People should stop protecting guns

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Zachary Amaranth:
America's gun fetish is one of the largest parts of the problem here. That's like saying you can't bring up racist attitudes when discussing slavery because you're going to piss someone off.

Yeah.

You know what I hate? I hate how France is stuck up. I hate how England is a bunch of weak pansies. I hate how Japan is a bunch of suicidal work-a-holics.

Oh wait. Those are all generalizations!

I forgot for a second that only uncultured, horribly sheltered people generalize about an entire country based upon the opinions and ideals of a select few.

I forgot that because a specific area of America has very strong viewpoints defending guns that it DOESN'T mean that I should stereotype the entire country to believe the same exact thing.

But hey, it's America, right?

Fuck those guys.

America has never done anything good, and most of the people in America are a bunch of insane idiots. As a matter of fact, the world would probably be a much better place without any involvement from America.

Look dude. I KNOW it's popular to generalize about the US. People seem to think that this country is a much smaller place than it is, and they like to demonize the whole entire place when a select few are the problems. But if you actually look into it, you'll find that America is the MOST diverse country on the planet. And if you've ever lived anywhere else, you might just realize how unfair it is for you to make the stupid generalizations that you make in your post.

This isn't 100% directed at you; I'm just sick of the hatred of this country. I love it here, and anyone who thinks it's a "bad" place is just a fucking moron.

/rant

ecoho:
your point is mute weather its right or wrong as it cant be inforced in the US.

I want you all to take a long hard look at this sentence.

This is why we need to put more money into the schools.

(Sorry, I agree with your point, but JESUS CHRIST DUDE.)

I've heard all the arguments before the internet was involved and the pro gun arguments have never made sense to me because the solution is always more guns. It is obvious that this is what the gun lobby wants people to think (guns are safe!) and since they have huge pull in the government of the United States of America and there is not enough opposition to the gun lobby, guns will not ever be banned or controlled because it makes too much money. It is much the same as cigarettes which are not banned although their side effects are worse than other recreational illegal drugs. Theoretically, if the threat of a Marxist or French revolution arises, i.e. the unemployed/working class rising up against the rich, a law to control or ban guns will undoubtedly be attempted and cause a revolution if enacted because it is against the constitution (another fact the NRA loves) and blatantly serves the rich who could find means to get around such a law.

M-E-D The Poet:
I'm going to boil this down to one point and you may then tell me whether this is something reasonable.

In your post you assume that when shooting with either a pistol or a shotgun at someone you're shooting to kill (not to incapacitate)

Why is that? and do you then think that such killing intent as you automatically assumed makes it safer for people to have guns over people who solely wish to protect?

Shooting to incapacitate is stupid, not because you don't want to kill someone but because there's a much greater chance that you'll end up being hurt yourself if you do. When you're facing down someone who is actively trying to kill you or someone else you rarely have time to process where you're going to aim, how you're going to do it, and so on. Shooting a moving person in a leg or arm isn't an easy thing even in the best of circumstances, and when your adrenaline is pumping and you don't have time to line up your shot perfectly then take the shot you're likely just going to end up on the bad end of that deal. A much better tactic, one that has a much greater chance of putting your opponent on the ground and keeping you and whoever you're protecting safe, is pointing the gun at their torso and firing until they're incapacitated. If it takes one round and they end up living that's great, but if that takes twelve rounds and they end up dead then so be it.

This comes down to protecting yourself after the incident as well. If you shoot someone there will be a criminal investigation, no matter what. Often those end up being "oh, he was attacking you? Yes, you have witnesses, yes you did the right thing, you're free to go", but just as often it gets dirty. When it does, you are going to want to be able to tell the judge and jury that you were afraid for your life, or the lives of others, and acted to save those lives. If you had the time to line up a shot and shoot the guy in the leg - which could just as easily kill him if it goes through the femoral artery as if it went through his heart - then your life clearly wasn't in that much danger.

That's the other thing; guns, when used against people, are most certainly weapons meant to kill. They can be used for target practice, sport shooting, and so on, in which case they're simply tools like any other sporting goods, but you never draw your weapon on a person unless you intend to kill them. Period, no exceptions. If that person backs down quickly then great, you don't have to shoot them. But if you've drawn your weapon without every intention of shooting and killing the attacker then you put yourself at a disadvantage in both a fight and in the legal action afterwards which can be taken advantage of by either the attacker or the family of the attacker during or afterwards. That's why, if I ever need to aim a gun at someone, I don't plan on "shooting to incapacitate". I plan on killing the guy.

Zachary Amaranth:

America's gun fetish is one of the largest parts of the problem here. That's like saying you can't bring up racist attitudes when discussing slavery because you're going to piss someone off.

you think gun culture is one of the largest problems we have?

so it is not:

inefficient bereuacracy
corrupt political system
racial and religious tensions
general crime, organized crime, and illegal goods
poor allocation of public resources
police being stretched thin to the point where they can not protect anyone during a crime
and poor economy?

at worst, guns are a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself.

slightly offtopic:

here is something interesting:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

gun ownership has been going steadily down over most of the 1991-2011 period, except at the end of 2010 where it spiked up.

You know what demographic also spiked up during the 2010-2011 timeframe? democratic and east coast gun owners, whom typically are the staunchest gun opponents.

wouldnt surprise me if we see another spike upwards this year. The gun industry really should cut the democrats and obama a part of their profits, afterall they are the best salesmen for guns you can ask for. Everytime the gun control debate gets heated, they PUSH people into buying guns.

Trees shouldn't be protected because I can make a arrows and kill you with a bow. Stores should stop selling knives cause if I wanted to I could fucking gut you with a paring knife. Stop selling bleach too, and fertilizer, and plastic bags. Stop selling glass cause I can cut you with broken shards. How about rocks? Thousands of years we let these seemingly innocent objects on the street and roads go. Yet, if someone felt like it they can bash your skull in with it. SO out with rocks, sticks, hands (wouldn't want to choke anyone), cars, nail guns, cables and all forms of stringy objects that can strangle with, pens and pencils, marbles, all chemical cleaners, trash compactors, and... well fuck it. We're this far along just stop protecting anything that can be used to kill something. Because we all know that's how reality works.

This can't be said more clear: Just because you think your opinion of something is fact does not make it true. Getting rid of or banning or limiting or whatever doesn't change shiat. Weed is illegal yet how many people smoke? How many times did you drink in high school yet it's illegal? How many bootleggers are there still, or felons with guns? Making it illegal or hard to get doesn't make it impossible. A firearm is for protection and to hunt. No either or. It's a two way street for all firearms. You have a freedom and a right to own a gun. No one is forcing you to buy or live with one. Just don't if you don't like it. Don't forfeit a freedom you have under the illusion or promise it will make things better.

AsurasEyes:

DrOswald:

The_Healer:

2 Muggers? Sure, I'd give that a go with a taser, followed with my fists.
I do see your point though. If I were a small insecure person then I'd be worried.

You would go at them with your fists. Really.

You could have argued from a perspective of gun safety. Or that the benefits of self defense do not justify the detriment of having a greater number of guns in circulation. You could have argued against this point from any number of reasonable positions. But instead you went with mocking sarcasm, indirect insults, and the single stupidest claim one could make about self defense. You betray your ignorance and your unwillingness to change that ignorance.

If you are not going to take this seriously, please at least have the common decency to not bother people who are actually trying to discuss this important issue. In other words: if you are not going to contribute, get the hell out.

Calm the hell down dude. He's adding a bit of levity to a discussion that people are taking far far too seriously. He could be a martial artist or whatever, so some fisticuffs would actually be a legitimate option.

I own a sword, a katana, and it's perfectly legal for me to walk around here with it, so if a mugger tries I can cut off his fucking arm. Are you gonna tell me to get the hell out because I'm using an absurdly out of date weapon?

You are right, of course. I let myself get worked up. I should have been more restrained.

But the point stands. The Healers first post in this thread was a post that directly mocked anyone defending gun ownership as violent, irrational idiots who reject out non lethal self-defense tools for no good reason. He was responded to with the claim that non lethal weapons are inadequate in many situations requiring self defense. His counter was deliberately insulting and irrational. You will note that his response was, in fact, that anyone who is incapable of defending themselves without a gun must be weak and insecure.

What The Healer was doing was not adding levity to a overly serious discussion. His comments were a deliberate attempt to provoke and an attack on the people who hold a different view from him. This kind of comment has no place in a good faith discussion about an important issue.

Levity and humor are ok in a serious discussion about an important issue, but making wildly irrational claims while slinging insults at someone who thinks differently is never alright.

Zachary Amaranth:

TakerFoxx:

Seriously, we get enough America hate on this board as it is, and some people (like myself) are getting sick of it. So even if you weren't deliberately trying to insult Americans, putting stuff like this in your OP is just going to piss them off, even if they agree with some of your points.

America's gun fetish is one of the largest parts of the problem here. That's like saying you can't bring up racist attitudes when discussing slavery because you're going to piss someone off.

Mossberg Shotty:
Ugh, I know this is gonna circle back to the fact that I'm a Texan, but I believe in owning defensive guns. Bottom line, criminals don't obey laws, and disarming the people who have restraint and (semi?) good intentions isn't a solution.

It has more to do with the paranoid attitude of Americans than the specific state in which you live. Though Texas does have those "chase them to the end of the Earth" laws that allow you to not only defend your home, but gun down anyone who might have been involved with extreme prejudice.

Caution: the prior statement may have included hyperbole. Handle with extreme caution.

Yes, criminals don't obey laws. And?

And imposing more gun laws wouldn't do anything to stop them, and therefore isn't a solution. But way to fill in the blanks.

The only purpose it would serve would be making the majority of responsible people completely defenseless. I can tell by the things you post that you've probably never been the victim of random violence.

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.

Most places allow the transport of such weapons under the same or similar restrictions as the transport of firearms. For example, to use your exact analogy, here in Texas it is perfectly legal thanks to my concealed carry license to own and carry my Glock 30 in most public spaces unless explicitly banned (I cannot carry on the University of Texas Campus for example). I can also carry a short knife easily capable of delivering a fatal wound. By contrast, I cannot openly carry my Mossburg 500 nor can I openly carry the Rapier I won in a fencing tournament.

M-E-D The Poet:

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.

What does that actually resolve? The population you're targeting tends to be safer with weapons than most and neither they nor their firearms tend to be involved in violent crime.

M-E-D The Poet:

1 that does not mean guns were designed to kill/harm and denying that will not make it go away

The fundamental mechanical concept of the firearm is not restricted simply to the purpose of killing or harming living things. Even when that concept is put to the specific task of being used in a firearm, there are plenty of common uses that do not involve using that weapon to harm or injure.

M-E-D The Poet:

3 Or a non-american having talked to thousands of non-Americans in his life all of the same belief?
That's why the word general consensus is there.

A claim of general consensus without any actual evidence of the existence of such a consensus is hardly a compelling argument. Most of the arguments used to assert guns are tools of evil are based upon base ignorance or nothing more than emotional appeals - a tactic unlikely to sway the opinion of someone opposed.

M-E-D The Poet:

4 Arming your entire population is what lead to this in the first place, now before you turn ace attorney on me and scream OBJECTION! I will have to point you to Europe where gun-crime is down and there is no real cry for the government to fully legalize gun ownership (whilst they do try to get marijuana legalized).

There are nations that are more heavily armed that simultaneously have fewer legal standards to uphold when it comes to the use of deadly force that somehow manage to achieve a lower murder rate in general. Yemen, for example is both more heavily armed and lacking any notable official restriction against the use of a firearm and yet their murder rate is lower.

The problem then is that blaming guns, while certainly a factor that helps make murder easier seems to fail to explain the abnormally high incidence rate in the US.

M-E-D The Poet:

But until a proper study is done the comparison to the rest of the comparable western world will have to do and that comparison says "No sir taking guns away from the common folk will not mean that gun crime will be heavier than it already was"

That study isn't actually possible in the large scale necessary to demonstrate anything conclusively. Various examples from around the world have demonstrated that, in general, crime tends to rise when firearms are outlawed, but that is hardly a compelling argument. In order to actually do the study it is necessary to test the theory and in this case would require disarming a significant portion of the population and "waiting to see" what happens.

The conditions required for the test would be more impossible to meet than simply disarming everyone in the first place which is, itself, a daunting task.

M-E-D The Poet:

Would you rather pit your father or grandfather against a vicious assailant equally wielding a gun with a weapon that takes precision and facing struggle in being disarmed or would you prefer him to hold if he can a shotgun that will probably scare the assailant off anyway?

I'd prefer them to exercise what judgement they can muster in that situation. Asking me to theorize is all but impossible given I know nothing of the situation.

M-E-D The Poet:

7 so you think the guy in flat B on the 6th floor in New York City(I'm not familiar with individual state laws on gun-ownership but I have to find something to compare it to) has all the same reason for having a rifle in his flat as the guys who live in whatever mountain/forest surrounded town you can think off ?

If that man is able to use that weapon responsibly, then yes. He doesn't need a reason to own a rifle any more than you need a reason to own a keyboard. Hell, in asking the man in New York to use it responsibly, I'm asking infinitely more than I'd ever ask of you as condition to use a keyboard.

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.

I know you aren't directing that at me, but I'll respond anyhow. The reason I (and likely others) take issue is that there has not been any compelling argument as to why my right ought to be suddenly rescinded. Because I might commit a crime? Because, through negligence, someone might get hurt or killed with one of my weapons? Out of the number of legal firearms owned, the incidence rate of bad things happening is tiny and if you're worrying about the potential for tragedy, why start with guns when there are a dozen other things more likely to result in hearbreak?

That's the problem.

jovack22:

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.

Your argument is predicated upon the notion that it is possible to eliminate risk. Even starting with firearms, even with the best possible effort, it isn't possible to eliminate the risk. It isn't even possible to greatly mitigate that risk anytime soon.

jovack22:

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

I own four guns. I shall list for you the reasons why I purchased them:

Glock 30 (.45 ACP) - Purchased as a concealed carry weapon. Also used recreationally, largely to ensure I maintain proficiency.

Bursa Thunder (.380 auto) - Purchased as a concealed carry weapon for situations where my significantly bulker glock is hard to conceal.

Sig Sauer SP 2022 (9mm) - Purchased because 9mm is far cheaper than either .380 auto. It is almost exclusively a recreational device.

Mossburg 500 (12 Guage) - Purchased as a home defense weapon. It is both more powerful and more intimidating and the abundance of types of frangible ammunition (ammunition designed to fragment, which unfortunately reduces stopping power but also dramatically reduces the chances of penetrating a wall or a person).

jovack22:

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.

What do you define as military grade? To put another way, my Sig Sauer SP 2022 is essentially a polymer framed version of the P226 - a widely used military sidearm. In terms of performance it is equivalent to the widely issued Beretta M92 (The current side arm for most of the US Military) and it is currently the standard issue weapon for French police. My Mossburg 500 is equivalent in performance to any of a number of models of Remington 870 shotguns and either see wide use in law enforcement. My glock widely used by professional security organizations and other models of glock are widely used by militaries across Europe.

jovack22:

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

People often point to the M4 and other AR derived weapons but what about weapons like the Mini-14? It fires the same round, is also capable of delivering accurate fire out to several hundred meters and yet this weapon is almost never mentioned as a thing that ought be banned.

AgedGrunt:

Hi there. The AR-15 is a civilian (semi-automatic) variant of the military M16. No one is protecting military-grade hardware; ban-hammers are going after civilian small arms and nuances such as capacity, which is infringement.

Regarding amending the Constitution, that's a great idea! So why has no one tried it? Why pass laws that just violate the shit out of the Supreme Law of the Land? Maybe it's because Washington and individual States couldn't then -- violate the shit out of the Constitution and have to answer to the Republic? Amazing system, it's just ignored to thunderous applause.

Because changing one law means you'll have to change every other single law... even the unrelated ones.

Great logic.

Eclectic Dreck:
Your argument is predicated upon the notion that it is possible to eliminate risk. Even starting with firearms, even with the best possible effort, it isn't possible to eliminate the risk. It isn't even possible to greatly mitigate that risk anytime soon.

No, I was talking about reducing guns.

Removing/controlling guns, reduces risk.

Will there still be crime, yes... gun crimes? yes....
but fewer. Of course you need to realize that this will become noticeable over time. No one is saying that this will happen in a month/year/decade.

jovack22:

Eclectic Dreck:
Your argument is predicated upon the notion that it is possible to eliminate risk. Even starting with firearms, even with the best possible effort, it isn't possible to eliminate the risk. It isn't even possible to greatly mitigate that risk anytime soon.

No, I was talking about reducing guns.

Removing/controlling guns, reduces risk.

Will there still be crime, yes... gun crimes? yes....
but fewer. Of course you need to realize that this will become noticeable over time. No one is saying that this will happen in a month/year/decade.

The hypothesis is that an effort to reduce firearm ownership would reduce risk to the average citizen in a meaningful way. Given the vast problems that exist with controlling the unlawful market for weapons, what you essentially advocate is that the reduction in ownership will reduce the rate of death or injury as a result of negligent gun ownership.

Given the effort required to achieve this existence, and given the fundamental desire is to protect people, does it really stand to reason to spend years and billions of dollars if not more preventing a few thousand instances of death or injury? Surely there are causes with a higher body count that could be combated effectively with the sort of effort full disarmament of the US Population would require.

jovack22:

AgedGrunt:

Hi there. The AR-15 is a civilian (semi-automatic) variant of the military M16. No one is protecting military-grade hardware; ban-hammers are going after civilian small arms and nuances such as capacity, which is infringement.

Regarding amending the Constitution, that's a great idea! So why has no one tried it? Why pass laws that just violate the shit out of the Supreme Law of the Land? Maybe it's because Washington and individual States couldn't then -- violate the shit out of the Constitution and have to answer to the Republic? Amazing system, it's just ignored to thunderous applause.

Because changing one law means you'll have to change every other single law... even the unrelated ones.

Great logic.

The law of the US is the law of the US. If you want widespread controls over firearms, the second amendment needs to, itself, be amended. There exist mechanisms to do this legally - indeed, that exact process has thus far been used on 17 separate occasions (with the first ten being most easily considered as a single instance of amendment). Hell, even people who oppose gun control tend to support the notion that the right to bear arms does not include everything. Sane people do not argue that they need a nuclear arsenal for example.

The law protecting gun ownership is not sacrosanct by any stretch. It just happens to be a law inscribed in a document that is purposefully difficult to change specifically because people tend to go for knee jerk reactions.

On an unrelated note, my captcha was "Vogon Poetry". Seems incredibly appropriate, actually.

Eclectic Dreck:

jovack22:

Eclectic Dreck:
Your argument is predicated upon the notion that it is possible to eliminate risk. Even starting with firearms, even with the best possible effort, it isn't possible to eliminate the risk. It isn't even possible to greatly mitigate that risk anytime soon.

No, I was talking about reducing guns.

Removing/controlling guns, reduces risk.

Will there still be crime, yes... gun crimes? yes....
but fewer. Of course you need to realize that this will become noticeable over time. No one is saying that this will happen in a month/year/decade.

The hypothesis is that an effort to reduce firearm ownership would reduce risk to the average citizen in a meaningful way. Given the vast problems that exist with controlling the unlawful market for weapons, what you essentially advocate is that the reduction in ownership will reduce the rate of death or injury as a result of negligent gun ownership.

Given the effort required to achieve this existence, and given the fundamental desire is to protect people, does it really stand to reason to spend years and billions of dollars if not more preventing a few thousand instances of death or injury? Surely there are causes with a higher body count that could be combated effectively with the sort of effort full disarmament of the US Population would require.

Trying to make it sound like a dissertation doesn't make your point more accurate.
1. Reducing firearms would reduce risk to the general public. How can you argue on the contrary. It's like saying putting more hot sauce in your soup wouldn't make it hotter.
The same argument goes for people saying guns are there to defend themselves. As if having the gun would make your situation safer... often, carrying a weapon escalates issues.
2. You are saying peoples' lives are not worth the money/effort... there's just so much that is fundamentally wrong with that statement.
3. If something is hard to accomplish, it is not even worth trying? What's with the defeatist attitude.

There are many worthwhile causes. Coming to a sensible solution on firearms (just look at any of the world's leading nations) is definitely a worthwhile cause.

You're brainwashed by NRA rhetoric... I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject since there will be no consensus. You believe that owning automatic weapons, large magazine clips, flashbang grenades, etc is all perfectly normal and a fundamental right.
The military-industrial complex has spiralled out of control since ww2... the nra is just there to keep it churning.

Nothing will get done, and in 20, 10, 5, years from now another senseless massacre will occur. I just wonder if your family was murdered would you be inclined to change your viewpoint.

image

I don't care what country, how old, what species, or what you have. It shall not stop me from owning a fire arm. Be it a pistol, shotgun, or rifle.

I use it for Target Practice and Self-Defense, I have every right to defend it and as such will do so.

It's completely justified for a man to own a fire arm. If we blame anyone for incidents with guns it's idiots or criminals.

Give it another 5 months/years. There will be another shooting and this completely pointless cycle will happen again. If anything the media should stop treating the shooter like some sort of famous person.

I'd like to see the news stop treating the lunatics that go on the rampages that spark pointless threads like this, like 'celebrity's'. ya know, 'updating' us on every little fucking thing they did, no i don't care what this loser had for breakfast -.-

I'd also like to see news outlets STOP running these story's 24/7 as well as over sensationalizing them. it only makes it more likely some OTHER nutter is gonna pull a similar stunt.

but that's not gonna happen, and nether is the 'banning of firearms' in the US, so get over it and move on

M-E-D The Poet:

I'm going to boil this down to one point and you may then tell me whether this is something reasonable.

In your post you assume that when shooting with either a pistol or a shotgun at someone you're shooting to kill (not to incapacitate)

If I were ever in a situation where I felt it necessary to defend my life, I would not shoot to incapacitate. I would shoot until the threat was halted or I was able to retreat. I'm not looking to get into an extended gun fight.

There isn't a polite way to shoot someone. There isn't a place on the human body that I can force 230 grains of jacketed lead without causing significant chance of death. If you draw a weapon on a person and you pull the trigger, regardless of what you intend to happen, there is a very reasonable chance that they're going to die.

M-E-D The Poet:

Why is that? and do you then think that such killing intent as you automatically assumed makes it safer for people to have guns over people who solely wish to protect?

I think you approach the problem from the wrong angle. I live in Texas - notable for being a rich pocket of gun crazy. Even in this state, it is incredibly difficult to get away with shooting someone in self defense. In order to get away with it, you have to convince a jury that you had sufficient cause to fear for your life and you had no reasonable avenue of retreat. The only exception is if the event happens in your own home, and while not officially supported, the so called castle doctrine runs strong here.

As a result, in any given situation, there are precisely two people in the world I'd ever risk drawing a weapon to intervene in a problem for: myself and my fiance.

Burdens like that are designed specifically to keep people like me from deciding every minor offense in the world ought be punished with death. In 8 years of carrying a weapon, I have only once briefly considered drawing my weapon and that's when I was mugged at gunpoint. I did not simply because my assessment of the situation was that I had a better chance of making it out safe by not trying my luck at a quick draw contest. Beyond all of that, the use of such weapons in a legal self defense capacity is rare - a tiny fraction of death or injuries caused by guns.

This of course leads right back to the problem. People like you don't feel safe because there are guns. Taking away my gun isn't going to make you any safer.

It's a very complex issue. On the one hand, I'm sick of people calling this a witch hunt. A witch hunt against killing machines? Sounds like a good fucking idea to me.
But at the same time, I'm depressed to admit that people who say "we need guns to defend against other people with guns!" do have a bit of a point. I still think the US should strive towards a point where that's no longer the case, but at the moment, if you outlawed guns, or places restrictions on them, that would only serve to disarm the law abiding, placing them at the further mercy of armed criminals. And it's embarrassing that they've let it get to a point where society relies on the gun issue as a means or protecting itself from the gun issue.

Whatever the solution(s) to this issue is, it's going to be a long slow process if it's going to solve anything. I think the first step is pull the trigger (no pun intended) and scrap the second amendment. Make guns a privilege, rather than a right. (Oh don't look at me like that, guns are a right and health care is a privilege? Things are messed up!) They don't necessarily need to be harder to get ahold of, but it would make is easier (legally) to legislate to the effect of taking said privilege away from wrong doers. The way I see it, guns demand huge responsibility so if you show that you can't be trusted to follow the law, why on Earth should you be allowed to carry a gun.
Deadly weapons that require responsibility only for the responsible. Makes sense to me.
Hopefully, with this kind of system in place, plus tighter regulation of the sale and ownership of firearms, in a generation or two, the wrong doers don't have guns, the law abiding citizens do.

That's a good situation on its own, but if you wanted to go further, at this point, you could take away all the guns, because then "the only thing that take down a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun!" would be irrelevant, cuz there are no more bad guys with guns. There will always be some (I think we get one here in Australia like... once every four years) but that's what the armed police are for.

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

for 1, guns are a great multi purpose tool, like you want to turn the tv off but the remote is to far... you just shoot it.

3, miss spelling my nations name on purpose is flame tactic and your clearly not trying to convince any one with that, ill take death over my loss of liberty, even if its my liberty that cause my death.

5, pistols are in fact the best home defense weapon not shot guns, and the best is a revolver because of its maintenance is the ez compared to other fire arms.

7, people in the suburbs or city like to go to the woodlands to hunt fyi.

on that note, im pro gun ownership and i don't own a gun. i see the reasons why people would curve gun rights, and some points are valid with the automatic weapons and extended magazines. but imo the line is drawn at pistols and single shot rifles. i find the liberty of gun ownerships trumps the security of cracking down on it.

jovack22:

Trying to make it sound like a dissertation doesn't make your point more accurate.
1. Reducing firearms would reduce risk to the general public. How can you argue on the contrary. It's like saying putting more hot sauce in your soup wouldn't make it hotter.

There is no reliable data to support such a claim. The closest would be a situation in another country that has vastly different culture, infrastructure, demographics, diversity, ability to protect its citizens, and ability to enforce its borders.

Every single scrap of evidence INSIDE the US has shown that reducing guns or restricting guns either makes things WORSE or has no foreseeable affect at all. In fact, the only time a change in gun ownership laws has made the situation better is when gun ownership laws were RELAXED or guns made mandatory.

It is no surprise that the cities with the strictest gun control laws tend to be the ones with the worst crime.

Why dont you ask Chicago or Detriot how safe they are?

Why dont you ask Buffalo how safe they are?

why dont you ask Baltimore how safe they are?

EDIT: oh, here is some data you can use to compare:
Dallas, city in texas
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/dallas/crime/

Chicago (which doesnt even include rape)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/il/chicago/crime/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/13/concealed-carry-illinois-_0_n_2292585.html

Buffalo, NY
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/buffalo/crime/

Baltimore
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/md/baltimore/crime/

Here is another city you can use, Austin, texas
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/austin/crime/

I used those Texan cities because Texas is notorious for its laxed gun laws, and yet they have 50-66% lower crime rate than the other three cities i listed, all with much stricter gun control laws.

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 should stop running their mouths about shit they don't know shit about. I'm so entirely sick of this debate. Go look at the fucking data, just fucking look. Go. Use google. Know what you'll find? Because as someone who has been researching the topic for over a year, I can tell you that there is very little evidence that more guns even correlate with higher murder rates, and a mountain of evidence that shows either that gun ownership is uncorrelated with murder rates, or that more guns actually correlates to lower murder rates. I can tell you that not one place that has implemented any kind of strict gun law has seen a substantial decrease in murder rates, and that most places have seen large increases. I could point out and completely, irrevocably refute every single one of your points above, but it doesn't matter, because neither you nor one other person on this site would listen. No one listens. No one looks at the data. They all just jump into these debates and throw emotion around like it makes them right. They latch onto one or two studies that support their point without even looking at the method, the context, the sample, or the science behind it, or the other side.

And you know what makes it worse? That the politicians, the people whom we elect to sift through this shit and do what's right for everyone, just jump on the bandwagon and slam these measures into place before anyone can think, and in the face of overwhelming evidence against their effectiveness. Most disgusting, is that the people eat this shit up. "I know why you did it, I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be . . ." They hear about some tragedy, and they turn to their leaders, the men and women who should have their interests at heart and ask: what can be done? They say: Make me safe. And the leaders say: just ban "assault weapons" or "high capacity magazines" and you'll be safe. Even when they know that it won't change anything.

They do this, not because it will work, probably not even because they're being tyrannical, but because they're too cowardly to turn to the people and say: People are violent. We don't know why, and we don't know how to stop it. We've tried things in the past and nothing seems to work. Banning guns doesn't work. Increasing penalties doesn't work. Banning drugs doesn't work. They're too afraid that they will be blamed, that they will have to take responsibility for their failure, and lose votes, so they need a scapegoat, and what better scapegoat than guns? Guns look scary, most people don't care about them much, they have no voice of their own to object. Better yet, many countries have already banned guns, so they know exactly what to say to scare their opposition into silence. They don't even have to say anything. They know that people like Piers Morgan, who have bought into the propaganda spewed by other countries when they banned guns, will say it for them.

And those of us who manage to keep calm and rational, and point to the data and the fucking science, get demonized. We become people who want to risk our children's lives, who want these things to happen. We become war-mongers, and profiteers. We're told that if we don't have an answer we should just shut up. I have a niece, a nephew, and 3 cousins who attend schools in this country. I go to college myself. I don't want to be the next victim. I don't want to hear that my friend or family member got shot by some psycho in a blind rage. It terrifies me. And that is EXACTLY why I protect gun rights and continue to jump into these debates no matter how much it stresses me out or how much sleep I miss. Because if we just slam through these ineffective gun laws before anyone has a chance to blink, this WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. And again, and again, and again. As long as we focus on guns, we will never find the real problem, and unless you know what the problem is, how on Earth can you find the solution? What has to happen before people will learn to put aside their emotions and THINK, before they act. I know we need to do something, but we can't just do something for the sake of doing something. We need to do the right thing, for the sake of all the people that will die every single day that we focus on the wrong thing.

jovack22:

Trying to make it sound like a dissertation doesn't make your point more accurate.
1. Reducing firearms would reduce risk to the general public. How can you argue on the contrary.

The number of deaths and injuries as a result of legal use of firearms is a tiny fraction of the percentage of the total. Given that there does not exist a viable mechanism to actually control the illegal arms trade in a nation with thousands of miles of insecure borders and huge trade volume, you advocate reducing the weapons in legal use. Thus, you advocate reducing the chance of death by negligent use of firearms.

Yes, it is a reduction. There isn't any denying that. But my point is that this reduction would have such a small impact that one is forced to question if there might be a better way to save people. I mean, that is your goal right? Reduce human misery? Do you think the effort of collecting a billion firearms to be trivial, or do you imagine it is a monumental undertaking that would cost billions of dollars across many years to complete?

What I'm arguing is that if you want to reduce human misery, there are far more efficient ways to achieve that end than targeting legal firearm ownership.

jovack22:

It's like saying putting more hot sauce in your soup wouldn't make it hotter.

Actually, if the soup is sufficiently high on the scoville scale, there exist plenty of hot sauces that would actually result in a reduction in heat.

jovack22:

The same argument goes for people saying guns are there to defend themselves. As if having the gun would make your situation safer... often, carrying a weapon escalates issues.

It can, certainly. But then what you are really asking is if you think people are safer when they have no means to defend themselves. I cannot offer you any certain answer to the question of if a citizen facing a violent threat is safer if they do not escalate or not because that varies on factors neither of us can predict.

jovack22:

2. You are saying peoples' lives are not worth the money/effort... there's just so much that is fundamentally wrong with that statement.

I said nothing of the sort. I conjectured that there are problems that, if confronted with the same effort that full disarmament would require, would result in a more significant reduction in human misery.

jovack22:

3. If something is hard to accomplish, it is not even worth trying?

Sure, something is worth trying if you feel the end justifies the means. I have a hard time thinking saving a tiny handful of people at such a huge cost is a useful way to expend an effort when there are other pressing issues that, if effectively combated, could save so many more.

jovack22:

There are many worthwhile causes. Coming to a sensible solution on firearms (just look at any of the world's leading nations) is definitely a worthwhile cause.

Full disarmament is not a sensible solution - you save so little in exchange for what you pay. Controlling the illicit arms market is, as it currently stands, impossible.

Simply put, I don't think your cause, as stated, is worthwhile precisely because there are other problems that could be solved. And, hell, with some of those problems, you might just reduce violent crime to boot!

jovack22:

You're brainwashed by NRA rhetoric...

An interesting accusation but a rhetorical fallacy to say the least. As such, there is no need to confront such a comment save to say that, were I brainwashed, I'd probably not point out legal means of changing things, basis of consensus, or acknowledge the existence of negligent firearm use; instead, I'd say that video games caused gun violence and advocate laws to restrict that.

jovack22:
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on the subject since there will be no consensus. You believe that owning automatic weapons, large magazine clips, flashbang grenades, etc is all perfectly normal and a fundamental right.

I never said anything implicit or explicit that supports this idea, actually. You're projecting in this case.

I will, however, point out a variety of things. First, consider just what a large magazine size accomplishes. In brief, it gives someone more time between needing to reload. Thus, when it comes right down to it, the assumption is that cutting down on magazine size would reduce average rate of fire and, hopefully, reduce casualties in the event of a mass shooting scenario.

First, a short video. Here is some guy reloading an AR:

Notice that it took just over a second to accomplish this task. That isn't particularly fast by any stretch and is more or less representative of what anyone could do if they spent a few hours practicing. If we consider the super large capacity magazine, say 90 rounds, that means someone using the relatively tiny 30 round magazine loses perhaps three seconds of shooting time to fire the same number of shots or, a reduction of between 1 and 3 aimed shots (the reduction being based on range of target and experience of shooter). Cutting magazine capacity by 66 percent from what is already easily available thus results in a drop in rate of fire of less than 5%.

In order for you to achieve the presumed goal of cutting down on number of shots fired in a scenario involving a heavily armed lunatic by any significant amount, you'd need to reduce magazine size to something absurd. At 10 rounds, the person has lost between 3 and 9 shots for example.

But, it must be said that while I don't see there to be any particular use for magazines that large (largely due to reliability problems as well as the simple fact that the weapon is not designed to handle long periods of fire at extremely high cadence as well as a relative lack of any plausible scenario wherein that tiny advantage in firepower would be useful) I simultaneously don't see a good reason to restrict the sales of such devices. Limiting rate of fire is not something that can be so readily achieved using current firearms as they were designed from the ground up to be easily and quickly reloaded.

Sure, there have been efforts to solve this exact problem. California for example requires all such weapons have a system such that some sort of tool is required to remove the magazine - a noble effort. But given that these mechanisms can be quickly bypassed (in many cases, with nothing more than a piece of tape and a random small object), even these fail. I don't support the effort precisely because the effort does so little to solve the problem it seeks to correct.

jovack22:

The military-industrial complex has spiralled out of control since ww2... the nra is just there to keep it churning.

The military industrial complex refers to the system by which a handful of companies are responsible for the production of arms meant for military use. The US Government spends tens of billions annually on weapon systems and their upkeep. The NRA has precisely zero impact on this issue.

What you refer to is the private ownership of firearms - a completely separate concept and, unfortunately, one without a menacing moniker attached. That market is, of course, protected by the NRA and their doing so is hardly seedy - that's the precise activity that organization exists for. That's why people join them. That's why people give them money.

jovack22:

Nothing will get done, and in 20, 10, 5, years from now another senseless massacre will occur.

And we spent tens of billions combating hunger, disease and poverty, we could save millions. If you want to fight tragedy, pick a fight where you can make a real impact. Sure, fighting poverty might not be glamorous but it would at the very least help mitigate the problem of violent crime.

jovack22:
I just wonder if your family was murdered would you be inclined to change your viewpoint.

No, because my family won't be murdered in a senseless massacre. Or at least, they're no more likely to be massacred than I am to be struck by lightning while being simultaneously eaten by a shark - and that problem never actually worries me.

I will stop protecting guns when guns stop protecting me.
(Couldn't resist using that in response to the title, sorry. I am more of a knife buff meself).

I don't live in the States, nor do I own a gun or affiliate with any pro-gun groups...but I operate on the belief that things are most dangerous when used in a dangerous fashion. I could kill somebody with a spoon...but does that mean I will? Does that mean there will be an international banning on spoons and the right for one to own a spoon? I would hope not, because eating soup would be a great deal less polite if that were the case. Yes, I am aware that a spoon wasn't intentionally designed with killing someone in mind but a great deal of anti-gun arguments seem to be based on "possibilities".

The correct answer is the middle ground, taking the guns away from the people that should have their firearms relinquished while allowing the people who know how to treat their tools with respect and maintaining a sound mind alone for the most part. Almost every firearm related incident is perpetrated by a criminal or mentally ill individual (both, most likely) with the rest being domestic accidents and suicides.

I'd also like to bring automobiles into the equation.
Cars have proven to be one of the more frequent causes of death, and yet we all (huge generalization) use one.
What's stopping the driver from going on the sidewalks and running down pedestrians? The same thing that prevents the average gun owner from going on a killing spree.

Aaron Sylvester:

1)I've also been wondering about this, when people play the "but then only criminals will have guns" argument they are assuming that guns will still be obtainable as cheaply & easily as sliced bread. This blows my mind. The mentality in US is basically built around assuming that millions of guns will always be in circulation around the country, and taking guns away from the civilians will "leave more" for criminals. Holy shit. It's as if guns are flour bags, or milk cartons.

2)Secondly, the "I need guns to defend myself & my family" argument also blows my mind. These opinions are coming from a politically stable FIRST WORLD country - not fucking Somalia, not Syria, but none other than US. I cannot fathom crime rates being so incredibly high that so many people feel the need to own guns for self defense. How often do you people keep getting attacked by burglars/thieves?? Once a week? Again, this attitude is based around the fact that there are enough guns in circulation around the country so people can use them like disposable nappies.

3)There has to be a way to make guns rare enough to be considered a LUXURY, not a NEED so that neither criminals nor civilians can get their hands on them. There has to be a way to severely cut-down the number of guns in circulation. Civilians will have to pass thorough background checks and testing, their guns should cost $800-1500 each. In the black market things cost 5-10x more, so even criminals will hold them in high regard. Over-the-counter sales should be an offense punishable by prison sentences to the seller/buyer, that shit is stupid.

4)Americans, you have a right to own firearms. Sure. But you will have to pay a price to acquire one, go through hell and back to prove yourself worthy of owning one - and that will make you value your weapon that much more so you will keep it nicely locked-up and only use it for hunting/whatever.

5)Over here we have police do background checks with the gun owner, family, friends, etc to make sure the person is mentally stable and they also come to the house to confirm that there is a secure gun safe (not just any safe, a proper certified gun safe) properly bolted/screwed to the wall/floor. The process can take weeks. And we had to do all that buy a .22 rifle for rabbits -_-

That's how it should be.

1)Even if they aren't available cheaply and easily people will still get them, maybe not as many, but they will still have them. This also brings the added bonus of not knowing who has them and the increase of organized crime to transport the illegal guns. Making them illegal also removes all the revenue gotten through legally sold guns and increases the amount spent to enforce the new law.
2)Yeah, people can be pretty damned paranoid about that sorta thing.Also that attitude is not based around your disposable nappy idea of guns in the US. First of all a lot of states have gun laws(For example NY/NJ). Second most people aren't afraid someone will pull out a gun and waste them at random, most people who say that just want to be prepared for the worst.
3)Yes god forbid if those filthy plebs had guns.I mean if they had guns, we could no longer ride them down with lance and sword like in the good old days.
4/5)This is actually a wise idea. People should be screened before they acquire weaponry, places like New Jersey already do this(For example my father cannot acquire a gun because he is in an AA program). However saying people should go through hell and can only .22s is a bit extreme.

Aaron Sylvester:
The mentality in US is basically built around assuming that millions of guns will always be in circulation around the country, and taking guns away from the civilians will "leave more" for criminals. Holy shit. It's as if guns are flour bags, or milk cartons.

If statistics are to be believed, there are currently hundreds of millions of firearms in legal circulation. The number circulating illegally is largely unknown. Moreover, even if you remove that initial pool of legal weapons under the assumption that a significant percentage of illegal firearms make a transition from the legal pool through one means or another, that still leaves market access via relatively unsecured borders and large volume shipping ports.

Price would certainly increase by some factor for acquisition of new illegal firearms of course, but the question becomes is that a significant enough increase to actually curb their use in pursuit of crime.

Aaron Sylvester:

Secondly, the "I need guns to defend myself & my family" argument also blows my mind. These opinions are coming from a politically stable FIRST WORLD country - not fucking Somalia, not Syria, but none other than US. I cannot fathom crime rates being so incredibly high that so many people feel the need to own guns for self defense. How often do you people keep getting attacked by burglars/thieves?? Once a week? Again, this attitude is based around the fact that there are enough guns in circulation around the country so people can use them like disposable nappies.

While my need to self defense might not be as pressing as in a less fortunate nation, I am forced to ask. How many times must I be robbed at gunpoint before I think the world is dangerous?

I'll give you the answer - once. The presumption of security that you operate under is that fragile.

Aaron Sylvester:

There has to be a way to make guns rare enough to be considered a LUXURY, not a NEED so that neither criminals nor civilians can get their hands on them. There has to be a way to severely cut-down the number of guns in circulation. Civilians will have to pass thorough background checks and testing, their guns should cost $800-1500 each.

A great variety of handguns already fall into or well above this range. My glock 30 was 650 USD for example and that's a relatively inexpensive firearm. A Sig Saur P226 generally retails for hundreds higher than that. The ever popular custom handgun line can easily be thousands of dollars for a single firearm. There are certainly handguns that are both inexpensive and well made - the Bursa Thunder .380 for example can generally be had for less than 250 USD.

When it comes to rifles however, you'd be hard pressed to find a quality example of an AR, AK, Saiga or any of the other popular models for less than 800 USD. Hell, the Mini-14, often the cheapest example of such a weapon, currently sell for more than 900 USD!

Simply put, while there are many firearms that are cheap, often the ones people are actually worried about are incredibly expensive.

Of course, in the case of utility, the thing actually keeping people from using Rifles with any regularity is simply that they are difficult to conceal. Given that most people who commit gun crimes want to get away with it, concealability is of significant import. Thus why the ever present, incredibly cheap and shoddily made line of .22 caliber handguns remain so very popular.

Aaron Sylvester:

Over here we have police do background checks with the gun owner, family, friends, etc to make sure the person is mentally stable and they also come to the house to confirm that there is a secure gun safe (not just any safe, a proper certified gun safe) properly bolted/screwed to the wall/floor. The process can take weeks. And we had to do all that buy a .22 rifle for rabbits -_-

They do require a background check for legal sales here but the check involves little more than ensuring that the buyer does not have a current criminal record. Different states can have more stringent laws. In Texas, I can purchase a handgun and walk out the store in less than an hour. In california, I've got to wait several days before I can actually leave with the weapon.

It isn't the worst idea to include at least a cursory psychological examination but, sadly, that entire field of study is fractured enough that creating a consistent and useful diagnosis standard would be difficult. Checks beyond that, such as personal interviews rapidly encroach into impossible given the tremendous costs associated with performing the interviews. This is why, for example, if one gets a security clearance in the military, they are so sought after by employers who work in a field that requires one - the cost of performing the necessary checks can be staggering often in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars for an individual!

from what ive discovered the americans have some weird quirk with their laws that means you can legally seem to keep things that you owned before a law is introduced.

frankly they have too many guns in circulation at the moment to realistically do anything about them, even house to house searches and confiscation is a nigh on impossible task to remove them from society and all this is without people jumping up and down that they have a god given right under their constitution to have a gun.

you have a society and culture built on myths of the individual with a gun overcomming odds and being a hero. you arent going to change the usa without changing that sort of belief and thats not going to happen

disgruntledgamer:
Anyone who tries to defend civilians owning automatic weapons, or allowing guns in public places is such a %^&&$# &&^%$ it's beyond belief.

US gun regulations are a joke, it's not violent games, it's not violent movies or music it's the fact you let anybody who can print his own name own a weapon that can mow dozens of people down in a matter of seconds. There is no reason why anyone outside the army needs to own an automatic weapon or take a hand gun on a public bus. NONE!

Replace gun with... Hummer (the civilian model of course) or any car with more than 120 horsepower. Why does anyone other than police or the military need that kind of speed or hauling power? Cars kill far more people than guns. If you narrow it down to rifles, fists kill more people each year. Why should any civilian (who will likely have a job behind a desk) need to bench press 300 lbs? Only criminals need that much upper body strength to overpower their victims. All scissors should be safety scissors, and backyard swimming pools ought to be banned, for the safety of the hundreds of children killed and maimed by both each year.

Why would anyone need an automatic weapon? (ignoring the fact that automatic weapons are and have been heavily regulated since the 30's, so that it's nearly impossible for someone who isn't rather wealthy to be able to get one) It's because an automatic rifle might be the most effective weapon available. Now, back in reality, why would anyone need a semi-automatic AR-15, like the one I have? Because it's the most effective weapon I have skill with. I can afford to purchase and practice with it. Same reason someone buys a Dodge Challenger or Ferrari. You can't carpool in those vehicles. Their trunk space isn't as useful as a pickup truck for hauling cargo. Why would anyone need one of those? Because they want one and can afford it with the money they have worked for.

wombat_of_war:
from what ive discovered the americans have some weird quirk with their laws that means you can legally seem to keep things that you owned before a law is introduced.

That weird quirk is in the Constitution and states that no Ex Post Facto shall be made. Otherwise it's too easy to criminalize a subgroup by finding a commonality, illegalizing it and then throwing them all in jail for violating a law that didn't exist at the time.

Eclectic Dreck:
No, because my family won't be murdered in a senseless massacre. Or at least, they're no more likely to be massacred than I am to be struck by lightning while being simultaneously eaten by a shark - and that problem never actually worries me.

Even though none of your facts, conjectures, assertations, etc were backed up by a source (yes it's the internet, but you went at great lengths to try and argue against common sense), I was wondering wondering about this last point.

According to Bandolier (UK medicine online magazine): The risk of dying from a shark attack anywhere in the world in 2004 was 1 in 913 200 766.

According to National Weather Service: Odds of being struck by lightning in an average of 80 years living is 1 in 10 000.

Now let's not factor into account areas only where sharks inhabit, being near enough the kill radius should lightning strike the ocean while you're in it, being eaten of course, etc etc.... and simplify this with a basic interdependent stats calculations. Your odds end up being 1 in 9 132 007 660 000 (odds of being struck by lightning AND eaten by a shark). Ok.. so 1 in 9 quadrillion.

From a libertarian website where the odds are greatly exaggerated in favour of the second amendment, your odds of being killed by a mass murderer are 1 in 384 000. I'm going to quickly estimate that since this is beating the proverbial dead horse and say what you stated is incorrect by a magnitude of 2e7.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Mass-Shootings-1980-2010-thumb-533x320-79419.jpg

Look at this chart (it's authenticity I'm not sure, but the article used it in a pro-gun perspective so keep that in mind when considering bias). Is that a good outlook for your country?

Is it normal for someone to have an obsession such as this one: http://fantasticvoyageof2.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gun-wall2.jpg ?? The primary point of weapons is to do harm to others. From someone who lives outside of the USA, I can speak for not only myself, but almost everyone I have met when discussing this topic that the US's fanaticism for guns is bizarre.

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

Do to what seems likely to be a mutual bias (mine/yours), the following paragraph is likely to cause irritation, as is the one after it. If you think that to be likely please skip the first paragraph and read from the third, be warned the forth has swearing.

People don't generally take well to what seems like aggression, even if it is passive. Please make your posts more neutral if you wish for a discussion, as it is, your post seems more likely to motivate ether side into entrenching themselves. Point three seems like an insinuation of stupidity or a insult please edit, point four seems like your trying to argue that opinions should be viewed as facts please edit. Perhaps give advice, it would help bridge some gaps? For example, my side doesn't need fucking assault rifles, it's a bad idea because the majority of them can't even follow the first rule of gun safety, where as your side shouldn't tell us what we can and can't own as long as we pass certain certification requirements, because people shouldn't rule each other, never ends well.

Mention the golden rule, which is always keep the muzzle of a gun pointed in a safe direction. And not, treat the gun as if it's loaded... which is an innate requirement for fulfilling the first/golden rule while being itself too ambiguous a statement. As you probably know one of the most common causes of death by gun is "operator error" and/or suicide. And it doesn't help to make your own "ludicrous arguments" if your sick of them, so please stop.

Most of your points seem logical enough, though some of the wording does seem a bit confusing... For example, safety is I think an interesting requirement. Guns or no guns aside, some of my forefathers had interesting things to say about the general nature of society's relationship to freedom and democracy in regards to safety, power, and the necessity of personal and societal responsibility in relation to the successful continuation of said forms of community and governance. Exemplified by similar groups of people and the fall of their cultures and customs and people for their failures to hold such things in account through out history. To put it simply, without accountability, knowledge and responsibility, a future of people, a form of freedom through society is opposed by the pitfalls of human nature. To simplify to the point of stupidity , if you put your safety in other peoples hands your not going to be any safer, and they are going to be less inclined to worry about, dropping it. heh heh.

Responsibility, having the intelligence to give a fuck about other people and the discipline of adhering to actions that don't put them at a disadvantage in relation to yourself. Safety? Safety doesn't exist, it's an illusion of circumstance.

nepheleim:

wombat_of_war:
from what ive discovered the americans have some weird quirk with their laws that means you can legally seem to keep things that you owned before a law is introduced.

That weird quirk is in the Constitution and states that no Ex Post Facto shall be made. Otherwise it's too easy to criminalize a subgroup by finding a commonality, illegalizing it and then throwing them all in jail for violating a law that didn't exist at the time.

other countries seem to simply make do with an amnesty period to turn the things in before enforcing that. it worked here. actually my granddads old gun in the cupboard was turned in then it was made illegal here.

i just cant process civilians being legally able to own automatic weapons including miniguns because of a loophole like that.
no wonder you guys are having a run on people buying assault rifles at the moment

jovack22:

Even though none of your facts, conjectures, assertations, etc were backed up by a source (yes it's the internet, but you went at great lengths to try and argue against common sense), I was wondering wondering about this last point.

And now you've been introduced to hyperbole - a common rhetorical device wherein one makes an exaggerated claim to demonstrate a fundamental truth. Please, calculate for me the odds of being killed in a "massacre". I'd expect, you'd find the odds against any particular person being involved stand at somewhere in the neighborhood of a significant portion of a million to one.

Now, calculate the odds of death by, say, cancer.

I don't make a habit of worrying about eventualities that are unlikely when there are plenty of god damn terrifying things far more likely to befall someone I care about.

And my larger point remains the same. If you goal is to reduce the incidence rate of tragedy, there are plenty to choose from that are easier to resolve and would have a more significant impact. Solving the "gun" problem is bogglingly difficult, and staggeringly expensive all to save a relative handful. I have yet to hear any plan for gun control that actually would correct any of the problems we've seen with firearms - and that's because turning a modern firearm into something unsuitable for mass murder is a non-trivial task.

My argument is not predicated upon the notion that this tragedy is good or even acceptable - but that I have never been presented with any sort of plan that would make any progress towards a solution. Thus, failing that, why not expend the effort preventing tragedy we at least have a fair idea of how to combat? Drugs, poverty, disease, ignorance - all of these have a toll far greater than guns achieve and thanks to thousands of years of dealing with such things, we at least have a fair idea of what we need to do to abate if not eliminate.

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

I disagree with quite a few of your points so lets go through them one by one

1. This is provably false. A guns primary intention was to be used as a weapon to hurt and kill opponents. However in our society there are many competition shooting that people do for fun. Just as we play games for fun. Even the Olympics has an event using firearms.

Like it or not Marksmanship is yet another competitive sport and there are many national and international competitions revolving around it.

2. Im not sure what this argument is supposed to be saying. A gun is very dangerous, so are knives, fire axes, and blunt improvised weapons. Some people can even kill without the use of weapons what so ever. I dont see the speed and potential of a killing blow as a legitimate reason to why firearms should be banned

3. Again I dont understand the argument behind this. Other countries, even other regions of the US have varying philosophies. You seem to agree that we Americans have a right to choose if we should have guns or not and yet you seem to make the claim that these other countries somehow know better without touching on the subject that they have completely different (sometimes alien) cultures and philosophies then we do

4. Once again Im unsure how punishing law abiding citizens is an argument for the banning of firearms. In any sane society you do not punish innocent people for the actions of another. I think we can all agree on that. So why punish lawful gun owners and tread on the rights of Americans and the rights of your current and/or future children?

5. Once again I disagree. Anything in my home can be used as a weapon for self defense including a fire poker, chair, or the Glock I carry around (I have a concealed weapon permit). That said Shotguns are a situational weapon, only useful at very close range and considering the 21 foot rule that law enforcement uses (the rule stating that 21 feet is the maximum distance a person can charge at you and strike a killing blow with a melee weapon before you can ready a gun) I feel that self defense firearms can take nearly all kinds of shapes.

6. I actually dont necessarily disagree on this one. However an unconcealed rifle or shotgun will provide a better visual deterrant. If Im leaving my residence to go hunting or go to a competition (or coming back) I have to transport them from point A to point B at some time dont I?

7. So because I live in a large city and once or twice a year I like to go camping/hunting with my relatives Im not allowed to keep my firearms in my home? That seems rediculous to me because I have to take responsibility for my firearms but I wouldnt be able to do that if they were locked up in some safe outside city limits.

At the end of the day Im all about responsibility and the rights of all Americans. If something must be done about Sandy hook it needs to be a serious review of our mental health structure and I would not be against adding armed security to schools if that security was concealed (much like an air marshal on planes). A firearms ban or even more regulation isnt going to stop another tragedy like that or any of the other shootings that happened last year. I understand the desire to want to do something but now is not the time, people need more time so they arent driven to rash emotionally driven ideas

EDIT: You know Im just going to add a final thought on here. If anyone seeks to take away my fire arms then they can try and I will not hesitate to stop them through charges of theft or just shooting them if they try to harm me and my family in the process. If our government tries to take our firearms away then its another civil war and I will be on the side that allows for freedom of speech and the right to bare arms, training people with the same tactics I learned while in the army.

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

Honestly I'm just sick of you people talking about this subject instead of focusing on the real issue: The fact that every single mass shooting has had one thing in common, no its not what gun they used its the fact that all of them were mentally unstable.

Why people are so concerned about trying to take away the guns instead of attacking the real growing problem in our society which is prescription drug abuse and mentally broken people. Google it last year there were over 100K deaths directly attributed to "legal" prescription drugs which trumps the 35K gun deaths which over 92% were gang related. Oh and here is a fun source for you to read.

http://www.businessinsider.com/painkillers-kill-more-americans-than-heroin-and-cocaine-2012-9

Don't let the title fool you, this article has tons of great information.

My property, my owner ship; and unless I somehow am guilty of causing unjustified harm to some one, up until then its nothing you should be concerned about.

Good day.

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.

Thanks for insulting the entirety of the shooting sports, again

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked