deathmageddon:
Gun control may work in the UK where it's difficult for criminals to obtain firearms, but that's just not an option everywhere else. Plus, we love our guns and being able to defend ourselves. The police can't protect you; they only clean up the mess. If someone breaks into MY house, I'd feel much better with a 12 gauge in my hand than I would hiding in the closet waiting for the cops to show up.

Edit: also, violent crime rates are even lower in countries like Sweden who had (until recently) compulsory military service and LOTS of guns.

Shut up man, Sweden did not have lots of guns. Norway has compulsory military service and you'll be hard pressed to find a police-officer that's packing heat.

Further more in most cases guns do not help protect people, and what in the world do you want a gun in your house for? So you can kill the person who's trying to steal items from you? are you some kind of animal? I'll go with the option where I do not think that you're so terrible beast that would take a life instead of letting somebody take items from you (which always happens out of socio-economic reasons) and assume that you talk big.

Purchase PEPPER SPRAY or in the worst case a STUN GUN, and you can immobilise just about any adult man without scarring yourself (+ any onlookers) and possibly crippling/killing yourself or another person. Think you're just gonna cap some guy breaking into your house and move on your merry god damned way? are you john wayne? Shoot someone and you're going to hurt yourself, one way or the other.

Biosophilogical:

The second bit, what you've basically said is that guns are symbolic protection? At which point, you might as well start a market of water-guns that are indistinguishable from the real thing (apart from the lack of bullet-shooting), because simply the threat of a gun is enough. And besides, saying "I have a bomb, but I won't use it, I just want it for symbolic self-defense" is just insane. If your intention is to use a gun then you shouldn't have it (because you risk the safety of everyone around you), and if your intention is to simply have the 'threat' of a gun, but not use it, then you don't need a real weapon in the first place (just a very convincing fake, maybe a tazer-in-disguise), neither of which is an argument in favour of firearms as self-defense.

Fallacy.

If everyone is carrying fake guns, then the notion of symbolic protection is meaningless; criminals will know the guns are fake and rob/rape/kill you anyway.

It's the the sight of a gun-shaped object that repels a criminal. They're not some weird sort of vampire. It's the prospect of getting shot that frightens criminals. If the faux-firearms are not dangerous, they're no threat.

If you want to defend yourself with a gun, you have to have one that works, and be willing to use it.

MorganL4:

spartan231490:

MorganL4:

There were a couple reasons for my choice of nations, 1. the OP is British, and was posing a question to us here in the USA. 2. The USA and the UK are probably two of the easiest nations to compare... We share a language, we both have predominantly Caucasian populations, we are both first world nations, we both elect our government officials ( in slightly different ways, but still).

Now I will grant the serious discrepancy in population density, the UK is an island approximately the size of Washington State. However, this is the reason that I included the per 100,000 stats, because it was the best possible way to address the discrepancy.

As for why I cut most of your post, it was a simple matter of your post being rather long, and quoting a long post within a long post within a long post becomes rather ungainly and starts to look ridiculous, so I simply quoted the part I was replying to and cut the rest. I did in fact read your whole post, though I did not read all the reference sites, as I had other things I needed to do and had run out of time to address this topic.

Those similarities are superficial when compared to our cultural differences, otherwise, your violent crime rate wouldn't be so much higher than ours. You have a monarchy, even if it's mostly or entirely for show, it still impacts your culture, as does being a part of Europe. I imagine being on the receiving end of so much bombing in WW2 impacted your culture too. You can't just compare two countries and draw meaningful results. It is exactly like the thing news stations do saying how since one guy who went psycho played video games it obviously means playing video games makes you psycho. It's not even enough data to establish correlation, let alone causation.

And that's fair, I was just curious why you went through the effort of cutting out a large chunk of my post, but that makes sense.

I'm sorry but I am a bit confused.... Are you British or American? Your last post makes that unclear, I was born and raised in the USA.

As far as smuggling goes, if Wikipedia is to be believed the USA has absolutely no need to smuggle guns INTO the country as Canada is ranked 14 on the fire arm production list and neither Mexico nor any South American nations even list.... On the other hand, the USA ranks 1st. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry

Granted things do get smuggled in and out of the country but the firearms used by the smugglers have a higher chance of coming from this nation than any other, with the exception of maybe Russia, if only because we still have large numbers of unaccounted for cold war stocks... but those are depleting as that was over 20 years ago now.

I'm from the USA, and smuggling has nothing to do with where it's produced. However, smuggling isn't a big issue in the US now because we can buy guns, but if you tried to ban guns in the US, smuggling would become a huge issue because of our open borders.

Trippy Turtle:

spartan231490:

Trippy Turtle:
Its not the criminals I am worried about getting hands on guns. Its idiots who believe they can operate a firearm safely and responsibly that I don't want near the things. First sign of trouble and someone gets shot.
Also it is a hell of a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun when they can't walk down the street and and buy one.

Just so you know, police officers shoot innocent civilians 11% of the time. Civilians with firearms, when acting in self defense, shoot an innocent person only 2% of the time. Also, considering that most of the 70 or 80 million gun owners shoot their firearms several times a year, and there are between 700 and 800 accidental deaths from firearms, that means that even by accident it is less than 1/1,000 of half of a percent. Far less.

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Emotional hyperbole has no place in a discussion about legal policy. I will once again say that there is absolutely 0, none, nada, the big goose egg, zilch, zip, zero evidence to suggest that more guns means fewer crimes. Further, yeah, those 2% might have been better off without guns, but the victim would have been a lot worse off the other 98%. That's 98% of at least 1.5 million people that use a firearm to defend themselves who would be unable to if you banned guns.

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

Trippy Turtle:

First off tell those 2% of people that guns are a good thing. I'm pretty sure if civilians had no guns that number would be around zero. The police wouldn't have to shoot if they weren't chasing down some idiot with a gun.

Sure, that 2% would survive, but that would mean that 98% of the time civilians would not be able to defend themselves from assailants. That's a pretty hefty trade-off.

What about less than lethal weaponry? There's ways to defend yourself without instantly resorting to what is probably going to be a lethal method.

Like what? Knives? Won't help if you're opponent has a gun, or even if he just has a longer knife than you, or longer arms. It takes months and months of specialized training to actually be able to defend yourself with a knife, and that's assuming there's only one attacker.

Pepper spray? Ever seen that stuff in the wind, it doesn't work. I know a woman who tried to spray a dog and the wind blew the spray back into her face, literally. She ended up in the hospital. It wasn't even windy. What are you going to do: ask your attacker to move downwind so you can defend yourself?

Tazer? A person with drugs or alcohol in their system(like the majority of assailants) isn't likely to be stopped with just one taze, and civilian issue are either one shot, or rely on direct contact where you run into the same problems as with a knife.

Further, why on earth would I not want to resort to a lethal method? This person is attacking me for no reason, I see no reason why I should put myself, the innocent one, in greater danger just to spare the attacker's life.

t3hmaniac:

senordesol:

t3hmaniac:

Odds of actually hitting those areas? People can shrug off bullets for a time when up on painkillers and other drugs. And in that scenario you've got 2 dead people in a worst case scenario and 1 dead in a best case.

That's exactly right! Best case is someone ends up dead, might as well be the asshole.

Your odds of hitting those areas depend on your choice of firearm. My Mossberg, for example, has a 12 pellet spread. A Barretta has a 10 round mag. You may not hit the first time, but shot two or three? Maybe.

Your chance of hitting with those are way better than a tazer, and you can fire effectively a lot further than pepper spray.

But in my best case scenario: No-one's dead. That's my point.

In less than 10% of cases of self-defense involving a firearm in the US is the firearm actually fired at the assailant, just waving it or firing a warning shot is enough to end most attacks. This, combined with the fact that there are conservatively 1.5 million incidences of self-defense using a firearm in the US every year, mean that guns save more lives here than they cost.

Maleval:
It's kinda funny, how every time a story about some gun-involving massacre comes out from the US everyone's doing the whole "we need guns so that criminals are scared to shoot someone" routine. Somehow the possibility of "ANYONE in his immediate area and beyond packing" never stopped all those people.

That's why these people tend to shoot up schools or other places where guns are banned, because none of their law abiding victims will have a gun. The most deadly massacre in US history before the Virginia Tech shooting was in a restaurant in Texes(which at the time were gun-free zones) where several of the victims had legally carried hand-guns in their vehicles.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here