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 July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote: 1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
Yes, that's very accurate. An unarmed citizen is a victim who hasn't been victimized yet. If a concealed carrying law abiding citizen had been in that theater the casualties would have been single digit.
The police arrived within NINETY SECONDS of receiving the APB. How much faster could they possibly have been? Still 54 people injured (overall response time indicates a 5 minute approximately delay between first shot, first 911 call, APB, police arrival on scene). The police are not there to protect you, they are there to catch and punish the person after you and 53 of your friends get shot at a movie theater.
I think a person must have very low self esteem if they think that by putting on a uniform a police officer has better judgement and is more qualified to defend their life than they are. I think it's a mentality thing, when I am confronted by danger I think "How can I protect myself in this moment?" but I get the feeling other people think "what can the government do to protect other people in the future after I am a newspaper headline and a teamliquid thread"
its not about if you trust yourself to make a good call in a high pressure situation with a lethal weapon
its about if you trust the dumbest guy in the room to do the same
On July 22 2012 08:19 Oroboros wrote: this issue is really a tough one and i honestly cant understand who people can laugh about others arguments so easily.
i know that societies without any guns would be preferable. but as long as i live in a society, where scenes like these:
almost happen on a daily basis, i wanna be able to defend myself where the police does not. i just dont like being a nice victim to beat for everyone. yeah sure, its not likely, that this does happen to me. but i pretty much dont care too much about statistics when it comes to my own safety. berlin makes me feel insecure enough to want to carry a gun.
of course i know that thing would overall be worse if these criminals had a gun too. im highly ambivalent on all this. but overall, i want to be able to defend myself. because the police and the whole state fails on crime prevention.
you can laugh about my wish to feel safe now all you want.
statistics show that by owning a gun the chances are greater that you yourself will face mortal danger, whether it be through being overpowered by a gang and then shot with your own weapon, or by general changes in law making it easier for 'bad guys' to get guns, escalating the violence may make you feel safer, but infact achieves the opposite.
statistics dont say anything about specific and different real life situations. while statistically deescalating might be the best thing to do, almost every single self defence teacher i know says otherwise and in the video you can see how easily u can get killed by doing nothing. there is no certainty in that. you gotta react according to the situation.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
But all you list is risk for yourself, which is okay for me - if someone wants to smoke they can do it, no prob.
lets take the example of a burglar who is inrtuding a house, the owner wakes up, takes his revolver from its locker and investigates who is in his house, notices a dark shady human figure and fires, the burglar dies.
I don't think burglary is right, but it sure does not deserve a death sentence.
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote: 1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
Yes, that's very accurate. An unarmed citizen is a victim who hasn't been victimized yet. If a concealed carrying law abiding citizen had been in that theater the casualties would have been single digit.
The police arrived within NINETY SECONDS of receiving the APB. How much faster could they possibly have been? Still 54 people injured (overall response time indicates a 5 minute approximately delay between first shot, first 911 call, APB, police arrival on scene). The police are not there to protect you, they are there to catch and punish the person after you and 53 of your friends get shot at a movie theater.
I think a person must have very low self esteem if they think that by putting on a uniform a police officer has better judgement and is more qualified to defend their life than they are. I think it's a mentality thing, when I am confronted by danger I think "How can I protect myself in this moment?" but I get the feeling other people think "what can the government do to protect other people in the future after I am a newspaper headline and a teamliquid thread"
its not about if you trust yourself to make a good call in a high pressure situation with a lethal weapon
its about if you trust the dumbest guy in the room to do the same
On July 22 2012 08:19 Oroboros wrote: this issue is really a tough one and i honestly cant understand who people can laugh about others arguments so easily.
i know that societies without any guns would be preferable. but as long as i live in a society, where scenes like these:
almost happen on a daily basis, i wanna be able to defend myself where the police does not. i just dont like being a nice victim to beat for everyone. yeah sure, its not likely, that this does happen to me. but i pretty much dont care too much about statistics when it comes to my own safety. berlin makes me feel insecure enough to want to carry a gun.
of course i know that thing would overall be worse if these criminals had a gun too. im highly ambivalent on all this. but overall, i want to be able to defend myself. because the police and the whole state fails on crime prevention.
you can laugh about my wish to feel safe now all you want.
statistics show that by owning a gun the chances are greater that you yourself will face mortal danger, whether it be through being overpowered by a gang and then shot with your own weapon, or by general changes in law making it easier for 'bad guys' to get guns, escalating the violence may make you feel safer, but infact achieves the opposite.
statistics dont say anything about specific and different real life situations. while statistically deescalating might be the best thing to do, almost every single self defence teacher i know says otherwise and in the video you can see how easily u can get killed by doing nothing. there is no certainty in that. you gotta react according to the situation.
its in a defence teachers financial interest to make you believe that you are in imminent danger and need to learn to defend yourself. why would you trust anything a defence teacher says about your chances of being in danger?
if you want to bring up the video again and again, sure thats 1 case you can find, where the other guy having a gun may have lead to a 'better' outcome. but dont fool yourself in to thinking this is either a, a good argument or b, a certainty. the 2 others there are clearly the attackers friend, sure they dont want him killing this random guy, but you dont think they would defend their friend if the defender pulled a gun? a gun in that situation probably would of lead to 2 people being killed instead of 1 guy getting killed? hurt? i dont know german so idk.
secondly, there are many many situations, where either someone is at fault, ie a burgler or attacker, or where people simply get in to a heated argument, maybe due to drinking or because they are dicks, where a gun being present increases the risks of fatality. like i said above, its not about if you trust yourself to restrain from shooting for bad reasons, its about if you trust the stupidest person to have the same restraint. if someone wants to steal something from you do they deserve to die? if someone bumps into a drunken guy who carrys a gun, does he deserve to die?
no guns is not a perfect solution, people hurt each other with other weapons and even without, good people get hurt every day, but the numbers speak for themselves. adding guns in to the equation only increases the risk for the average law abiding citizen.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
A lot of Americans (not all argue that stricter gun laws wont stop killings. Thats right. But it will still bring down murder rates enormously. And thats simply more important then somebodies feelings and thoughts about the freedom of owning guns. Period.
At the end of the article, one of the perps was interviewed. During the interview he said; “I never expected anyone to be armed.” DING DING DING DING. . . . .Deterrent Alert: “he never expected anyone to be armed.”
So a guy opens fire in a crowded place and doesn't even get prosecuted. How could he have known that he doesn't hit an innocent bywalker? Why do people think that because criminals break the law by threatening with guns that they should be allowed to shoot them too?
because we just have one life and we dont want it to be dependend on gun-carrying criminals who might or might not use their guns. we cant look into the future.
some of you are like these politicians who step in front of the camera and say : "we are very sorry for the loss. but please dont defend yourselves because statistically, the dead ones shouldnt be dead"
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
But all you list is risk for yourself, which is okay for me - if someone wants to smoke they can do it, no prob.
lets take the example of a burglar who is inrtuding a house, the owner wakes up, takes his revolver from its locker and investigates who is in his house, notices a dark shady human figure and fires, the burglar dies.
I don't think burglary is right, but it sure does not deserve a death sentence.
second hand smoke increases risk of lung cancer for non-smokers, drunk driving kills, even the burden on the health care system can be lessened if people ate more healthily, everything we do has consequences for other people. I do agree with you that guns create a much more immediate and permanent threat on other people than the examples I list, however I feel that its fundamentally wrong to go about it with bans and does not solve the problem. For example in your case, if the houseowner didnt have a gun, what if he took a bat or a knife instead? serious injury and even death can occur from those things as well. Likewise, the gun can be used for threatening or debilitating rather than for killing as well. In your example, I believe proper training would do more than removing guns, that houseowner is going to find some way of defending himself with or without a gun.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
But all you list is risk for yourself, which is okay for me - if someone wants to smoke they can do it, no prob.
lets take the example of a burglar who is inrtuding a house, the owner wakes up, takes his revolver from its locker and investigates who is in his house, notices a dark shady human figure and fires, the burglar dies.
I don't think burglary is right, but it sure does not deserve a death sentence.
second hand smoke increases risk of lung cancer for non-smokers, drunk driving kills, even the burden on the health care system can be lessened if people ate more healthily, everything we do has consequences for other people. I do agree with you that guns create a much more immediate and permanent threat on other people than the examples I list, however I feel that its fundamentally wrong to go about it with bans and does not solve the problem. For example in your case, if the houseowner didnt have a gun, what if he took a bat or a knife instead? serious injury and even death can occur from those things as well. Likewise, the gun can be used for threatening or debilitating rather than for killing as well. In your example, I believe proper training would do more than removing guns, that houseowner is going to find some way of defending himself with or without a gun.
and smoking in places where you have to be around others is banned (in most countries) drunk driving is illigal and there are increasing calls for heavier fat taxes. none of this is an argument at all.
then you bring up bats, and you kind of prove yourself wrong. yes bats can kill people, but they arent as lethal as guns. it feels stupid to even have to say this, but yes i would prefer to be attacked by a guy with a bat than a guy with a gun, again i dont see your argument. there is no way to control the amount of objects that could possibly hurt someone, anything that isnt made of foam would be banned. but a guns sole purpose is to kill people, theres no grey area here. reducing guns reduces deaths with no logical argument to keep them about.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
Those things are relevant when you're living in a young nation that just broke free from forreign opression. Not in this modern world. How would armed citizens pose any threat to forreign agression. The only forreign agression/invasion you will encounter in the comming hundred years is terrorism. When have armed citizens of a wealthy western modern country stopped an invasion? And when there is a reason to rise up against your own goverment gun laws won't stop the population from arming themselfs. Having guns to protect your freedom to have guns is just fasle logic. And is the possibility of one of those (in my eyes) unrealistic events happening worth all the deaths by gun violence?
On July 22 2012 09:58 Slanina wrote: A lot of Americans (not all argue that stricter gun laws wont stop killings. Thats right. But it will still bring down murder rates enormously. And thats simply more important then somebodies feelings and thoughts about the freedom of owning guns. Period.
Enormously? I didn't know you had the power of foresight. Seeing as America has one of the largest operating black market networks, and guns are already in mass circulation, I doubt that foresight is really dead on... It actually probably wouldn't alter the homicide rate up or down.
On July 22 2012 07:00 Warlike Prince wrote: 1 armed citizen in the theater could have saved so many lives
Yes, that's very accurate. An unarmed citizen is a victim who hasn't been victimized yet. If a concealed carrying law abiding citizen had been in that theater the casualties would have been single digit.
The police arrived within NINETY SECONDS of receiving the APB. How much faster could they possibly have been? Still 54 people injured (overall response time indicates a 5 minute approximately delay between first shot, first 911 call, APB, police arrival on scene). The police are not there to protect you, they are there to catch and punish the person after you and 53 of your friends get shot at a movie theater.
I think a person must have very low self esteem if they think that by putting on a uniform a police officer has better judgement and is more qualified to defend their life than they are. I think it's a mentality thing, when I am confronted by danger I think "How can I protect myself in this moment?" but I get the feeling other people think "what can the government do to protect other people in the future after I am a newspaper headline and a teamliquid thread"
its not about if you trust yourself to make a good call in a high pressure situation with a lethal weapon
its about if you trust the dumbest guy in the room to do the same
On July 22 2012 08:19 Oroboros wrote: this issue is really a tough one and i honestly cant understand who people can laugh about others arguments so easily.
i know that societies without any guns would be preferable. but as long as i live in a society, where scenes like these:
almost happen on a daily basis, i wanna be able to defend myself where the police does not. i just dont like being a nice victim to beat for everyone. yeah sure, its not likely, that this does happen to me. but i pretty much dont care too much about statistics when it comes to my own safety. berlin makes me feel insecure enough to want to carry a gun.
of course i know that thing would overall be worse if these criminals had a gun too. im highly ambivalent on all this. but overall, i want to be able to defend myself. because the police and the whole state fails on crime prevention.
you can laugh about my wish to feel safe now all you want.
statistics show that by owning a gun the chances are greater that you yourself will face mortal danger, whether it be through being overpowered by a gang and then shot with your own weapon, or by general changes in law making it easier for 'bad guys' to get guns, escalating the violence may make you feel safer, but infact achieves the opposite.
statistics dont say anything about specific and different real life situations. while statistically deescalating might be the best thing to do, almost every single self defence teacher i know says otherwise and in the video you can see how easily u can get killed by doing nothing. there is no certainty in that. you gotta react according to the situation.
its in a defence teachers financial interest to make you believe that you are in imminent danger and need to learn to defend yourself. why would you trust anything a defence teacher says about your chances of being in danger?
if you want to bring up the video again and again, sure thats 1 case you can find, where the other guy having a gun may have lead to a 'better' outcome. but dont fool yourself in to thinking this is either a, a good argument or b, a certainty. the 2 others there are clearly the attackers friend, sure they dont want him killing this random guy, but you dont think they would defend their friend if the defender pulled a gun? a gun in that situation probably would of lead to 2 people being killed instead of 1 guy getting killed? hurt? i dont know german so idk.
secondly, there are many many situations, where either someone is at fault, ie a burgler or attacker, or where people simply get in to a heated argument, maybe due to drinking or because they are dicks, where a gun being present increases the risks of fatality. like i said above, its not about if you trust yourself to restrain from shooting for bad reasons, its about if you trust the stupidest person to have the same restraint. if someone wants to steal something from you do they deserve to die? if someone bumps into a drunken guy who carrys a gun, does he deserve to die?
no guns is not a perfect solution, people hurt each other with other weapons and even without, good people get hurt every day, but the numbers speak for themselves. adding guns in to the equation only increases the risk for the average law abiding citizen.
all true man. yet, i dont wanna die or have friends killed. i really dont want the most stupid people to carry a gun. i just want to have one for myself. i know i cant make a coherent argument out of it that would work for a society (why should i be allowed and others not). but really. i want a gun
On February 20 2012 03:41 Yongwang wrote: Why are Europeans even bothering to post in this thread? You don't even live in or know anything about America, so stop trying to force your false views of the world down our throats. If you don't like America, don't go America, problem solved. But don't try and tell me how to live my life.
damn non-'Muricans trying to tell me a hard working 'Murican how to live in 'Murica
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
edit
On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly.
Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion?
Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
edit
On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
Those things are relevant when you're living in a young nation that just broke free from forreign opression. Not in this modern world. How would armed citizens pose any threat to forreign agression. The only forreign agression/invasion you will encounter in the comming hundred years is terrorism. When have armed citizens of a wealthy western modern country stopped an invasion? And when there is a reason to rise up against your own goverment gun laws won't stop the population from arming themselfs. Having guns to protect your freedom to have guns is just fasle logic. And is the possibility of one of those (in my eyes) unrealistic events happening worth all the deaths by gun violence?
Yes it is. And hundreds of armed civilians have broken free from oppression in Egypt and other Mideastern countries. Its not neccessary for the citizens to have a nuke to defends against a country with nukes. Go ahead and destroy what you are trying to oppress, thats not the point. Terrorism works, the relatively unadvanced and unarmed Iraqi and Afghani people have soured the overarmed American force in a decade. If those same American troops tried to Occupy Jacksonville they would have left in 2002.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
But all you list is risk for yourself, which is okay for me - if someone wants to smoke they can do it, no prob.
lets take the example of a burglar who is inrtuding a house, the owner wakes up, takes his revolver from its locker and investigates who is in his house, notices a dark shady human figure and fires, the burglar dies.
I don't think burglary is right, but it sure does not deserve a death sentence.
You're using a pretty poor point of view here. It's not a death sentence. It's just death. He wasn't put before a judge, convicted, and then killed by the state. He intruded into someone's property, possibly with the intent to physically harm the owner, and knew that he was living in a place where gun ownership is legal.
There are two possibilities:
He understood that gun ownership and the use of weapons to defend one's private property is legal in his country, and so there is a risk of this happening to him, but he ignores it or gambles and loses, making this his fault. If you take a risk, and it doesn't pay off, that's your fault.
or
He didn't know people had the right to own firearms and use them to defend their property, and it is his own fault for not looking into the possible outcomes of his actions. While this is incredibly unlikely, if you don't know the risks of your actions, you are still responsible when the results of your actions are unfavorable.
Regardless of your position on the liberty of one to defend their property with a firearm, you should understand that in a country where this is legal, the burglar is at fault, not the law abiding citizen who was peacefully sleeping in his own bed. It is a direct consequence of his own illegal, immoral, and violent actions, and is legally in favor of the home owner.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
edit
On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly.
Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion?
Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people.
I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim.
And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government.
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
I don't think people like you recognize the REAL reason for the 2nd Amendment. Its not so I can stop a home invasion (in a 1v1 fight where no guns existed I would best 9/10 people), that is an ancillary benefit to guns (that they essentially level the playing field between the physically strong and weak). No, the reason for the 2nd Amendement is to protect Me, My Family, My Community, My State, and My Nation from the people who would be imposing the law to restrict gun rights. An armed populace is supposed to deter tyrrany, deter usurpting freedoms, and deter foreign invasion.
edit
On July 22 2012 09:49 Sjokola wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:42 kdgns wrote:
On July 22 2012 09:28 Sjokola wrote: Where is the harm in outlawing guns. We all know that having a gun significantly increases the chance that you die by gunfire. The only valid argument I've heard is that it's (debatably) a right to own a gun. But lot's of rights change through time. I believe US culture is too different form European for me to have an accurate image of how it could be. But where's the harm in trying. I couldn't possibly get worse when people aren't allowed to have guns so why not.
Smoking increases risk of lung cancer, eating unhealthy foods is bad for you, drinking alcohol makes you make bad decisions, the list goes on. In terms of doing dangerous and stupid things that harm yourself, or increase the risk of harming yourself, it should not be up to the law to remove those things because you can not regulate stupidity or self destructiveness without being a police state. Prohibiting something that's bad for people has been tried in the past with alcohol, which had quite a disastrous effect. I think if you try to do that with guns you would end up with similar things, except instead of speakeasies you end up with unregistered guns, instead of moonshine, you get homemade guns without proper safeties, etc. Banning guns is pretty much off the table in terms of an option for me, the retaliation from the opposition would be too extreme.
Good point. But guns not only hurt yourself. I was just making that point to show that it isn't safer for yourself to own a gun, let a alone other people. The second point you make is actually very convincing to me. The is true for drugs policy. In the Netherlands the drugs policy which has always been very liberal is becoming more and more strict. And already you can see a rise in the illegal street sale. So maybe outlawing guns isn't the right option (in the US) but it should at least be heavily regulated don't you agree.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
you live in the least politically savy western country i can think of, where you allow money to dictate politics to the highest degree and you equate speech to wealth, you think that in the modern world guns protect you? if you think england is at risk from tyranny and foreign invasion because we dont have guns, but youre country is ok because even though you have unlimited hidden donations to candidates, at least you own a pistol, i think you are being very silly.
Why exactly is a discussion of campaign finance law (mainly drafted so that incumbants can stay in, and consolidae thier power) relevant to a gun control discussion?
Well the only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict fredom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people.
I am for the populace owning guns, but your argument and comparison is a bit ridiculous, you might want to fix that last line up, because it really puts all of us who think owning guns as a civilian is good in a bad light because we have you saying "only reason I can think of is the people who want to restrict freedom of speech and freedom to carry a gun are the same people" -.-. Dumb logic is dumb.
I don't see what Logical connection you are ascribing to me. I don't think debates about Citizens United belong here. I called out said poster for doing it and said they only reason he brought it in is because he believes in both causes. That is all.
No, regulation of guns defeats the entire purpose of gun freedom.
The arms specified in the context of the constitution take more time to load and fire one bullet at haphazard accuracy than it took one man to kill a dozen people yesterday. The Founding Fathers weren't thinking of allowing mentally/emotionally unstable people to buy hand-sized semi-automatics on a whim.
And I'm sick of people suggesting that the 2nd Amendment deters government tyranny. No gun you could ever save up the money to buy could protect you if our government decided to lock you up in a dark hole forever. They have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. We, the people (specifically the people who insist upon the right to carry), PAY THEM to have the better weapons, better soldiers, and better training. Until pro-gun voters start supporting the guy who says he'll scale back our defense budget, I refuse to believe they actually give a damn about defending America from an oppressively large government.
1. Your "old guns" context just changes the opportunity cost of freedom. Lots of things do that. I still feel that the cost is much less than the benefit. 2. Yes, the cops have better weapons than the average person. BUT, do you think the NoPD could impose martial law on the entirety of New Orleans? No, they can't, thats why they called in the National Guard during Katrina. Guess what, they can't call in the National Guard to every city in the country.
Guns are great and I own several but it's way too easy to buy one in the US. IMO, we should have gun licenses just as we do driver's licenses. Mental health evaluations should be part of the licensing and purchasing process.
EPT
argue that stricter gun laws wont stop killings. Thats right. But it will still bring down murder rates enormously. And thats simply more important then somebodies feelings and thoughts about the freedom of owning guns. Period.
