|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On February 20 2012 05:10 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:08 Kimaker wrote:
3) Protect any prospective children in my house- On this note, yes, you are right in being concerned. That being said people who have Rottweilers and children concern me a bit more. I can put a trigger lock on my gun, and put it in a safe. Barring that I can even disassemble my weapon. This isn't REALLY an issue unless the parent is irresponsible, in which case they probably do something else stupid with their kids. I mean fuck, if you're dumb enough to keep a gun in the house with children and not have it well tucked away....
Doesn't happen to anyone until it actually happens. Dangerous stuff is still dangerous.
You're missing my point. As I've acknowledged above, "the world would be safer without guns". But in this particular case it is the irresponsibility of the parents that is primarily at fault because they fail to properly protect their children when there are easily accessible means to do so. Parents who would keep loaded and unlocked guns around the house are already doing a piss poor job as parents.
It would be like giving cigarettes to 6 year olds.
|
On February 20 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:When I compare the murder rate in the US to that of other developed countries, I wish we had less guns. Its really staggering just how much more murder occurs here compared to Japan or Korea 
People will always kill each other. With or without guns. They did it for thousands of years before guns were invented, and they'll continue doing it regardless of how easy it is to access guns.
Japan and Korea have much lower murder rates because they don't have anywhere near as much poverty, especially urban poverty. Lack of guns has nothing to do with it.
|
On February 20 2012 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:
So why should members of the government, the one organization proven time and again historically to have the capacity and the will to carry out murder on an organized, systematic and systemic scale, be the only ones allowed to have guns?
Why the hell would they do that, in most countries governments have no interest in mass murder. Maybe military leaders, but are you going to take guns away from the military?
|
On February 20 2012 05:11 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:07 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:06 allecto wrote:On February 20 2012 05:05 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:03 NotSorry wrote:On February 20 2012 05:01 mordk wrote:
I don't see any point in having a gun. I know criminals have them, I know a criminal can come inside my house and threaten/kill me with them, but I still don't see the point.
All I know about regular citizens holding guns is that accidents happen, a lot. Being a med student I see it all the time, gun accidents are some of the worst possible, and they still don't save people from getting robbed at their homes.
I feel that gun ownership takes a lot more lives than the typical armed robberies do. Jealous husbands shoot their wives, kids shoot themselves while playing around, wild bullet hits girl after a gang funeral. It's best not to have them imo, they're just dangerous. in all those causes besides the kids getting hold of them and accidentally shooting themselves or another are cases where those people would still get guns... No they don't, we don't have a culture of getting guns, so apart from gang dudes, jealous husbands mostly don't have guns really. You know...jealous husbands can also stab their wives... Sure, or bang them in the head with an object, but it's less lethal most of the time. I'm sure OJ Simpson's dead wife would agree.
Yeah im sure she thinks gun are wayyy less lethal than hitting...
|
On February 20 2012 04:05 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:01 Vorenius wrote:On February 20 2012 03:56 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:52 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 03:51 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote:On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. A hunting rifle can kill a person just as well as a pistol or an assault rifle. Also there are a thousand things you can do other than "commit crimes" with pistols and even assault rifles. Your entire argument falls apart at the seams, since following that logic nobody should be allowed to defend themselves. What about target shooting? Gun collecting? And sports/competitive shooting? Those are all perversions of hobbies and should be banned as well. Problem solved. Perversions of hobbies? What exactly do you mean by that? I'll admit, I've never gone hunting, but I still own several guns, I enjoy recreational target shooting, and once I'm 21 I am going to concealed carry. I've never killed anyone (not even in self-defense), I don't feel as though I'm committing some sort of "perversion." It's like the old saying, I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it. Like I said, if the majority of the USA thinks that it's okay to murder someone because they break into your house then people in USA will continue to have that right. Just don't act suprised when people from other countries think you are savage. Also, you are arguing that europeans shouldn't even be allowed to post in this thread. A thread that was made by a european. See what's wrong here? So wait are you saying it's not okay to shoot some strange man who breaks into your house in the middle of the night? Okay next time a murderer, rapist, or burglar breaks into your house and threatens your family, why don't you go make him some tea and crumpets, and hope he doesn't do anything bad. Meanwhile I'm going to defend myself, my family, and my property.
If they can get in your house, its probably your own fault for not securing your house.
|
On February 20 2012 03:26 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:22 sermokala wrote:
I think con control arguments are stemmed with the invovement of two different americas. While if you look in the cities rge muder rate is really really high and you can't argure for guns in anyway you simply have to look in the countryside and you see a marinaly small rate with every redneck having small armories in their basements while they can leavr their homes and cars unlocked.
I have quite a few guns and I'm not afraid to use them in anyway. There are no drugs or gangs or any roberies that happen and ill be dammed If a government wanted to take away my security and saftey. More guns equal less crime and that only works in areas where there are guns in the hands of people that aren't cops or criminals. How you get to that stage I have no idea. This. This. This. This. This. Can this be stickied at the top of every gun control thread?
Even more, you have to look at the socio-political demographics in these areas... People who are ostracized by their own government and know full out that they have just about zero future in working legitimate competitive jobs are the ones who end up doing getting into gangs, doing drugs, and killing people.
I feel that having guns made illegal is tantamount to having blowdarts made illegal... it doesn't make sense to scold a child for having hit his peer with a stick, it makes sense to scold a child for hitting someone else at all.
Of course, if we could make this world perfect we could just get rid of all weapons period... and we should strive for that little by little, but that shouldn't make us make boneheaded decisions in the present, right?
|
On February 20 2012 02:53 Hertzy wrote:
I personally believe that, in a perfect world, the law enforcement alone would be capable of wielding all the violence needed to keep society safe. However, this is an imperfect world. Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle. The law enforcement has finite resources and can't always be there in time. Therefore I believe a person should have the right to arm themself for the purpose of self defence.
as an american, i wouldn't even put that as my reason for wanting gun rights.
it's the government. i really don't care all that much about what criminals do. they'll always be there, and they'll always be doing their thing. but there's something particularly disturbing about the police abusing their power, and it seems to have become more common lately (or at least more visible). you want the police to always fear the people, because they day they don't is the day the police become a government-funded gang.
the american people have the unspoken right of policing the police/government. the government knows that it won't survive an angry population armed with 270 million firearms... and that's the beauty of it. shit will never get to the point where the american government goes rogue and does harm to its population, because we're all fucking armed to the teeth. and that's exactly how the founders wanted it: a government that lives in fear of its people.
on top of that, we as a country have little danger of ever falling to invasion for the foreseeable future. to put things in perspective, the american military owns about 4 million guns. while the general population is obviously not trained, the numbers are just too skewed to make a difference. plus, a good number of us have some experience since most guys go shooting at least once as a kind of coming of age.
bottom line, there's a certain pride we have in holding that kind of power even if it means we have elevated rates of crime. there's just something about american culture that speaks to our gun ownership and the feeling that government or no government, you're not going to subdue americans without one hell of a fight.
|
On February 20 2012 05:13 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:10 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:08 Kimaker wrote:
3) Protect any prospective children in my house- On this note, yes, you are right in being concerned. That being said people who have Rottweilers and children concern me a bit more. I can put a trigger lock on my gun, and put it in a safe. Barring that I can even disassemble my weapon. This isn't REALLY an issue unless the parent is irresponsible, in which case they probably do something else stupid with their kids. I mean fuck, if you're dumb enough to keep a gun in the house with children and not have it well tucked away....
Doesn't happen to anyone until it actually happens. Dangerous stuff is still dangerous. You're missing my point. As I've acknowledged above, "the world would be safer without guns". But in this particular case it is the irresponsibility of the parents that is primarily at fault because they fail to properly protect their children when there are easily accessible means to do so. Parents who would keep loaded and unlocked guns around the house are already doing a piss poor job as parents.
And you miss my point too. Most people agree with what you said, most parents are "responsible" in those things, or say they will be when they become parents, but accidents happen all the time, to almost everyone, why have something which can cause an accident, which isn't needed?. You can be a super responsible parent 99.999999999999% of the time, yet that fraction of a second can kill your child.
Shit happens dude, we should avoid things that can potentially become said shit.
|
On February 20 2012 05:14 Coutcha wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:11 allecto wrote:On February 20 2012 05:07 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:06 allecto wrote:On February 20 2012 05:05 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:03 NotSorry wrote:On February 20 2012 05:01 mordk wrote:
I don't see any point in having a gun. I know criminals have them, I know a criminal can come inside my house and threaten/kill me with them, but I still don't see the point.
All I know about regular citizens holding guns is that accidents happen, a lot. Being a med student I see it all the time, gun accidents are some of the worst possible, and they still don't save people from getting robbed at their homes.
I feel that gun ownership takes a lot more lives than the typical armed robberies do. Jealous husbands shoot their wives, kids shoot themselves while playing around, wild bullet hits girl after a gang funeral. It's best not to have them imo, they're just dangerous. in all those causes besides the kids getting hold of them and accidentally shooting themselves or another are cases where those people would still get guns... No they don't, we don't have a culture of getting guns, so apart from gang dudes, jealous husbands mostly don't have guns really. You know...jealous husbands can also stab their wives... Sure, or bang them in the head with an object, but it's less lethal most of the time. I'm sure OJ Simpson's dead wife would agree. Yeah im sure she thinks gun are wayyy less lethal than hitting...
The point is a jealous husband who has the intention and desire to kill his wife, will kill his wife with whatever means at his disposable. There is no need for a gun.
|
Such an interesting thread I feel obliged to morph out of my lurker-form and become posting hydralisk.
I think it is important for both sides of the debate to understand where the other side is coming from, and try to keep an open mind about the arguments that are presented.
Let's first make the case for increased control.
Many studies have shown that statistics for homicide and gun prevalence have a very strong correlation. What does this mean? In countries where people have a gun, they are more likely to also be murdered. Yet correlation does not imply causation. That is, we cannot say that people are murdered because there are many guns, or that there are many guns because people are murdered. However other studies hint that guns do indeed cause an increase in murder (especially second degree murders). Additionally a large number of gun injuries are accidents and depending on where you live, owning a gun may increase the risk you expose yourself and your family to, simply due to the many potential accidents that may occur.
There is another indirect danger with guns as well. The job of law enforcement officials is much tougher when guns are prevalent. The police are forced to be far more careful and violent as armed criminals are more dangerous than unarmed ones.
What about pro guns?
The main argument simply boils down to this: In a country where violent crime is prevalent, the best option to increase your own survivability may be to own a firearm. Owning a gun may provide you with a significant increase in your personal security.
Owning a gun increases the risk that you may shoot yourself, but it decreases the risk that you may get shot by someone else. Your personal safety has increased, but safety in society has decreased. This is called positive feedback, or a positive feedback loop.
In the US many people have a mistrust against the government and consider fire arm regulation (or lack there of) a form of insure against oppression. A who polices the police kind of situation. However, no modern revolutions have been successful, where the revolters have not had either the support of the national military, or an extraneous source of weaponry and supplies. Your assault rifle is simply not very effective versus a tank. So this argument is kind of moot.
It can sometimes be a useful exercise to extrapolate the two sides of an argument to their extremes.
Let's postulate that guns are infinitely more powerful than they are today. In fact, a gun is just a button. You think of a person, and press the button. KABLAM! They are dead. Would you want this button in the hands of anyone?
Looking at the other extreme hypothetical case: There are no guns. A burglar brakes into your home. You can only punch him in the face, and he can only punch you in the face. Which world would you prefer? What if there are almost no criminals? What if everyone is a criminal?
In summary I think, in the case of the US (which seems to be the centre of discussion), that it is unreasonable to remove citizens right to bear arms, simply as a consequence of the current prevalence. Such legislation would likely only serve to incentivize already armed criminals and are likely to increase crime rates further. However, I also think anyone a fool who prefers everyone the power to shoot their neighbor, as opposed to a world where no one could.
Also we need guns in case of zombies.
tl;dr No, you didn't read my post so I won't provide you with a tldr.
|
members of the government != police officers
it's called the separation of powers (political, juridical, and executive)
Sorry, this makes no sense. The military doesn't have guns?
then again, most UK police officers don't carry firearms
And how quickly could that change if the right conditions arose? They sure have arisen in Greece. How long before civil society there breaks down? Do you think you're immune?
the government in big developed democratic countries doesn't have the power to organize mass murder, nor does it have any interest in it
Key word there being "developed." All that means is that the economy is generally good and the people are generally satisfied with the political system. That can change very fast, and has done so in the memory of people still living, despite your naive belief that just because they don't have the power now (which, of course, they do, last I checked machine guns and military bombs can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time) or the interest (they don't, but this can change, ask the Germans, ask the Poles, ask the Russians), they never will. Just what do you base this naivete on? Just because?
Why the hell would they do that, in most countries governments have no interest in mass murder. Maybe military leaders, but are you going to take guns away from the military?
Yes, why the hell would they indeed. It's the question you need to ask yourself, since apparently you've forgotten that previous governments of places like Germany and Russia used to do it within living memory, and governments of places like Syria are doing it right now.
Do you really think that Westerners have immunized themselves to that? It's just never a possibility, ever again. You. Are. Naive.
And that's the point, who is going to take guns away from the military if the military or some future government uses those guns to oppress the citizenry? A citizenry with no guns isn't going to do it, that's for sure. Why do you think that you are safe in perpetuity from totalitarianism? It's just one lost war, one economic depression, one famine, one plague of enough severity away. Don't you know history?
|
On February 20 2012 05:08 Kimaker wrote:
2) Protect others/yourself from me- Hey man, if I wanted you dead there are a BUNCH of other ways to get you dead if you took guns out of the equation. You gotta ask yourself, "Are most of the people I know homicidal maniacs?" I'm going to venture a guess and say no. Well, that's a pretty consistent thing with people. I'm guessing you never want to kill anyone. Good. Me neither. I just like owning guns. You might like Poke'mon cards; personally I find them dumb but go ahead and keep buying for all I care. As for accidents, as you'll note above, I acknowledge that the world probably would be "safer" without guns at all, but the same is true for a lot of things. Speaking of accidents....
---
It seems to me that Anti-gun people are more afraid of others than people who don't mind guns.
If you want me dead and you have a gun available, all you have to do is point and click. If you want me dead and all you have is a kitchen knife you have to walk over to me, stab me, deal with me up close and look me in the eye. Killing someone with a gun is a ton easier (practically and psychologically) than with bat or a knife.
I think the bottom line is completely opposite of what I feel. I feel a lot safer knowing that people who set out to do violence don't have access to guns. I feel quite safe knowing that if people in Denmark want to shoot me they have to -really- go out of their way to do so. Desiring to own a gun is because you're afraid of what someone else out there might do to you. (Who has a gun because they're afraid what someone out there might do to you, etc.)
|
On February 20 2012 05:13 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:59 echO [W] wrote:On February 20 2012 04:56 Sated wrote:However, this is an imperfect world. Criminals have gotten access to guns, and that is a genie that isn't going back into the bottle. The law enforcement has finite resources and can't always be there in time. Therefore I believe a person should have the right to arm themself for the purpose of self defence. I've always thought that this is the best way of looking at this debate. In countries were firearms aren't widespread and are hard to obtain (i.e. Britain), it is reasonable to heavily restrict them. The chance of me needing a gun to defend myself are incredibly small, and I'm very unlikely to ever encounter someone with a gun. On the other hand, in countries were firearms are widespread and are not hard to obtain (i.e. USA), it is unreasonable to heavily restrict them. Restrictions do need to be in place to stop people having guns they plainly don't need for self-defence (sniper rifles, assault rifles etc.), but I think it's silly to prevent citizens from owning guns in countries were criminals already have easy access to guns. What about hobby shooters specifically long distance shooters and competitions (where Sniper rifles) are par for the course? Guns only need to be kept at the range, they don't need to be in the home. No competitor needs to actually own their own gun.
Actually, a competitive shooter would adjust their gun's sights according their preferences, a process which may take a long time, so yes they do need to own their guns. Also, what happens when a nutjob breaks into the range and takes all the guns?
By the way, this sort system was suggested and shot down in Finland after the Norway tragedy. The reason was that plenty of shooting ranges are in out of the way places where you could take your time cutting open the gun safes and emptying them. For that matter, where would you fit the safes and how would you address the concerns of people who are having to put their 1000€+ pieces of equipment into a locker accessible by other people?
edit: need to own guns.
|
On February 20 2012 05:16 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:13 Kimaker wrote:On February 20 2012 05:10 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:08 Kimaker wrote:
3) Protect any prospective children in my house- On this note, yes, you are right in being concerned. That being said people who have Rottweilers and children concern me a bit more. I can put a trigger lock on my gun, and put it in a safe. Barring that I can even disassemble my weapon. This isn't REALLY an issue unless the parent is irresponsible, in which case they probably do something else stupid with their kids. I mean fuck, if you're dumb enough to keep a gun in the house with children and not have it well tucked away....
Doesn't happen to anyone until it actually happens. Dangerous stuff is still dangerous. You're missing my point. As I've acknowledged above, "the world would be safer without guns". But in this particular case it is the irresponsibility of the parents that is primarily at fault because they fail to properly protect their children when there are easily accessible means to do so. Parents who would keep loaded and unlocked guns around the house are already doing a piss poor job as parents. And you miss my point too. Most people agree with what you said, most parents are "responsible" in those things, or say they will be when they become parents, but accidents happen all the time, to almost everyone, why have something which can cause an accident, which isn't needed?. You can be a super responsible parent 99.999999999999% of the time, yet that fraction of a second can kill your child. Shit happens dude, we should avoid things that can potentially become said shit.
I guess I feel like I addressed this already. Whatever.
|
don't think you should be able to carry concealed weapons in public. i wouldn't outlaw guns in the privacy of your own home, but i'd impose stringent tests in order to acquire one. That being said, i don't believe anyone should own a gun outside of law enforcement. I have a club in my house, that is the extent of our self defense. Most people posting on this thread don't live in an area where gun point robberies, or anything that would threaten their life happen, so i find it funny.
call me a libtard but guns just equal trouble, and kids can accidentally shoot themselves (forget to put safety on once, oops bye bye child)
|
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. I think handguns and automatic weapons should be banned. You are far mroe likely to be injured or killed if you confront and threaten an intruder, than if you are to just leave them be and allow your insurance company to replace your lost goods. If you want a hunting rifle, you should have to go through an extensive application process, one that specifically looks into whether or not you are mentally stable enough to own a firearm. Guns give you the illusion of safety. In a few cases, they may have worked out, but in far more, it leads to someone getting unneccessarily hurt or killed.
|
On February 20 2012 05:16 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 05:14 Coutcha wrote:On February 20 2012 05:11 allecto wrote:On February 20 2012 05:07 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:06 allecto wrote:On February 20 2012 05:05 mordk wrote:On February 20 2012 05:03 NotSorry wrote:On February 20 2012 05:01 mordk wrote:
I don't see any point in having a gun. I know criminals have them, I know a criminal can come inside my house and threaten/kill me with them, but I still don't see the point.
All I know about regular citizens holding guns is that accidents happen, a lot. Being a med student I see it all the time, gun accidents are some of the worst possible, and they still don't save people from getting robbed at their homes.
I feel that gun ownership takes a lot more lives than the typical armed robberies do. Jealous husbands shoot their wives, kids shoot themselves while playing around, wild bullet hits girl after a gang funeral. It's best not to have them imo, they're just dangerous. in all those causes besides the kids getting hold of them and accidentally shooting themselves or another are cases where those people would still get guns... No they don't, we don't have a culture of getting guns, so apart from gang dudes, jealous husbands mostly don't have guns really. You know...jealous husbands can also stab their wives... Sure, or bang them in the head with an object, but it's less lethal most of the time. I'm sure OJ Simpson's dead wife would agree. Yeah im sure she thinks gun are wayyy less lethal than hitting... The point is a jealous husband who has the intention and desire to kill his wife, will kill his wife with whatever means at his disposable. There is no need for a gun.
You are very mistaken. Most of people who commit such murders end up regretting it soon after. NOT having an instant-kill-device in their hand they can fire as a kneejerk reaction gives them a potentially crucial amount of time to reconsider, and it's even more difficult to pull off if they have to get physically close to the wife.
The point is that consciously killing someone isn't easy for anyone. A lot of people will have a reaction out of anger (which is why having a firearm at hand is the most dangerous case), but having to plot and scheme and work out how to do it or get physically close to do the target will deter a lot of such murders.
|
On February 20 2012 05:08 Kimaker wrote:
Okay. My big question/rant...
I acknowledge the fact that the world would be safer without guns. But the world would also be safer without alot of other things, alcohol, drugs, cigarettes etc; hell campaign against those as I'm sure they have a larger impact on society. Forget the gunslinger, "I'mma protect ma home" mentality, what if I just want them? What's the problem?
The only problem's I can see are that you want to:
1) Protect me from myself- Thank you. I appreciate that, but I'm fine.
2) Protect others/yourself from me- Hey man, if I wanted you dead there are a BUNCH of other ways to get you dead if you took guns out of the equation. You gotta ask yourself, "Are most of the people I know homicidal maniacs?" I'm going to venture a guess and say no. Well, that's a pretty consistent thing with people. I'm guessing you never want to kill anyone. Good. Me neither. I just like owning guns. You might like Poke'mon cards; personally I find them dumb but go ahead and keep buying for all I care. As for accidents, as you'll note above, I acknowledge that the world probably would be "safer" without guns at all, but the same is true for a lot of things. Speaking of accidents....
3) Protect any prospective children in my house- On this note, yes, you are right in being concerned. That being said people who have Rottweilers and children concern me a bit more. I can put a trigger lock on my gun, and put it in a safe. Barring that I can even disassemble my weapon. This isn't REALLY an issue unless the parent is irresponsible, in which case they probably do something else stupid with their kids. I mean fuck, if you're dumb enough to keep a gun in the house with children and not have it well tucked away....
4) You don't have a reason.- Any other explanation is a blatant imposition of your own image of the world on mine. Tough bro. I live here too and quite frankly I'm not planning on ever shooting anyone ever. Some targets or game? Sure, but that, once again, doesn't really concern you.
It seems to me that Anti-gun people are more afraid of others than people who don't mind guns. Unless I missed a reason. In which case I'm open to changing my stance. If you want to own a gun, fine, if you don't, fine, I'm not out to push my view of the world onto anyone else.
Everything you're saying boils down to "as long as everyone who gets a gun is a responsible, intelligent, reasonable individual then there's no problem with everyone having guns" - which is just about as a magical fairy unicorn land as all the guns in the world disappearing simultaneously.
If you have lax gun controls, more idiots will get guns, because there are more around. Now whilst having complete illegality of guns might inconvenience those who want them and are sensible human beings, it does hinder an awful lot of the rest of the problems. And I'm anti-gun, and less afraid of others than people who seem to be pro-gun here - because I know that others don't have guns.
It seems to me that a lot of the pro-gun arguments are from a personal, rather than societal point of view.
|
On February 20 2012 05:14 mordk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:
So why should members of the government, the one organization proven time and again historically to have the capacity and the will to carry out murder on an organized, systematic and systemic scale, be the only ones allowed to have guns? Why the hell would they do that, in most countries governments have no interest in mass murder. Maybe military leaders, but are you going to take guns away from the military?
Do you honestly believe governments have no interest in mass murder?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll
Honestly, it seems more reasonable to say that governments are only interested in mass murder.
On February 20 2012 05:22 Focuspants wrote:
Why are Americans so afraid of their government becoming a dictatorship and forcefully oppressing their people? If they were to do this only 2 possibilities could be the result;
1) The military sides with the people (seeing as how they are your family members, your friends, your loved ones, and the number of them is so many, this is the most likely scenario) and the government can't successfully do so.
or
2) The military sides with the government and youre boned anyway. You and your stupid ass little glock arent going to do shit against the US military.
The idea isn't to fight in open battles against the military. You fight an asymmetric war. Take potshots when you can, leave traps, mess with supply lines, but no full-scale battles. Eventually you wear them out.
Worked pretty good in Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
