People should stop protecting guns

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

M-E-D The Poet:

DoPo:

M-E-D The Poet:
it's not just a "gun" thread

image

M-E-D The Poet:
it's a neutral thread

imageimage

In order: it is, it isn't.

And it's in Off-topic, rather than R&P. Not to mention it's a new thread. If you wanted to discus what those "other people" say about guns, you should have discussed it with them. Making a new thread citing "something" apparently "somebody" has "said" is just weaselling words and making a groundless statements.

would you please stop the picture spamming there's no need for it.

And they aren't groundless statements if you wish for me to back these up I will.

PS: next time reply in a mature way please, this picture spamming just makes you look foolish.

I dont know, I thought it was pretty funny.

This is dumb. Nothing anyone says is going to sway my opinion that it is a persons right to own guns, and nothing I say will sway anyone elses opinion that guns are the devil.

Seriously, this is a gaming website.

To summarize the beliefs that I (personally) consider rational.

Guns aren't the issue. Less guns and less gun-owners does not mean less violence.

Violent videogames and movies aren't the issue. Blaming media removes personal responsibility.

Preventing violence is the issue. But it unfortunately the most difficult to discuss for some reason, perhaps because increased security tramples on more rights than just the first and second amendments above.

As an US citizen, I am guaranteed the right to own a firearm in order to protect myself against tyranny. For a while people argued that the 2nd amendment really meant that states could have their own militias, but the supreme court said that, no, its the individuals right. In that context, law-abiding citizens should have the ability to own rifles that are comparable to military grade weapons. It appears a semi-automatic small-medium caliber rifle with a medium capacity magazine fits this.

Heavy Machine Guns and Anti-tanks missiles for all? Of course not. That would be idiotic. We have a hard enough time training everyone to operate motor vehicles safely. But the current interpretation of the law seems to point to assault rifles. If you want that changed, I'd advise an amendment to the constitution, and then the supreme court can re-interpret it.

Proeliator:
For a while people argued that the 2nd amendment really meant that states could have their own militias, but the supreme court said that, no, its the individuals right.

With no intention of contradicting your post. If a lot of gun owners get together with a political agenda, does that count as a militia? I'm legitimately curious.

Lovely Mixture:

Proeliator:
For a while people argued that the 2nd amendment really meant that states could have their own militias, but the supreme court said that, no, its the individuals right.

With no intention of contradicting your post. If a lot of gun owners get together with a political agenda, does that count as a militia? I'm legitimately curious.

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president). However, what your talking about looks more like a private militia, which might be protected under the right to assemble (the key word being peaceful, so if they started shooting people obviously no), and private militias do exist. They run the risk of being labeled as a gang or terrorist cell by law enforcement, but they're still out there. I could be confusing things though, and private militias could be illegal. Its most likely a state law.

People are going to passionately defend amendments to the Constitution because they see it as part of their rights as citizens. Just as people will passionately defend the First Amendment and balk at any restrictions people will defend the Second Amendment the same way. Like the First Amendment there are reasonable restrictions such as not being able to yell fire in a crowded theater but it takes careful crafting to not over reach with restrictions on freedoms.

I'm also not big on this idea that somehow you have to justify owning a gun. We don't say you can only own a car if you have a legitimate reason for owning one because cars are dangerous. It's not as if cars are restricted to people who can claim it's only for work purposes.

Off to R&P with you, foul gun thread! You ain't welcome round these parts!

Proeliator:

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president).

Did not know that about the National Guard. Interesting.

Proeliator:

However, what your talking about looks more like a private militia, which might be protected under the right to assemble (the key word being peaceful, so if they started shooting people obviously no), and private militias do exist. They run the risk of being labeled as a gang or terrorist cell by law enforcement, but they're still out there. I could be confusing things though, and private militias could be illegal. Its most likely a state law.

Yeah, this is where groups in India (Salwa Judum and Ranvir Sena) Colombia (numerous right-wing groups), and Sudan (Janjaweed) come up. It's really scary to think about the KKK achieving the same level of dangerousness like Rwanda's Interahamwe in the 1990s.

It's kind of ironic that fear the idea of militias more than the army, when they both have the same problem (violent humans).

Lovely Mixture:

Proeliator:

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president).

Did not know that about the National Guard. Interesting.

I'd better clarify, for your's and my benefit. Some states still have a state militia, that only answers to the state, but way back when, the civil war basically up to WWI, the US's army was very small, and depended on the state militias for more troops. Come the 20th century, the army was expanded, and the divisions of each state were reorganized into the branches we know today, with the national guard now answering directly to the president, like the navy. Basically, the national guard came from state militias. Its a lot more complicated than that, I'd recommend surfing Wikipedia to get a more accurate picture.

I would like to put out there that shotguns and skeet-shooting are also not bad. Owning a shotgun for the purposes of shooting skeet is (unless I'm mistaken) considered an Olympic sport other than just being a regular sport. Anyway that being said, I'm from Mur-ka and agree with the points on both side. I can see gun ownership being important to home and personal defense but at this point don't see why law abiding gun owners don't switch out to non-lethal ammo and/or electricity based weapons like tazers etc. A quick blast would incap someone long enough to restrain said person after all! That being said I also know that nobody on the planet really needs anti-vehicle rounds, armor piercing rounds, hollow point rounds, etc. Nobody outside of a warzone needs a sniper rifle or, high-powered machine gun of any kind.

To be completely contrary though, the idea of dual-wielding M-16's and shooting exploding and, flammable things is on par with running shit over with a steam roller in that it's one of those boyish fantasies that many people probably still have. None of us are going to be Robocop or The Terminator but if you have that mindset and the chance to unload into something squishy (that isn't human obviously...or is a hostile human about to murder you anyway) there are people who want nothing more than to indulge that fantasy. I'm one of those people who would jump at the opportunity to shoot at a car with a sniper rifle for example but only if it was guaranteed to explode...and destroy a tree with it.

One last point: Crazy is always crazy. If crazy finds a gun it can murder lots and, lots of people. If crazy is unable to find a gun it gets creative and...well aren't there a lot of really interesting murder attempts in the UK for example? Like disgruntled employees trying to make bombs out of Mountain Dew and Baking soda and other people stabbing people at random with home-made sporks?

Proeliator:

Lovely Mixture:

Proeliator:

Sure! I'd love to have a non-rage-fueled discussion!
I was talking about state-sponsored militias, meaning they took orders from the governor of the state, which today has sorta morphed into the National Guard (although some/most national guard take orders from the president).

Did not know that about the National Guard. Interesting.

I'd better clarify, for your's and my benefit. Some states still have a state militia, that only answers to the state, but way back when, the civil war basically up to WWI, the US's army was very small, and depended on the state militias for more troops. Come the 20th century, the army was expanded, and the divisions of each state were reorganized into the branches we know today, with the national guard now answering directly to the president, like the navy. Basically, the national guard came from state militias. Its a lot more complicated than that, I'd recommend surfing Wikipedia to get a more accurate picture.

I thought the Nation Guard is still nominally under state control. The president can request a temporary transfer of control, but that request can technically be denied (although it probably never has been denied).

nevermind, apparently that was changed in 2007-2008 (state governor is no longer the sole commander in chief). Strange, how did that fly under the radar? I imagine something like that would cause a colossal stink.

Ah...

"In a letter to Congress, all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the President over the National Guard"

Although if push came to shove, im not sure how loyal those NG would be to the president if he required them to fire on their own people seeing how the NG are all locals.

EDIT: whoops looks like the president overriding state control was repealed in 2008....unless i read this article wrong. How wonderful our political system is. Ping pongs between two different ends constantly...

I never have more bated breath than I do when I see a news report with the words 'Live' in bright red at the corner. I sometimes worry about a terrorist attack, another natural disaster, or a shooting. A lot of the times, it's a simple collision with a ferry in New York, or sometimes the odd crane will fall.

This sees like an aside, but it isn't.

There were around 16 mass shootings in 2012.

Quote the Slate on the article How Many Assault Weapons Are There in America? How Much Would It Cost the Government To Buy Them Back?

Get more specific, Peters! Well, it's hard, imaginary exclamation-making reader, because the data are incomplete. A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: "114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns." However, author William J. Krouse went on to note that "data are not available on the number of 'assault weapons' in private possession or available for sale, but one study estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994."

Now, I personally do believe every life should be honored. And there are 84 fellow Americans, and more over humans, that aren't with us today because of senseless acts.

But not because of guns. Senseless Acts. There is a difference. I don't own a gun. I used to dodge bullets to stay alive back in the 90's, as a large amount of my family lived in Brooklyn. I don't have any love loss for Guns. But I do want to interject some common sense. None of the shootings happened with a criminal mastermind trying to escape. They were sick people. With some messed up ideas about other races, or just so generally disturbed that they were one step away from being put into an asylum... but just too late.

As the numbers show, even though it's fuzzy for Assault weapons, at least 1.5 million were sold and owned by 1994. You can bet that number went up exponentially since then. There are millions and millions of semi automatic and assault rifles out there (Also, please do know the difference between the two). If Guns make such cold hearted killers out of anyone who touches it, why is the US Population as high as it is?

Well, the reason is simple. Guns don't do that. They don't. People are lumping citizens who legally purchased these weapons (and yes, they are weapons. So are swords. And combat knives. I'm sure you know someone if not yourself that owns these) and never once used them for anything but recreational shooting and protection, and saying just by owning items similar to these already admittedly mentally deranged people, they are one step away from just busting loose and doing it as well.

Can people not see the faultiness of looking at sane people, looking at deranged people, seeing one item as the link and deciding its the item at fault and not the operator? We have uncountable, literally uncountable number of people being average citizens who aren't shooting up the club and don't have any need to, and just saying by virtue of owning the device they are just as bad as everyone else and we should fear them. And a lot of it is also driven by sheer distaste for the item at hand. It's silly. It's wrong.

How many of you would sit here and rail against me if I looked at the 9,878 deaths of last year due to drunk driving or the averaged 342 deaths this year alone (13th day of the new year), pointed to alcohol and said "Well, why do we need this? It's leaps and bounds more deadly than mass shootings?"

The 'intended use' vs the facts is just as bad as the slippery slope argument. And the end of the discussion (and yes, if we're talking about mass shootings), drunk driving deaths end more lives than sick people in mass shootings.

The problem is that when someone wants to kill people there's always a way to do it. I love gun's but they should be harder to get. But this isn't going to solve anything, as long as these killers are made famous from there actions there will always be killers. They'll use car's, poison, fire, we can't stop the method's we need to help these people before they commit these horrible crimes.

Shoggoth2588:
I would like to put out there that shotguns and skeet-shooting are also not bad. Owning a shotgun for the purposes of shooting skeet is (unless I'm mistaken) considered an Olympic sport other than just being a regular sport.

There are quite a few gun sports in the Olympics.

Anyway that being said, I'm from Mur-ka and agree with the points on both side. I can see gun ownership being important to home and personal defense but at this point don't see why law abiding gun owners don't switch out to non-lethal ammo and/or electricity based weapons like tazers etc. A quick blast would incap someone long enough to restrain said person after all!

This assumes that guns are being kept to defend against PEOPLE. I know someone who keeps rifles to defend against black bears and moose--those are a bit harder to incapacitate than a human.

M-E-D The Poet:
I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.

1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

Guns are safe the same way that hammers and blowtorches are safe. If I left any tool sitting in my toolbox it would just collect dust. Nobody would be harmed. The purpose of a gun is to move a small pin a fraction of an inch. A riot gun (police shotgun) loaded with rubber shot, or tear gas/OC powder, is not defective. It moved that pin forward a fraction of an inch, just like if it was loaded with tactical buckshot. This illustrates that it is the intent of the user that dictates what a gun does.

M-E-D The Poet:

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

I got to see and clean up the aftermath of a man, high and drunk, plow a car into a bus stop full of children and one pregnant woman. I also took him to jail. He logged something like 9 (ten if you count the unborn kid) casualties in a fraction of a second. Good luck topping that with any gun.

M-E-D The Poet:

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

Majority opinion rarely holds sway with me, but I'd point out that the general consensus everywhere but the "United States of Euhmericah" is that universal free speech is bad too. Your consensus is wrong.

M-E-D The Poet:

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

Let's look at Chicago where guns are banned, criminals still have them and average Joe can't get one. You have a city where the criminal element, who never gave a damn about any laws let alone gun laws, can act knowing they always have the monopoly on force. You can't uninvent the gun. I could build you a break open shotgun with scrap metal behind any Home Depot or similar store on the planet.

M-E-D The Poet:

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

A shotgun in a secured gunsafe, like anything else in a secured gunsafe, cannot be accessed immediately and if you have time to mess about with locks you have time to call and wait for a police response.

M-E-D The Poet:

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

Anything you want to be a defensive weapon can be a defense weapon on the street. Your car can be a defense weapon. However, a shotgun or rifle are far more accurate, intimidating, and downright useful. Their only limitation is that it is difficult to carry one and go about your day, which is the only reason people rather carry pistols. If it were practical to lug my AR 15 around while I went grocery shopping I would, as it's the best weapon I know how to use.

M-E-D The Poet:

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.

You haven't seen an urban area infested with hogs have you? But I digress, what if you live and work in a city but enjoy hunting on your holidays? Where do you propose storing your hunting rifle?

Well at least we've got some healthy discussion going.

These were not "facts", just a blanket of subjective, offensive (and hypocritically "ludicrous") statements. It's also very nice of you to say "EUHMERICAH" and then ask people to be "polite, calm and respectful".

1) Of course guns are safe. Tens of millions of guns did not kill, wound or even fire today. Millions of guns were used safely in ranges, outdoors, training exercises and engagements safely, as intended. A peaceful gun owner is safer with a gun than the average driver is with a vehicle.

2) Violence is reality. That people argue a firearm does its job too well is simply astounding. When a small person can be protected against a violent group with a simple tool that fits in the hand, yes, that is the intent and the meaning of the word "equalizer". Do not even bring up non-lethal tools, they are clumsy, come with their own risks and are insufficient.

3) No one took a consensus, let alone came to such an absurd conclusion. There is a stigma about firearms in the same way the mainstream has done it against pornography, violent video games and the like: through the use of propaganda and public ignorance.

4) Most arguments against a small arms ban are valid. They are basic, commonplace, can be used safely, effectively and serve a fundamental purpose to defending life, property and preserving freedom. Gun bans are not reasonable, rational or restrictive, they revoke and infringe upon all people with prejudice.

5-7) There are very strong carry laws in America. Nobody is walking around the city with a shotgun or rifle slung over the back. However, a pistol is versatile and effective in all firearm applications. Get some real facts...

M-E-D The Poet:
I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.

1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.

Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.

the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns

People will stop appearing to "protect" this right when others quit attacking it and the people who defend it.

Gun control I like the idea of, gun bans I do not like. I think every gun we sell should be sold to someone trained to safely handle said gun, as well as someone who isn't in a mental state to do harm to themselves or others. I also think we need to start with small changes and work our way up. I do not think we need to ban guns of any sort currently legal.

Where I take issue with this thread is they are blaming the guns for problems created by the operators and not the guns. Unless there have been some major advances since I was in law enforcement, guns are not sentient. They have no control over their destiny. The gun itself is an inanimate object. Blaming inanimate objects is something that Americans have done well for many years. This is nothing more than creating a scapegoat to avoid placing responsibility on the shoulders of those creating the problem.

At the end of the day, a lot of people have a connection to guns that isn't logical. So there is no point in talking to gun hawks. They idolize guns, and a large portion of them simply live in fear.

Xangba:
FFS, another. Okay been avoiding them but this is ridiculous. Nothing you have to say will add anything to this.

Guns are a tool intended to harm? Yeah we have a lot of tools intended to do harm. Whoopdee doo.

Everywhere except America hates them? Switzerland would like a word with you. Big time.

A semi-automatic weapon in a storage area is less of a home defense weapon than a shotgun?

Living in an urban area means you would never just drive to a hunting area with your rifle?

And for the love of god the restriction of them is impossible in America. You can't point to another country that has very tight gun laws and say "Look at them! They do it!" because in that country guns have not been as widespread as they are in America. They are everywhere. If someone wants one, they will get one.

See, I can make a list of my views too. Spoiler alert, what I say won't persuade you to what I believe. Good talk

Now, I am very glad someone mentioned Switzerland at the very least when it comes to foreign countries and their stance on firearm ownership. For those of you who would like some context, however, there is a unique reason as to why the Swiss have such widespread ownership among its citizenry: They have no standing army, and instead employ a militia, made up of civilians that are conscripted and undergo military and firearm training.

Here is the Wikipedia article for those who want to read about it in more detail, since I simply can't cut-and-paste the entire thing here, for fear of making a massive wall of text.

Now, to be more on point, the chances of firearms being banned outright in the U.S., or much less more controlled, are slim and laughable. The fact that they are widespread is only one reason behind why it's unlikely, as well as the fact that, yes, its a constitutional right. Yes, you can debate whether or not it still applies today, and in the way of owning a firearm for self-defense, but the fact of the matter is, until its amended in such a way that it no longer applies at all, it still still be a valid counter-argument, if something of a cop-out.

Here is what the Second Amendment states:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And the Wikipedia article on that as well.

Now, those points aside, I should point out that, one of the largest problems with firearm violence in America today is, most often, due to one or both of these two factors: Malicious Intent, and Irresponsible Firearm Handling.

Now, Malicious Intent can rarely be avoided, and when someone is truly determined, they will commit the crime they have set out to commit, regardless. Yes, a firearm will make murder easier, but a registered firearm will make it easier to catch the culprit. If it was an unregistered, illegally obtained firearm, then it's a moot point. Gun control laws will not stop illegal firearm acquisitions any more than DRM does for video game piracy. It only limits those who can legally acquire them.

However, Irresponsible Firearm Handling, can be prevented. You drill those who ever handle a gun with firearm safety until it becomes second nature, and then you prevent any accidental discharges, or other stupidity that can cause injury or death when it comes to guns.

Now, I won't say that more emphasis on firearm safety will solve everything when it comes to gun violence. The issue is much more complicated than that, and I won't even pretend to think that I know the first thing about solving it in it's entirety. But, being more responsible with firearms is a good place to start, as opposed to restrictive gun control laws, or outright banning them.

1. Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

This I agree with. Yes, I gun is a tool, mostly comparable to a knife in function, though knives aren't JUST weapons

2. People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

A knife to the jugular will kill you just as quickly as a bullet.

3. The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

Okay, I can't speak for the rest of the world since I haven't ever left the states, so I won't comment here.

4. The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

I understand, but most people who commit gun related crimes don't legally own a gun in the first place(or at least the one(s) they use in the crime. Taking guns away via legal means still wont completely eliminate the criminal element.

5. A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

I would prefer a pistol to a shotgun for self-defense purposes. Much less collateral damage that way, and much less cumbersome.

6. A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

I agree here

7. Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.

Are you referring to owning, or carrying? I know people who live in the city who like to hunt, why shouldn't they be allowed to?

It doesn't matter whether guns are safe. It doesn't matter whether guns have any use in self defense, recreation, or crime. It doesn't matter whether they kill people.

What matters is that Americans desire to own firearms. And the ownership of firearms does not trespass upon the rights of those who do not desire to own firearms.

This is America. I am an American. I've never owned a gun in my life. I don't really want to. But I will not allow my freedom to be stifled by cowards.

Nicely said, I agree with this 95%... the 5%? I do wish to own a gun, just not sure what kind I'm going to get for my concealed carry.

CAPTHA: Vegan diet
But my tasty tasty murder :(

DarkRyter:
It doesn't matter whether guns are safe. It doesn't matter whether guns have any use in self defense, recreation, or crime. It doesn't matter whether they kill people.

What matters is that Americans desire to own firearms. And the ownership of firearms does not trespass upon the rights of those who do not desire to own firearms.

This is America. I am an American. I've never owned a gun in my life. I don't really want to. But I will not allow my freedom to be stifled by cowards.

Thank you.

Finally, someone who mirrors my opinion on the matter.

Besides, for every psycho douche-bag that uses a gun to kill there are thousands if millions that use them safely. Whether for self-defense or for recreation, the vast majority don't misuse firearms.

Look at it this way: a ban on guns is similar to Blizzard or Ubisoft level DRM for games. And, if many here at the Escapist routinely whine about that type of DRM, then I find it a bit hypocritical to demand a ban on firearms at the same time.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All that said, I'm still for some slightly stricter gun laws. Particularly in the form of background checks.

M-E-D The Poet:

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

I had to comment on this particular "fact".

General concensus everywhere but "Euhmericah"?

I believe much of the Middle East, North (and to a degree South) Africa, majority of South America, Mexico, and a slew of other regions and nations would like to disagree.

*Facepalm* This again?

Guess this argument will be going for a roundabout as usual.

Well my guns help protect me so its really the least I can do for them.

OT: Firearms do not have a large effect on crime one way or another. Instead one should look to social and economic conditions of an area and how it relates to the crime. You could compare your own South Africa to the Czech Republic. The gun laws (at least what I gather from wikipedia) are fairly similar, yet South Africa has a murder rate about ten times that of the Czech Republic. This is due to conditions in South Africa that I imagine would exist without firearms.

Also, a shotgun in a safe is a pretty shitty home defense weapon. Have you ever tried to open a safe in the dark while someone is breaking/broken into your house? It seems like it be a little difficult. However I can get to my AKM or my Glock in seconds and can meet any threat quickly.

Why should where I live determine what I can own? What if I live in a city due to my job but I like to go out into the country to hunt?

Do you know in the US handguns kill about 15X as many people as rifles and shotguns? Baseball bats kill more then long arms.

Finally, the reason Americans often believe they should be able to own things like AR-15s is because we are a country born of rebellion and most believe the citizenry should be able to repeat the process if necassary. While no one thinks that we could defeat the US military with semi-automatic rifles, its been proven many times that these weapons would be the seed that allow a revolution to grow and acquire the tools necessary to fight. That and any popular rebellion in the US would be aided by elements if not a majority of the US military.

Captcha: Know your rights
Indeed.

PS, this should be in Religion and Politics.

M-E-D The Poet:
I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.

1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

Target shooting is a sport, in fact it's even an Olympic sport. Go to a firing range sometime.

M-E-D The Poet:

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

Replace guns with weed and you'll have the same argument.

Well...

Fuck it.

I am going to make my point, once, in this thread and this thread only.

I am a Brit. I have never held a gun. Whilst I would love to go target shooting at some point there are not very many shooting ranges around. If I could legally own a gun... I wouldn't. Just escalates everything way way too far. If someone came into my home, armed, and wanted to steal my shit? Take it. Its insured. If someone came into my home to kill me? Well, I just do not think that it is likely, at all, nor are any of the other home invasion scenarios. The world, or Britain at least, is somewhat empty of psychotic home invading killer rapists. And if I ever came across a psychotic home invading killer rapist I am pretty certain I would be fucked.

Just getting all of that out of the way.

Can people shut the fuck up about America and guns?

Its an American issue, not a global issue. It is not as black and white as many people think. The USA is fucking huge. It has motherfucking colossal borders, both land and sea. The bad guys WILL get guns. Disarming the American populace would both be incredibly incredibly difficult and utterly pointless. Oh, and damaging. Hell, has anyone even considered the economic damage that would be caused by removing the domestic gun market?

Do I think that it is mad that Americans are armed? Yes. I look at myself, realise I would never want a gun, realise I hate weaponry and realise that my reasoning is rational.

Do I think that guns should be outlawed in the states? Nope. There are way too many in circulation, way too many jobs in making them, all of those arguments actually hold true. With the Mexican border as porous as it is it would be impossible to remove the guns from America. You outlaw guns only outlaws have guns.

Leave the guns alone. The situation is pretty much unique. Pointing at crime figures for disarmed nations (Or other armed nations) is pointless.

Stopped reading after "EUHMERICAH"
Yea, sorry but people really need to grow up, this 'Murica and various other concoctions need to stop. People who use nonsense like this and try to waggle their finger at the US need to realize that they're being childish cretins. Best way to start a discussion? Insult the person, fucking genius.

Vigormortis:

M-E-D The Poet:

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

I had to comment on this particular "fact".

General concensus everywhere but "Euhmericah"?

I believe much of the Middle East, North (and to a degree South) Africa, majority of South America, Mexico, and a slew of other regions and nations would like to disagree.

Just about every country, really.

If you honestly believe banning weapons makes violent crime rates go down, you are deluding yourself. Guns do not turn people into killers, killers turn guns into weapons.

The legal right to possess a firearm is preserved to give American Citizens the ability to defend themselves against their government. Look what happened to Austria after it was annexed by Hitler's Third Reich. The first liberty taken away from the Austrians was gun ownership. After the guns were taken, then the Nazis began the genocide in Austria.

In addition, I just can't get over how poor your reasoning is in your initial argument. Guns aren't used for anything but malicious harm? Recreational target practice, hunting, self defense, and militia drilling are all uses.

M-E-D The Poet:

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own

Switzerland would like a word with you kiddo.

And you lose all credibility once you become one of those people who spells america like that.

Rednog:
Stopped reading after "EUHMERICAH"
Yea, sorry but people really need to grow up, this 'Murica and various other concoctions need to stop. People who use nonsense like this and try to waggle their finger at the US need to realize that they're being childish cretins. Best way to start a discussion? Insult the person, fucking genius.

I love it when people post stuff like that, I can safely discount them in all future discussions as drooling fools :P

Well i guess I can agree with you to some point there. My opinion: Hypothetically speaking, what if all the guns in the world just disappeared. what do you guys think will happen?

OneOfTheMichael's:
Well i guess I can agree with you to some point there. My opinion: Hypothetically speaking, what if all the guns in the world just disappeared. what do you guys think will happen?

They will be rebuilt.

If all guns (legal and illegal) disappeared from the US overnight as well as any company that makes them in the US, all that will happen is that illegal guns will flood across the borders from pretty much every direction. Considering our track record for stopping illegal drugs.......

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked