Guns are Good

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

TopazFusion:
Did you just have an argument with yourself?

slypizza:
"BREAKING NEWS"

A 17 year student Dan Simon used a Ax and cut up 6 kids in his class room he was trying to get back at the kids who bullied him and since no guns were used we have body parts all over the floor it was a horrible event... "
next thing you know you'll get people protesting and getting rid of every sharp object they have.

see my point?

Yeah, this is your point . . .

image

While normally I'd agree with the fallacy of the slippery slope argument, on this topic I must say it makes sense.

This isn't so much conveyed in OP's post, but in general you can effectively argue the slippery slope with gun control. The argument being: If you set a precedent that the government can ban things because of how they can be misused,, there's no reason to stop at guns.

https://www.google.com/search?q=united+kingdom+knife+control&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

You can do a quick Google search and see how this is already happening. This also shows that violent crime isn't exclusive to the availability of guns, which may seem obvious, but if everyone accepted this as fact there would be no gun control legislation being proposed in the US right now. If someone is determined enough to hurt themselves or someone else, to the extent where they are acting on it, the fact that they don't have a gun available to them isn't going to stop them.

TheRightToArmBears:
Hmmm.

I think the obvious flaw in your argument here is that it's a lot harder (and slower) to kill someone with an axe than a gun. You almost certainly wouldn't have as high death tolls without guns because you can't stab someone at a distance.

It tires the arm out more, too. That, coupled with the pained screaming, means a good deal fewer bodies before armed officers are alerted and make their arrival. Guns are inherently designed for the purpose of killing people and, as a result, are exceedingly efficient at it. The police could stand to have their job made easier by reducing the number of guns in circulation. Nobody needs an assault rifle. I'd like some marijuana and a gold-plated roof, but I don't need it.

So yeah, well said. I agree.

Kukakkau:

DrunkenMonkey:

Kukakkau:

...What? "guns are necessary" - if you meant armed forces or jobs which require them then you can ignore the following

You're right I totally need a gun to go to work, eat food I buy from a supermarket, wake up every morning and spend time with people. Without a gun how would I go about my basic life?

There is too little need for a gun in the average life to warrant gun laws. If the weren't legal in countries like America...why would you need one? It's a vicious cycle - someone could own a gun and make me feel threatened... better get one myself.

You could say "well it's the second amendment, we're allowed to own guns", yeah for the sake of a MILITIA for homeland security, not your own personal use

Your snarky comment aside, would you say civilians do not need guns then? Define "personal use" then? You read too much into the necessary part and ignored missed the point of my post. Reread it as a whole, then ask yourself the need to label guns as good or bad? As what you almost did...

No civilians do not need guns, unless there job specifically requires them (farmer, ghillie, things like that). Or you live so far from society you need to hunt for your food to live. Do you yourself find a need for a gun in your daily life? Something tells me the answer is no.

Personal use? Possession of it to protect yourself when you don't need it? Having it sit in a drawer because you can? Unless you're part of a certified group such as a militia/career it's personal possession. Which is what the 2nd ammendment is MEANT to be for, but screw it lets just skew it's meaning so everyone can have one.

You said guns were neither good or bad, okay nukes and bio weapons aren't good or bad. They are weapons too. Let's give them to the general public? Actually since you can get guns without training too should we give out knifes at school assemblies? They have the right too

You say I read too much into it? How? The US is practically the only country to have these large scale gun massacres and so frequently. But it's not because they allow next to anyone to have guns, no sir. I mean no country without gun laws can manage..oh wait many can.

The only plausible reason for a civilian to need a gun is...to protect themselves from guns. Yes people die from knives and axes etc but how much harder do you think it is to do that and get away with it. You lack any range, the chance to be subtle and get away without people seeing your face. Someone breaks into your house? Well you know where everything that can be used as a weapon for defence is kept (kitchen knives, bats, clubs, weights)

And yes my post was snarky - you posted 2 lines of statements with no reasoning for them and I can't help but notice others have quoted you doing the same.

Fair enough with the snarkyness.

Anyways please don't bring nukes and bioweapons in to this, they are not meant to be handled by people period. Guns are, the saying guns don't shoot people, people shoot people rings true. A person buys a gun, whether or not that gun is used for a crime or defense, is strictly up to that person. More rigorous training doesn't change that responsibility.

Your giving out knives assembly example makes no sense, I'm talking about the stupid misconception that guns are bad and good, why are you bringing up something like that. Please elaborate.

Guns are meant to neutralize with as little time as possible. Do you know what separates a gun from all things like kitchen knives, weights, etc. It doesn't require particular skill to operate. Are you seriously implying that if somebody breaks into a house the intruder and you are on equal playing fields. Let me give you an example. If the intruder is a muscular man with one or two friends, are you actually going to run into your kitchen and go into close quarters combat with them. Even if you are that bull headed, what if the person being invaded is somebody weaker than the average male, like a female with no training of any sort, or an elderly person. A gun really does help in that situation.

HEAR YE, HEAR, YE! THIS BE-ETH A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

As of now, I have entered into the dark and nightmarish dimensions known as "contact the moderators". With their dark powers, this whole worthless thread shall be cast into the eternal pit of fiery suffering known as "the R&P forum".

image

All of you who do not wish to share its fate, leave now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc

This is what I thought of when I saw the thread title. Hard to take it seriously after that.

i was watching the american news earlier and they had people defending needing assault rifles and large magazines. i cant actually work out a reason for a civilian to actually need them.

defending myself i see alot of people yelling, apparently from the news, alot of americans expect (fill in minority here) street gang armed to the teeth with body armour and machine guns to randomly break into their house in something out of mad max

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked