People should stop protecting guns

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Woooooo lets all get wound up into hysterics by our love of guns!

I mean, seriously, you can't be safe unless you are surrounded by at least 6 firearms.
And a collection of landmines.

And don't talk to me about tasers either.
Those things are dangerous man.

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

1: EDIT: Checked my stats, Baseball bats are not in fact the most dangerous weapon in the U.S., so I exclude that point, however my point stands that many things are dangerous and some are more dangerous than guns.

2: So what you're saying is even if not everyone has guns they'll still die? Most people that are murdered by guns are either killed by crimes of passion or a premeditated crime, either way those people will probably end up dead.

3: By your use of the word "EUHMERICAH" smacks of some kind of cultural bias, further evidence to this bias is that later down in the thread you refer to "civilized countries" not allowing gun ownership, the implication that America isn't civilized because people can own guns, and many country allow their citizens to own guns.

4: Gun laws don't affect criminals, so that's a perfectly valid argument, if you remove a means of self defense you remove the right to defend yourself, if people can't defend themselves the criminals are more free to commit crimes.

5: If I defend myself with a shotgun it's self defense, if I defend myself with a semiautomatic rifle it's still self defense, if I defend myself with an orange traffic cone it's self defense.

6: Not many people carry rifles or shotguns out in public, since it's sort of illegal, if you do that you are a criminal, so we agree on that point.

7: If I live in the city and like to hunt in nearby woods what's the problem?

Do guns kill people? Yes. Are they dangerous? Yes. Should Joe Blow own an AK-47 with armor piercing rounds, a high-capacity drum magazine, and a scope? Probably not.

Do they kill more people than water? Cars? Cigarettes? Drugs? Alcohol? Medical errors? Accidental poisonings? Household accident? Or people killing each other the old fashion way? No on all accounts. Do guns provide the ability to defend yourself, your family, and your property? Yes. Do they provide people the ability to hunt and shoot for sport? Yes. Can people be trained to respect guns and handle them safety? Yes.

Guns account for roughly 30,000 deaths a year in the U.S., less than 5,000 of which are intentional gun homicides, in a single week cigarettes kill roughly 14,000 people in the U.S..

Also this belongs in Religion & Polotics

Ryotknife:

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.......

I meant all guns in the world. forever. like the even concept of them disappeared as well. Eh i guess this hypothetical question was put down badly.
Honestly I would have thought we'd just find another way to kill/defend ourselves.

TopazFusion:

People should stop protecting guns

People should stop making these threads.

This argument is completely pointless, since pro-guns people will continue to use slippery-slope fallacies, and anti-guns people will continue to use false equivalence fallacies.

"False equivalence fallacies?" What objects are being unjustly compared? Assault weapons and other guns or melee weapons? No, that would be a pro-gun argument that could be used for the "You'll ban everything!" slippery slope (though it's not too slippery of a slope).

Assault weapons kill dozens in a minute as in the highly-reported-on shootings. Other weapons kill much fewer in a minute, right?

"guns are only meant to kill"

First point right out of the gate is false. Good start. Guns have a certain level of capability to kill that other tools may lack, but to say their only purpose is to kill is just wrong. Or at the very least you don't understand what "only" means.

OneOfTheMichael's:

Ryotknife:

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.......

I meant all guns in the world. forever. like the even concept of them disappeared as well. Eh i guess this hypothetical question was put down badly.
Honestly I would have thought we'd just find another way to kill/defend ourselves.

i would imagine that eventually they would be rediscovered. Might take decades. If Einstien was never born, do you think that nuclear bombs (or the technology derived from this knowledge) would never exist?

Course, I cant really prove any of this, just a matter of opinion.

This forum has an unusually high population of timid, idealist, peaceniks who don't seem to understand that we don't live in some perfect world with no violence or problems.

WE F**KING DON'T

The world is full of people who've seen stuff that would make most of us westernized pasty faced mommas boys wet our pants and start crying.

With gun control all that is done is you ensure the law abiding citizens are unarmed, while the criminals still have them.

corvuscorrax:

With gun control all that is done is you ensure the law abiding citizens are unarmed, while the criminals still have them.

You know, this kind of misinformation isn't much better than what the OP is presenting. "Gun control" is not synonymous with "gun ban". If you want to keep guns away from violent criminals you support gun control. The issue isn't gun control itself, but the specific type of gun control.

M-E-D The Poet:
with a sane mind can understand.

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

Immediately start by saying anyone who disagrees with your 'points' is a lunatic, then ask for people to be respectful and polite... what? Give the respect you expect in return.

M-E-D The Poet:

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

Sports shooting. You are wrong.

M-E-D The Poet:

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

People may kill people but people with letter openers kill them a whole lot faster. You can say this for almost anything.

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

General consensus is and always will be irrelevant. Or did I miss the meeting where we now get to vote on reality. People in the middle ages voted that prayer could cure sickness. Did that mean it was true?

Also you do realize that 'everywhere else' includes countries that literally have AK-47s on their flags as well as countries that are in the middle of armed rebellions against dictators(which they believe is only possible with guns.) I'm going to go ahead and call a big fat bullshit on that statement. Europe/Canada/Australia/Japan aren't 'everywhere else.' Also even then, Switzerland waaaay disagrees. Heavy government control of guns does not mean people thing guns are bad, it just means the government want's to ensure that they are the only ones with guns.

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.

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.

This makes absolutely no sense on multiple levels. Are you the king of the universe who gets to decide what type of lethal force is acceptable. Oh it's totally self defense if you kill someone with 12 gauge buckshot, but if it's 9mm bullets then you're a murderer?

If someone breaks into my house and I happen to have an assault rifle, they start shooting at me and I gun them down, was that weapon used in self defense or am I the evil aggressor? And if it was used in defense, does that not make it a defense weapon?

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.

So no one in the suburbs is allowed to ever go hunting on the weekends? Or they have to leave their rifle out in the woods when they leave, maybe buried in a hole where they can dig it out later? Or do they have to rent a gun every time they go? Or are they just supposed to be one dimensional caricatures of people, who aren't allowed to have interests outside of the group norm for their societal/cultural background?

Thank you kind OP. All this time, living in the city proper with my Mossberg 835 not locked in anything other than a closet is wrong and all this time I have been wrong for owning something that I can always have handy to put out on pawn/loan if something unexpected occurs. I had no idea that I had no rational justifiable reason to do this, but I will be sure to report to the local police precinct to relinquish control of my shotgun that I had no right to posess, dispite legally purchasing it and submitting to background checks to reclaim it each time I put it out on pawn/loan.

Any ideas for something else I can invest in to replace this as my default "any pawn shop will take this on loan" item considering I live in a hunting culture where children are exposed to guns essentially every single day they have existed on this rock? Too many guitars, None will touch car stereo equipment, power Tools are out simply for the assumption they are stolen, The offerings on electronics are abysmal considering how pervasive things like HDTVs, digital cameras, GPS and Xbox 360s are. Oh yeah thats right, That was the reason I bought the thing in the first place. (that and I was going to be staying in my home state for about half a year and both gun and truck ownership are required by law.

Edit: Good thing I didnt mention that despite living within the city limits, I have actually used it within those city limits, Even shooting in the direction of a church less than 25 feet away no less. /gasp, heads would roll if if I mentio..DAMNIT!

Ryotknife:

OneOfTheMichael's:

Ryotknife:

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.......

I meant all guns in the world. forever. like the even concept of them disappeared as well. Eh i guess this hypothetical question was put down badly.
Honestly I would have thought we'd just find another way to kill/defend ourselves.

i would imagine that eventually they would be rediscovered. Might take decades. If Einstien was never born, do you think that nuclear bombs (or the technology derived from this knowledge) would never exist?

Course, I cant really prove any of this, just a matter of opinion.

Well guns would most likely be re invented but if einstein never existed we wouldnt ever have anything of his work considering he was a one of a kind who made a lot of discoveries for humanity.

Military/law-enforcement-grade weapons/accessories do not need to be accessible by the public.
There are no arguments that can be made.

There are 2 states that do not let people pump their own gas (because it is flammable), yet still uphold the second amendment.

Read up the definition of "amendment".. there is no reason why it can't be amended again.

M-E-D The Poet:

You mean to say you think it's logical/sensible/normal/adequate for someone to have a hunting rifle in their apartment?

People are able to leave the city you know. You assume that because someone would live in an urban setting that it's not possible they'd have a love of hunting, and even if they have a hunting camp to go out to they're not going to leave their firearms alone in such an unsecured location. Yeah, I'd question why someone who doesn't hunt or partake in recreational gun sports is packing a hunting rifle in their New York apartment; frankly it's a poor choice for home defense if that's what they're going for. Still it's not really any of my business what that person chooses to keep in their home.

On a side note:

Despite how pop culture portrays the US, we are not in a constant state of urban warfare brought on by a free-for-all of every citizen owning a gun; the same way that Africa is not the constant war-torn, impoverished, uncivilized, disease riddled, tribal hell hole that it's portrayed as.

OneOfTheMichael's:

Ryotknife:

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.......

I meant all guns in the world. forever. like the even concept of them disappeared as well. Eh i guess this hypothetical question was put down badly.
Honestly I would have thought we'd just find another way to kill/defend ourselves.

Of course we will. We'll do it the way we did it before guns. Spears, blunt weapons, swords, etc. Miniature repeater crossbows will become very popular i imagine.

Also, this thread needs an expert derailer. I'm not qualified for the job, but someone has to do it.

jovack22:
Military/law-enforcement-grade weapons/accessories do not need to be accessible by the public.
There are no arguments that can be made.

There are 2 states that do not let people pump their own gas (because it is flammable), yet still uphold the second amendment.

Read up the definition of "amendment".. there is no reason why it can't be amended again.

Sure there are arguments that can be made, I live in one of the states that doesnt let you pump gas (I do anyway but thats a different matter) and I just bought one of these:
image

(Damn a semi auto 12 guage with 20 round drums is a beast)

But you know why I own one? (other than my job as armed security) Is because I know how to handle it, I treat it with respect, and my owning it is not putting anyone in danger (other than some fool who breaks into my house).

That little beauty wont jump out of its locker and go on a rampage if I forget to lock it down, it wont decide one day 'fuck this asshole, ima shoot him!' because it has no motive of its own, it does what I make it do.

FelixG:

jovack22:
Military/law-enforcement-grade weapons/accessories do not need to be accessible by the public.
There are no arguments that can be made.

There are 2 states that do not let people pump their own gas (because it is flammable), yet still uphold the second amendment.

Read up the definition of "amendment".. there is no reason why it can't be amended again.

Sure there are arguments that can be made, I live in one of the states that doesnt let you pump gas (I do anyway but thats a different matter) and I just bought one of these:
image

(Damn a semi auto 12 guage with 20 round drums is a beast)

But you know why I own one? (other than my job as armed security) Is because I know how to handle it, I treat it with respect, and my owning it is not putting anyone in danger (other than some fool who breaks into my house).

That little beauty wont jump out of its locker and go on a rampage if I forget to lock it down, it wont decide one day 'fuck this asshole, ima shoot him!' because it has no motive of its own, it does what I make it do.

Here lies the problem. You're treating this weapon as something of beauty. The "right to bear arms" is so deeply rooted in your mind for some reason that you will never see any other point of view.

Now, of course the argument can be made that responsible people will make sure nothing bad ever happens. However you're ignoring that fact that this still leaves open a liability... a small chance, but in a country of 300mil, even a small percentage is too much.

Why do you need this gun? I suppose art, nature, science, literature just have anything to keep you occupied with your time?

Let me add... it's true not all places are lucky enough to have low crime. I don't think there's anything wrong with being allowed to keep some sort of firearm for self-defence. But no one needs military grade weapons to defend themselves.

If you need an M4 carbine, you have bigger problems.

It's true, criminals will always be able to obtain these guns, but restricting guns will help.

You live in the United States... perhaps I am not accustomed to the culture, but I can tell you in Canada and many other countries (including Bosnia) people function just fine without the need for keeping such powerful guns.

jovack22:

FelixG:

jovack22:
Military/law-enforcement-grade weapons/accessories do not need to be accessible by the public.
There are no arguments that can be made.

There are 2 states that do not let people pump their own gas (because it is flammable), yet still uphold the second amendment.

Read up the definition of "amendment".. there is no reason why it can't be amended again.

Sure there are arguments that can be made, I live in one of the states that doesnt let you pump gas (I do anyway but thats a different matter) and I just bought one of these:
(Image snip)

(Damn a semi auto 12 guage with 20 round drums is a beast)

But you know why I own one? (other than my job as armed security) Is because I know how to handle it, I treat it with respect, and my owning it is not putting anyone in danger (other than some fool who breaks into my house).

That little beauty wont jump out of its locker and go on a rampage if I forget to lock it down, it wont decide one day 'fuck this asshole, ima shoot him!' because it has no motive of its own, it does what I make it do.

Here lies the problem. You're treating this weapon as something of beauty. The "right to bear arms" is so deeply rooted in your mind for some reason that you will never see any other point of view.

Now, of course the argument can be made that responsible people will make sure nothing bad ever happens. However you're ignoring that fact that this still leaves open a liability... a small chance, but in a country of 300mil, even a small percentage is too much.

Why do you need this gun? I suppose art, nature, science, literature just have anything to keep you occupied with your time?

Of course I find it beautiful, I find a large number of well designed and functional machines beautiful, doesnt matter if it is a car, a computer, or a gun. That is just me being a Mechanophile, not a statement on weapons themselves, there are plenty of ugly weapons.

The irresponsible people will find ways to hurt themselves and others just as readily without firearms, just look at all the vehicle deaths every year, if I recall correctly the deaths from automobiles last year outweighs every firearm death (Ignoring wars) that has been suffered in the United States

And this particular gun is a work tool, as I said I worked armed security and also do bodyguard work. Though it is also a fun gun to take out and shoot targets with. Though its rather scary that at the moment I can get bottles of soda cheaper than I can get clay pigeons to shoot at.

On art, nature, science, and literature; I visit a local art gallery once a week when I can as its free (its a small one but rotates local artists work through every week or two), I work graveyards a lot so nature...is rather dark and I dislike being outside in general, so nope.exe, science isnt in my work purview but I like reading articles about it, and literature I read 4-5 books a month (mostly military sci fi for full disclosure).

Just because I enjoy aspects of weapons and my personal firearm collection as it relates to my job doesnt mean I am a lout.

FelixG:

jovack22:

FelixG:

Sure there are arguments that can be made, I live in one of the states that doesnt let you pump gas (I do anyway but thats a different matter) and I just bought one of these:
(Image snip)

(Damn a semi auto 12 guage with 20 round drums is a beast)

But you know why I own one? (other than my job as armed security) Is because I know how to handle it, I treat it with respect, and my owning it is not putting anyone in danger (other than some fool who breaks into my house).

That little beauty wont jump out of its locker and go on a rampage if I forget to lock it down, it wont decide one day 'fuck this asshole, ima shoot him!' because it has no motive of its own, it does what I make it do.

Here lies the problem. You're treating this weapon as something of beauty. The "right to bear arms" is so deeply rooted in your mind for some reason that you will never see any other point of view.

Now, of course the argument can be made that responsible people will make sure nothing bad ever happens. However you're ignoring that fact that this still leaves open a liability... a small chance, but in a country of 300mil, even a small percentage is too much.

Why do you need this gun? I suppose art, nature, science, literature just have anything to keep you occupied with your time?

Of course I find it beautiful, I find a large number of well designed and functional machines beautiful, doesnt matter if it is a car, a computer, or a gun. That is just me being a Mechanophile, not a statement on weapons themselves, there are plenty of ugly weapons.

The irresponsible people will find ways to hurt themselves and others just as readily without firearms, just look at all the vehicle deaths every year, if I recall correctly the deaths from automobiles last year outweighs every firearm death (Ignoring wars) that has been suffered in the United States

And this particular gun is a work tool, as I said I worked armed security and also do bodyguard work. Though it is also a fun gun to take out and shoot targets with. Though its rather scary that at the moment I can get bottles of soda cheaper than I can get clay pigeons to shoot at.

On art, nature, science, and literature; I visit a local art gallery once a week when I can as its free (its a small one but rotates local artists work through every week or two), I work graveyards a lot so nature...is rather dark and I dislike being outside in general, so nope.exe, science isnt in my work purview but I like reading articles about it, and literature I read 4-5 books a month (mostly military sci fi for full disclosure).

Just because I enjoy aspects of weapons and my personal firearm collection as it relates to my job doesnt mean I am a lout.

You posted too quickly, so I'll just repost my edit here:

Let me add... it's true not all places are lucky enough to have low crime. I don't think there's anything wrong with being allowed to keep some sort of firearm for self-defence. But no one needs military grade weapons to defend themselves.

If you need an M4 carbine, you have bigger problems.

It's true, criminals will always be able to obtain these guns, but restricting guns will help.

You live in the United States... perhaps I am not accustomed to the culture, but I can tell you in Canada and many other countries (including Bosnia) people function just fine without the need for keeping such powerful guns.

I can also appreciate great works of science and engineering, but there's a reason that Einstein deeply regretted working on the Manhattan project after he saw what the aftermath was.

Again, to each is own, but in a world without guns, senseless mass murders like these would not be possible by any misguided individual. Quebec, Norway, USA movie theatre, USA school, etc etc. This is not including any transgressions between nations.

Like I said, I don't doubt that you are a responsible individual. Nor are the majority. But it's the small minority that are a problem. And the fact is that guns can be used for great evil, quickly and efficiently.

jovack22:

FelixG:

jovack22:

Here lies the problem. You're treating this weapon as something of beauty. The "right to bear arms" is so deeply rooted in your mind for some reason that you will never see any other point of view.

Now, of course the argument can be made that responsible people will make sure nothing bad ever happens. However you're ignoring that fact that this still leaves open a liability... a small chance, but in a country of 300mil, even a small percentage is too much.

Why do you need this gun? I suppose art, nature, science, literature just have anything to keep you occupied with your time?

Of course I find it beautiful, I find a large number of well designed and functional machines beautiful, doesnt matter if it is a car, a computer, or a gun. That is just me being a Mechanophile, not a statement on weapons themselves, there are plenty of ugly weapons.

The irresponsible people will find ways to hurt themselves and others just as readily without firearms, just look at all the vehicle deaths every year, if I recall correctly the deaths from automobiles last year outweighs every firearm death (Ignoring wars) that has been suffered in the United States

And this particular gun is a work tool, as I said I worked armed security and also do bodyguard work. Though it is also a fun gun to take out and shoot targets with. Though its rather scary that at the moment I can get bottles of soda cheaper than I can get clay pigeons to shoot at.

On art, nature, science, and literature; I visit a local art gallery once a week when I can as its free (its a small one but rotates local artists work through every week or two), I work graveyards a lot so nature...is rather dark and I dislike being outside in general, so nope.exe, science isnt in my work purview but I like reading articles about it, and literature I read 4-5 books a month (mostly military sci fi for full disclosure).

Just because I enjoy aspects of weapons and my personal firearm collection as it relates to my job doesnt mean I am a lout.

You posted too quickly, so I'll just repost my edit here:

Let me add... it's true not all places are lucky enough to have low crime. I don't think there's anything wrong with being allowed to keep some sort of firearm for self-defence. But no one needs military grade weapons to defend themselves.

If you need an M4 carbine, you have bigger problems.

It's true, criminals will always be able to obtain these guns, but restricting guns will help.

You live in the United States... perhaps I am not accustomed to the culture, but I can tell you in Canada and many other countries (including Bosnia) people function just fine without the need for keeping such powerful guns.

I can also appreciate great works of science and engineering, but there's a reason that Einstein deeply regretted working on the Manhattan project after he saw what the aftermath was.

Again, to each is own, but in a world without guns, senseless mass murders like these would not be possible by any misguided individual. Quebec, Norway, USA movie theatre, USA school, etc etc. This is not including any transgressions between nations.

Like I said, I don't doubt that you are a responsible individual. Nor are the majority. But it's the small minority that are a problem. And the fact is that guns can be used for great evil, quickly and efficiently.

I am indeed a quick poster, it comes from years upon years of practice :P

And for the record, that is a Saiga 12 Assault Shotgun, made by those wonderful folk in russia!

Why do people keep thinking that because canada and the Uk and Bosnia function fine without high powered weapons that it is somehow better? It is not. It is just different. Israel and Switzerland has it just fine to own such weapons (In some cases mandatory) and they dont have the problems that the US has, so it is obviously not a problem with the weapons or their availability themselves.

There are other factors at work here such as mental health and public education that need to be addressed instead of knee jerk reactions without thought.

And sure, those mass murders would still happen, the insane people who do these things are not necessarily stupid, you could go to Home Depot (A massive hardware store for those unaware of what it is) and walk out ten minutes later with the equipment to make a few dozen pipe bombs, and it will be cheaper and less of a hassle than getting a gun. The trick comes from putting them together, which takes a fraction longer but these tend to be FAR more deadly.

And its fairly simple to learn to make a pipebomb from google (Would post a link but dont want the mods to get on my ass xD)

jovack22:

Again, to each is own, but in a world without guns, senseless mass murders like these would not be possible by any misguided individual. Quebec, Norway, USA movie theatre, USA school, etc etc. This is not including any transgressions between nations.

I'd hate to bud in on your conversation, but this is simply not true, look up the Thuggee, they killed 2 million people with garottes, some of the worst mass killings in the U.S. were perpetrated without guns, the worst school-child killing has perpetrated by a man with a bomb. A gun is a means to an end, if you want someone dead you grab a gun, if one isn't available you grab a knife or a club or you make a bomb.

Nations fought long, bloody wars with spears and bows, people will kill people in the absence of a gun, or any other weapon for that matter.

The US constitution says that if our government ceases to serve the will of the people, we have a right and a duty to begin an armed revolt. The second amendment is meant to give citizens the resources to potentially do that. Not ever country has a clause in its highest laws that tell the people to destroy the government if necessary. That immediately makes things more complicated.

That said, stop treating everyone in the US like an empty headed douche. The general public in every country is ignorant, that's human nature. Not everyone supports gun ownership and not everyone is a jingoistic asshole. It's a more complicated issue that can't be solved by some person saying "You're all dumb. Just don't have guns. We don't have guns."

I wish some company would popularize some non-lethal alternative to guns and some sort of actual defensive device. When you're only defense to offensive force is to have your own offensive force you aggravate the situation rather then disarm it.

OneOfTheMichael's:

I meant all guns in the world. forever.

Then we simply begin making all other forms of projectile weaponry increasingly more and more and more deadly until they equal gunpowder based weaponry in lethality. Heck, there were times in warfare where crossbows were actually more powerful than the firearms of the time.

FelixG:

And for the record, that is a Saiga 12 Assault Shotgun, made by those wonderful folk in russia!

Why do people keep thinking that because canada and the Uk and Bosnia function fine without high powered weapons that it is somehow better? It is not. It is just different. Israel and Switzerland has it just fine to own such weapons (In some cases mandatory) and they dont have the problems that the US has, so it is obviously not a problem with the weapons or their availability themselves.

There are other factors at work here such as mental health and public education that need to be addressed instead of knee jerk reactions without thought.

And sure, those mass murders would still happen, the insane people who do these things are not necessarily stupid, you could go to Home Depot (A massive hardware store for those unaware of what it is) and walk out ten minutes later with the equipment to make a few dozen pipe bombs, and it will be cheaper and less of a hassle than getting a gun. The trick comes from putting them together, which takes a fraction longer but these tend to be FAR more deadly.

And its fairly simple to learn to make a pipebomb from google (Would post a link but dont want the mods to get on my ass xD)

I mentioned Bosnia because people there still are still nervous about their fragile political climate after the bloody civil war that took place.

But yes, deranged individuals can for sure go out and create plastic explosives. After taking organic chemistry, reverse engineering chemicals wasn't all that difficult (with some assistance of course depending on the difficulty) -- and that's for the 'fancy' stuff..

Society needs to change at a deeper level, there is no denying that, but having more restrictions on the sale and possession of weapons would help -- even if it is more of a 'band-aid'.

Just like cough syrup doesn't cure a cold.. but it does help with the cough.

I acknowledge and respect all your points, I appreciate that you didn't go down the ad hominem path, but I still believe that banning these larger scale weapons is a step in the right direction.

What is wrong with only having pistols for self defence?
If the sandy hook killer had only had pistols, you can make the argument that he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.

Or how about having contained areas where people can rent out whatever weapon they want within the confines, but return the weapons after they are done so everything is accounted for?

LarenzoAOG:

jovack22:

Again, to each is own, but in a world without guns, senseless mass murders like these would not be possible by any misguided individual. Quebec, Norway, USA movie theatre, USA school, etc etc. This is not including any transgressions between nations.

I'd hate to bud in on your conversation, but this is simply not true, look up the Thuggee, they killed 2 million people with garottes, some of the worst mass killings in the U.S. were perpetrated without guns, the worst school-child killing has perpetrated by a man with a bomb. A gun is a means to an end, if you want someone dead you grab a gun, if one isn't available you grab a knife or a club or you make a bomb.

Nations fought long, bloody wars with spears and bows, people will kill people in the absence of a gun, or any other weapon for that matter.

OK... you're talking about a group of people which primarily operated hundreds of years ago. How about if they were armed with firearms instead of garottes.

Yes, wars were fought throughout history. Historically, World War 2 can be argued to have had the most casualties.

I realize you are probably playing devil's advocate so here's a simple argument.

If X, Y, and Z are all methods of killing someone, and you add them all up, the casualties amount to X+Y+Z.
Are you saying that removing or lessening one of these variables from the equation would not result in less deaths?

M-E-D The Poet:
5/6 Gun experts and research has shown those are the most effective tools, indeed it is an opinion that it's the most sensible use but a short sanity check should help you out here :

What does a shotgun do? or in gun terms what is it's power? as opposed to your machine gun solely being there for suppression the shotgun would solely be there for stopping power/incapacitating your assailant.
A handgun/pistol would in the home defense case be much easier seen to have use of excessive force or be susceptible to accidents.

Now in the reverse case, being assailed in the street (if it ever may happen at all) you will need more freedom more agility and more precision, where the shotgun for home defense is meant to be one blast and over with the handgun/pistol in the street is rather to not harm others and be able to defend or attack over a longer range.

If you want me to look up the studies I'll be glad to but I'm sure some escapist gun-users can back me up here.

When someone is invading your home, how is killing them with a handgun any different than killing them with a shotgun? Either way they're dead, and either way you've shot them. As far as them being more susceptible to accidents, sure, if you're an idiot then they are. Consider this, however; where are you going to store this self-defense shotgun? A pistol handily fits into a nightstand drawer or a closet without being easily found. A shotgun, on the other hand, is much more difficult to hide. Personally, I feel safer with a handgun in my drawer where I can reach it in a moment's notice, likely without being heard, than a shotgun in my closer where I'll have to open up the door, find the shotgun, bring it out, then load it. Similarly, in the confines of your home, maneuvering around corners and hallways is much easier with a handgun than a shotgun.

On the other hand, while handguns may be the weapon of choice for self-defense on the street, you don't see people committing crimes when there's a guy carrying around a rifle on his back. Handguns are good for concealed carry, yes, and they give you an advantage there, but I don't see any problem with people carrying a rifle on the streets any more than a handgun.

As far as the "excessive force" goes, if someone attacks me with the intent to kill or cause permanent harm, I will empty my clip into them each and every time. It's how I was taught, and it makes sure they're down and out. Shooting them once or twice and then stopping because you didn't want to use "excessive force" is ridiculous when you're faced with a life or death situation and stopping to re-consider after every shot could be the difference between you walking out unharmed and being killed. If they start to run or drop their weapon sure, I'll stop shooting. Other than that, I'll stop when they're on the ground or when I'm out of ammo.

M-E-D The Poet:

1. In as much as wooden swords are the equivalent of that and we don't allow people running around with katanas and zweihanders in the public space yes.

Because sir that's the only comparison I can draw and would defeat the entire discussion altogether I should think.

7. How about storing your gun in a gunsafe in the town where you go to hunt? I mean sure it will be a menial task but no much more than going into a store to buy drinks whilst you're out there.

For your first point here, target shooting guns and those used for hunting are completely different from practice weapons versus real ones. A target pistol will shoot the same rounds as a concealed carry pistol, just more accurately, which would in fact make them deadlier on the streets. A wooden sword doesn't have the same cutting edge as a katana.

As for the second one, are you seriously suggesting that I should purchase a separate house for hundreds of thousands of dollars, coupled with a multiple-thousand dollar safe, just to keep my hunting gear in a town closer to where I go hunting? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, to be frank. Or are you suggesting a buy another safe and stick it out in the wilderness somewhere? Because that would be equally ridiculous.

BrassButtons:

Just about every country, really.

Did you actually read through that list?

Quite a few allow their citizens to own firearms.

Besides, there are countries missing from that list. Unless we're just "not counting" them. Which just makes the whole argument hilarious.

jovack22:

What is wrong with only having pistols for self defence?
If the sandy hook killer had only had pistols, you can make the argument that he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.

Or how about having contained areas where people can rent out whatever weapon they want within the confines, but return the weapons after they are done so everything is accounted for?

Actually, the rifle he used wasnt even the most efficient for what he was doing in the school, if he had wanted to do more damage he would have used a pistol.

Allow me to explain in my cold hearted logical way. Rifles are distance weapons, not ideal for close quarters work like you would encounter in a school, mostly because when you turn corners it is much easier for someone to take a rifle by the fore grip and move it out of the line of fire, where as you can hold a pistol much closer to your body and maintain control of the weapon.

Not only that but most bullets for his particular weapon of choice (Bushmaster AR15) are jacketed, which arent the ideal for killing unarmored targets, jacketed bullets are meant to punch through cover like tables, dirt and the like as well as body armor, you want hollowpoint which spread open to cause maximum damage when hitting an unarmored target and it is much easier to locate hollowpoint ammunition for pistols than rifles, particularly the AR15 he was using. Not to mention the weight and size, you can carry dozens more bullets for the pistol than the rifle as they are smaller, lighter and the magazines tend to be smaller as well.

So yeah, if he had chosen to go in with some well stocked pistols he could have made it much worse than it was already.

For the rental area, that could work, until the person renting the weapon turns it on the renter, kills em and goes to do what he wanted to do anyway ~.^

FelixG:

jovack22:

What is wrong with only having pistols for self defence?
If the sandy hook killer had only had pistols, you can make the argument that he wouldn't have been able to kill as many people.

Or how about having contained areas where people can rent out whatever weapon they want within the confines, but return the weapons after they are done so everything is accounted for?

Actually, the rifle he used wasnt even the most efficient for what he was doing in the school, if he had wanted to do more damage he would have used a pistol.

Allow me to explain in my cold hearted logical way. Rifles are distance weapons, not ideal for close quarters work like you would encounter in a school, mostly because when you turn corners it is much easier for someone to take a rifle by the fore grip and move it out of the line of fire, where as you can hold a pistol much closer to your body and maintain control of the weapon.

Not only that but most bullets for his particular weapon of choice (Bushmaster AR15) are jacketed, which arent the ideal for killing unarmored targets, jacketed bullets are meant to punch through cover like tables, dirt and the like as well as body armor, you want hollowpoint which spread open to cause maximum damage when hitting an unarmored target and it is much easier to locate hollowpoint ammunition for pistols than rifles, particularly the AR15 he was using. Not to mention the weight and size, you can carry dozens more bullets for the pistol than the rifle as they are smaller, lighter and the magazines tend to be smaller as well.

So yeah, if he had chosen to go in with some well stocked pistols he could have made it much worse than it was already.

For the rental area, that could work, until the person renting the weapon turns it on the renter, kills em and goes to do what he wanted to do anyway ~.^

Fair enough. I'll have to admit, I have fired both rifles and pistols, but I suppose your considerations do raise some valid points.

Of course, these confines would have to be monitored, secure areas, something like banks (not just some lethargic high school part time kids working behind a counter haha :P).

It's a difficult topic of course which goes down to our very freedoms... I mean, banning anything takes us one step closer to 1984... too much power in the hands of the government is never a good thing, but a fine balance is possible.

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.

Funny enough I wouldn't mind owning a nuclear weapon. And if the harm it can cause doesn't matter, and if my use of it doesn't matter..and it doesn't affect non-nuclear weapon owners...whats the problem?

The fact of the matter is that it DOES matter that they cause harm, can kill people very easily in certain hands.

Its totally insane that like everywhere else...you require that people get a drivers license to drive a car, but do not(federally) require gun licenses. You are literally requiring that people have a liscense to operate a dangerous vehicle, but then allowing anyone(in some places) to buy an EVEN MORE DANGEROUS weapon, with no proof that they know how to safely operate or store it. The only reason you do this..is because its in the constitution, NO other reason.

Mycroft Holmes:

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

General consensus is and always will be irrelevant. Or did I miss the meeting where we now get to vote on reality. People in the middle ages voted that prayer could cure sickness. Did that mean it was true?

Also you do realize that 'everywhere else' includes countries that literally have AK-47s on their flags as well as countries that are in the middle of armed rebellions against dictators(which they believe is only possible with guns.) I'm going to go ahead and call a big fat bullshit on that statement. Europe/Canada/Australia/Japan aren't 'everywhere else.' Also even then, Switzerland waaaay disagrees. Heavy government control of guns does not mean people thing guns are bad, it just means the government want's to ensure that they are the only ones with guns.

Europe/Canada/Australia/Japan all seem to disagree as well--none of those regions have outlawed civilian ownership of guns, so clearly the consensus in those places is not "guns are bad and shouldn't be owned". There really aren't that many countries that have banned civilian ownership of guns (though to be fair some countries don't have stable enough governments to try).

Vigormortis:

BrassButtons:

Just about every country, really.

Did you actually read through that list?

Quite a few allow their citizens to own firearms.

Yes; that's the point. Most countries would disagree with the claim that outside of the US guns are viewed as bad and shouldn't be owned.

jovack22:

LarenzoAOG:

jovack22:

Again, to each is own, but in a world without guns, senseless mass murders like these would not be possible by any misguided individual. Quebec, Norway, USA movie theatre, USA school, etc etc. This is not including any transgressions between nations.

I'd hate to bud in on your conversation, but this is simply not true, look up the Thuggee, they killed 2 million people with garottes, some of the worst mass killings in the U.S. were perpetrated without guns, the worst school-child killing has perpetrated by a man with a bomb. A gun is a means to an end, if you want someone dead you grab a gun, if one isn't available you grab a knife or a club or you make a bomb.

Nations fought long, bloody wars with spears and bows, people will kill people in the absence of a gun, or any other weapon for that matter.

OK... you're talking about a group of people which primarily operated hundreds of years ago. How about if they were armed with firearms instead of garottes.

Yes, wars were fought throughout history. Historically, World War 2 can be argued to have had the most casualties.

I realize you are probably playing devil's advocate so here's a simple argument.

If X, Y, and Z are all methods of killing someone, and you add them all up, the casualties amount to X+Y+Z.
Are you saying that removing or lessening one of these variables from the equation would not result in less deaths?

My point is instead of pointing at a thing and going "That thing was used to kill a person, it is evil and should be banned," we should point at the killer and say "Something led this man to kill someone, we should find out what it is and attempt to prevent it or educate people on how to avoid it." There are tons of problems that lead to gun crime, terrible education is a huge factor to the growth of inner city gangs, instead of trying to get rid of guns get rid of the gangs and get rid of the bad schools that churn out potential gang members. Instead of getting rid of guns when a crazy person shoots up a public place try to get more help for the mentally ill.

Guns can be used to provide for people, defend people, entertain people, and statistically they account for few deaths, at least in the U.S., I wouldn't be hanging around Jamaican ghettos anytime soon.

Would getting rid of guns prevent deaths? Yes, but only if I found a genie in a lamp, and even if I did I really want an Aston Martin DB5, so he better be one of those three wish genies.

Doom-Slayer:

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.

Funny enough I wouldn't mind owning a nuclear weapon. And if the harm it can cause doesn't matter, and if my use of it doesn't matter..and it doesn't affect non-nuclear weapon owners...whats the problem?

The fact of the matter is that it DOES matter that they cause harm, can kill people very easily in certain hands.

Its totally insane that like everywhere else...you require that people get a drivers license to drive a car, but do not(federally) require gun licenses. You are literally requiring that people have a liscense to operate a dangerous vehicle, but then allowing anyone(in some places) to buy an EVEN MORE DANGEROUS weapon, with no proof that they know how to safely operate or store it. The only reason you do this..is because its in the constitution, NO other reason.

People killed with guns in 2011: 11,101
People killed with cars in 2011: 32,310

Which is the more dangerous weapon there buddy? :P

And its actually a much harder check to get a gun than a drivers license, with the background checks and what not.

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 not safe, true, nor are knives, poisons, ect ect, lots of things can kill you. Only purpose is to wound or kill, false, they also are used for entertainment.
This is not to say we need guns, just that your argument is false, also there is the issue of the purpose of wounding or killing IE protection or safety from another.

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

There are quicker ways to kill people other then guns, poison gas, contamination of public use products, bombs, setting fire to a building. Yes guns are quick, but take them out of the equation and something else will take its place.
Take ammonia and bleach, two chemicals you have in your house that when combined would cause enough toxic fumes to potentially kill everyone inside your home.

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.

Tell that to the people who have an AK47 for their flag. Other countries allow gun ownership, and not all people thing guns are bad, they are powerful weapons that should be respected and handled like any object with the power to kill. Also the needless "EUHMERICAH" comment belittles your own argument and makes you look immature.

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).

Yes, you ban guns and less guns will be on the open market, or even the black market, it will mean less guns existing with the potential to do harm. I agree with you here.

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

A shotgun, assault rifle, and pistol can all be used as defense, as well as a weapon to kill or rob or murder.

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.

see above, also I see carrying around a pistol on your body as defense one of the stupidest/dangerous things you can do with a gun outside of illegal activity.

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

How would this be implemented?

I wouldn't say I am pro-guns, just wanted to argue the points you made.

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

Really. Then why do police have them? It's to help them serve and protect the community. Yes with guns.

Police use them to kill or, preferably, harm the criminal or to scare him into thinking they will do that (sometimes the perp gives up when police take out their guns). Yes, police officers do wound and even kill serving the community. So do soldiers. that does not validate the use of weapons for people whos job does not describe a right to harm other people.

People killed with guns in 2011: 11,101
People killed with cars in 2011: 32,310

Which is the more dangerous weapon there buddy? :P

And its actually a much harder check to get a gun than a drivers license, with the background checks and what not.

since guns is the only weapon you mentioned guns are the more dangerous of what you said. cars are not weapons. cars are tools intended to travel and when misused can kill. also note the extensive testing that is necessary for you to get a driving license as opposed to just buy in 5 minutes weapons.

Within the United States, the only way you could actually enforce a full-on ban (revoking the 2nd Amendment) on all guns would be to get warrants to search ever single house in the country (the Constitution states that the Government, Federal or State, cannot search someone's home without a warrant), or completely dismantle the constitution as a whole.

So guns would at least have to stay on the grounds of it being too hard to get *rid* of them. Or one party could completely dismantle the constitution and basically commit political mass suicide, but that's a pretty unlikely option.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked