| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Nottoo
38 Posts
On February 20 2012 03:10 Macabre wrote: People killed people just fine before guns. And they will continue to do so for the rest of time, with or without them. Oh come on. There's a serious difference in lethality and number of killable targets between a gun and say, a knife. Ridiculously brainless argument. | ||
|
Isualin
Germany1903 Posts
| ||
|
nicotn
Netherlands186 Posts
On February 20 2012 04:43 Hertzy wrote: So, let's suppose this scenario: Your bedroom is downstairs. Your children's bedrooms are upstairs. You have just been awakened in the night, by the sound of a serial killer breaking into your house. He is heading upstairs. What's your response? Get a better house security, if they can get in your house its your own fault. | ||
|
MrBurns
Germany15 Posts
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. Because of the same reason you cant go to a nuclear power station and ask for some uran because you want to produce your own power. Its fucking dangerous! 99,99% will know how to use it and produce their own power, but the 0,001 will build a bomb or blow up their home and kill many people. In my opinion its far more safe to limit those things to people who can deal with it. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
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 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. There's also option 1.5) Part of the military sides with the people, part with the government, and some just sit it out and side with the winners. As I recall, this sort of thing was actually planned, to clear the air every once in a while, when they were writing the constitution. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:18 OrchidThief wrote: 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.) The vast majority of people I know who own guns own them because they like guns. They like shooting, collecting, hunting, etc. So in this respect your statement that "Desiring to own guns is because you're afraid..." is fallacious. What's more you have stated, you feel safer when people don't have access to guns. To me this sounds like you're more fearful of your neighbors than I am since you're unwilling to trust them with the responsibility of a firearm. For me I'm not afraid of them either way, gun owning or not, at least until they give me a reason to fear them. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:22 Talin wrote: 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. Well in the real world, domestic homicides are usually passion killings and less than half of them are committed using a firearm. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:23 Millitron wrote: 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. Maybe in mass murder of other country's residents, but few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people. Plus, your handgun isn't going to defend you against your government's stealth bomber, the point is moot, if your government wants to kill you, all you can do is run away/hide/obey, and fight back from the shadows. | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On February 20 2012 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: + Show Spoiler + Also not proper academics if the academics calling him biased are themselves biased. Gun issues are one of the most bias-heavy on either side in academia. In any case, from the Wiki link: Referring to the research done on the topic, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that while most researchers support Lott's findings that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime, some researchers doubt that concealed carry laws have any impact on violent crime, saying however that "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."[27] As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: "We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile."[28] Right-to-carry ("open carry") seems to decrease crime, while concealed carry has negligible effect. Probably because you can't tell if someone is concealed-carrying so you roll the dice and take your chances, but if they have a revolver or pistol in plain sight on their hip, you know full well you could get shot if you try to rob them. + Show Spoiler + No guns at all for the general population other than for hunting. Guns brings out the worst in people. 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? And 700,000 people were murdered in a few weeks in Rwanda overwhelmingly with machetes and other blades. Lack of guns doesn't prevent anything Seems to? There is contention that even RTC has a significant correlation VIA "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review" a 2005 study. The main problem with Lott is he basing a causal link between the two when national crime rates have trended downward long before most of the RTC's took effect. Even in states lacking RTC has generally mirrored the national crime rate downward trend. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:25 nicotn wrote: Get a better house security, if they can get in your house its your own fault. Ergo, I buy a gun as an additional layer of security. | ||
|
eckesicle
Sweden2 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:26 Kimaker wrote: The vast majority of people I know who own guns own them because they like guns. They like shooting, collecting, hunting, etc. So in this respect your statement that "Desiring to own guns is because you're afraid..." is fallacious. What's more you have stated, you feel safer when people don't have access to guns. To me this sounds like you're more fearful of your neighbors than I am since you're unwilling to trust them with the responsibility of a firearm. For me I'm not afraid of them either way, gun owning or not, at least until they give me a reason to fear them. I think he's not afraid of his neighbors. But he's afraid of his neighbors' neighbors. And also their neighbors. | ||
|
Thrinax
24 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:27 Hertzy wrote: Ergo, I buy a gun as an additional layer of security. Wrong, shooting the "killer" with a bought gun isnt going to prevent it... it already happend then. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
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. Tell it to the large number of successful revolutions and resistances against foes with vastly superior armament around the world over the last 250 years. You're just making shit up that sounds good. The argument that you need to arm yourself against the government is a totally foolish one. No, your argument is the foolish one not backed up by anything but your own preconceived notions. 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. That's right, you should just allow someone to enter your home and do whatever the fuck they feel like because if you fight back it's far more likely you or they will get hurt or killed. When did morality get stood on its head, that the initiator of violence shouldn't be challenged because someone might get hurt? It's not a peaceful act to break into someone's home, it's a violent one. Since when did initiating violence = free pass, because resistance might get people hurt? In far more cases guns have prevented violence, they are not just an illusion of safety. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063 Maybe in mass murder of other country's residents, but few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people. Plus, your handgun isn't going to defend you against your government's stealth bomber, the point is moot, if your government wants to kill you, all you can do is run away/hide/obey, and fight back from the shadows. You contradict yourself. Why would you fight back from anywhere if you are so overmatched that victory is impossible? Few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people? There are dozens of governments in existence today that have perpetrated mass murder their own citizens within the last 20 years or are doing so right now. Where do you come up with your non-factual facts? It has been shown again and again that this stupid "you can't fight back against a stealth bomber" argument is not true. Uprisings would never work if it was solely decided by who had the bigger guns. I'm sure the US military would be a lot happier if what you're saying turned out to be true in Iraq and Afghanistan. AK-47s and homemade bombs can't compare to autocannons on helicopters and planes and artillery shells or rockets, those wars sure were cakewalks since our weapons were so much better. That's what you're saying should have happened, so why didn't it? Fighting back from the shadows with a gun is more effective than fighting back with a knife. So, what's your point? Don't fight back because you can't, unless you do from the shadows, but don't do it with a gun because your little gun isn't effective, so do it with something less effective? | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:25 MrBurns wrote: Because of the same reason you cant go to a nuclear power station and ask for some uran because you want to produce your own power. Its fucking dangerous! 99,99% will know how to use it and produce their own power, but the 0,001 will build a bomb or blow up their home and kill many people. In my opinion its far more safe to limit those things to people who can deal with it. On a scale of "how dangerous is this shit" your example scores a retarded. Those two are only remotely related in an overarching philosophical sense while in specificity trying to make an analogous comparison between the two they couldn't be further apart. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:27 allecto wrote: Well in the real world, domestic homicides are usually passion killings and less than half of them are committed using a firearm. When people say something like "less than half", they usually mean "very near a half".  Which proves my point, not yours. As long as the percentage is double digit. | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:24 Isualin wrote: i think pistols are fine for defense. but you do not defend yourself with an m16. automatic rifles are designed to murder lots of people in a short time. i dont understand why or how people can think selling these guns to civilians is ok They are fun to shoot. Guns are designed for ease of use, accuracy, power, and reliability. They propel pieces of metal or other material through the air. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:28 DeepElemBlues wrote: Tell it to the large number of successful revolutions and resistances against foes with vastly superior armament around the world over the last 250 years. You're just making shit up that sounds good. No, your argument is the foolish one not backed up by anything but your own preconceived notions. That's right, you should just allow someone to enter your home and do whatever the fuck they feel like because if you fight back it's far more likely you or they will get hurt or killed. When did morality get stood on its head, that the initiator of violence shouldn't be challenged because someone might get hurt? It's not a peaceful act to break into someone's home, it's a violent one. Since when did initiating violence = free pass, because resistance might get people hurt? In far more cases guns have prevented violence, they are not just an illusion of safety. http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063 Well, if a dude enters my home and threatens me with a gun and wants to take my stuff or break it or whatever, well I don't really care, take the stuff and go. Things change if they want to rape my wife/children though, I'd be happy to die to prevent that from happening. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:23 lozarian wrote: 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. Now THAT is a fair point. One I will concede to insofar that to argue it goes outside of the thread topic. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:27 mordk wrote: Maybe in mass murder of other country's residents, but few governments are interested in mass murdering their own people. Plus, your handgun isn't going to defend you against your government's stealth bomber, the point is moot, if your government wants to kill you, all you can do is run away/hide/obey, and fight back from the shadows. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides Governments kill their own people all the time. As I said before, you don't fight a normal war against a totalitarian regime. You fight asymmetrically. Set up ambushes, leave traps, etc. If it comes down to violence, owning guns certainly can't hurt your chances. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:29 Talin wrote: When people say something like "less than half", they usually mean "very near a half". Which proves my point, not yours. As long as the percentage is double digit. How does it prove your point at all? I'm not sure of today's numbers exactly, but the fact that not having a gun doesn't stop someone from killing their partner doesn't argue your point at all. The weapon is a convenience thing, not the main factor in whether you kill your spouse. Your point can be proved if you can show those 30% of domestic homicides with a firearm as a weapon would not have happened without guns. My point was argued with the mere fact that homicides do happen without guns. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
