EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| 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. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 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. Nope, I fear that someone out there would turn violence (or accidents) into murder. I don't fear that anyone I personally know would be violent if they got a gun, but that someone in society would. | ||
|
Nothingtosay
United States875 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:37 JimmiC wrote: Americans are messed up. There should be no guns who's only purpose is to kill humans not hunting. So no Assualt rifles and no hand guns. Practically it would take forever to actually get rid of all the guns that are out there but once they were gone there would be a lot less violent crime. Yes I know people kill people and not guns. But it is a lot harder to kill some one with a knife or hands then it is with a gun. It's a whole different ball game when you have to look some one in the eyes. A four year old can kill some one with a gun. How it became tough or cool to carry and use guns I don't know but really it's wussy as hell. Nothing more pussy then a drive by. If you wanna be tough join a MMA or Boxing gym. If you wanna be a big old pussy and are trying to make up for a small penis buy a gun. Funny thing is I would be republican in every other way other then gun control and religion. and that's my rant Because Canadians don't love their guns? I don't see you saying anything about the swiss either every swiss man has an assualt rifle in his home. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
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. You can't know what he intends when you run downstairs because of breaking glass and there's some dude in a ski mask in your living room. And if you just assume that he's just going to take your stuff and leave, what happens when you allow yourself to get tied up and then he decides to rape your wife? What if he decides to kill you all so there are no witnesses and you're tied up now so there's fuck-all you can do? I wish I had your sense of security about knowing what could happen. But then again, I've had someone break into my house and try to overpower me (didn't work, I got away after fighting back) and I don't know if you have but I'd guess you haven't. You have no idea what could happen once you've been rendered unable to help yourself or anyone else. Yes I know people kill people and not guns. But it is a lot harder to kill some one with a knife or hands then it is with a gun. It's a whole different ball game when you have to look some one in the eyes. A four year old can kill some one with a gun. How it became tough or cool to carry and use guns I don't know but really it's wussy as hell. Nothing more pussy then a drive by. If you wanna be tough join a MMA or Boxing gym. If you wanna be a big old pussy and are trying to make up for a small penis buy a gun. And what if you're physically disabled in some way, you have to use a walker or a wheelchair, or you're 70 years old and have arthritis or osteoporosis or whatever. Are you a pussy because you can't go to the gym, because you aren't in the prime of life, and would have absolutely no chance of defending yourself against someone who was without an equalizer? The only time grandma is equal in power to some thug trying to rob her is when she has a weapon that neutralizes his physical advantage. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 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 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? You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:40 DeepElemBlues wrote: You can't know what he intends when you run downstairs because of breaking glass and there's some dude in a ski mask in your living room. And if you just assume that he's just going to take your stuff and leave, what happens when you allow yourself to get tied up and then he decides to rape your wife? What if he decides to kill you all so there are no witnesses and you're tied up now so there's fuck-all you can do? I wish I had your sense of security about knowing what could happen. But then again, I've had someone break into my house and try to overpower me (didn't work, I got away after fighting back) and I don't know if you have but I'd guess you haven't. You have no idea what could happen once you've been rendered unable to help yourself or anyone else. Mmmm.. yeah.. I don't know really. I guess it's just a cultural difference. In my country not even most criminals have guns. Whenever I've though someone has broken into my house I've just picked up a knife/club and checked what's up. I just don't see the need for them, I wouldn't buy one even if I could. | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
Saying people shouldn't own firearms because they might be used to kill other people is like saying people shouldn't own cars because they might choose to run people over with them. Psychopaths are going to do what they are going to do whether or not firearms are legal, and making them illegal would only promote a black market in which it would actually be EASIER for criminals and psychopaths to get them. | ||
|
nicotn
Netherlands186 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. 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. Sounds like you have a case of Posttraumatic stress disorder mate, and do i detect a hint of tinfoil? | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:40 DeepElemBlues wrote: You can't know what he intends when you run downstairs because of breaking glass and there's some dude in a ski mask in your living room. And if you just assume that he's just going to take your stuff and leave, what happens when you allow yourself to get tied up and then he decides to rape your wife? What if he decides to kill you all so there are no witnesses and you're tied up now so there's fuck-all you can do? I wish I had your sense of security about knowing what could happen. But then again, I've had someone break into my house and try to overpower me (didn't work, I got away after fighting back) and I don't know if you have but I'd guess you haven't. You have no idea what could happen once you've been rendered unable to help yourself or anyone else. And what if you're physically disabled in some way, you have to use a walker or a wheelchair, or you're 70 years old and have arthritis or osteoporosis or whatever. Are you a pussy because you can't go to the gym, because you aren't in the prime of life, and would have absolutely no chance of defending yourself against someone who was without an equalizer? The only time grandma is equal in power to some thug trying to rob her is when she has a weapon that neutralizes his physical advantage. You guys are so fearful. The fact of life is that, at any time, at any place, something can go wrong. You cant live your life properly with this fear. Americans are some of the most fearful people I have ever encountered. The fact of the matter is, guns kill more people than they defend. You are mroe likely to be hurt or killed by presenting yourself as a threat (its circular reasoning to say owning a gun will allow me to defend myself, thus making me safer, because then the criminal says the same, and buys a bigger, better gun, ad infinitum). Statistically, less people die if there are far less guns, and less people get injured or killed in altercations if there are less guns. I like to play the odds. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. Not compare them, but there is no difference really. Modern militaries have just as much trouble against popular resistance movements today as they did 250 years ago. It's reassuring to see that so many people have a healthy fear of the US military, but for some reason your arguments weren't persuasive to terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they did quite well against an enemy they should have, according to you, never had a chance against. You're the one out to lunch if you think you can ignore history just because you want to. You guys are so fearful. Nonsense. We're fearful because that's the explanation that fits what you want to believe, regardless of whether it is true or not. The fact of life is that, at any time, at any place, something can go wrong. You cant live your life properly with this fear. Again, nonsense. You seem to think this fear is just overwhelming and is in the front of our minds all the time. That's silly and it isn't true. Americans are some of the most fearful people I have ever encountered. Again, nonsense. Where do you come up with this crap? You don't know anything about Americans being "fearful," you have no evidence, your reasoning is nothing but preconceived notions put into the right slots to confirm what you want to believe. You just come up with an explanation that fits your negative view, you don't care if it's right or not. The fact of the matter is, guns kill more people than they defend. Not true. Again, http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/78800063 You are mroe likely to be hurt or killed by presenting yourself as a threat (its circular reasoning to say owning a gun will allow me to defend myself, thus making me safer, because then the criminal says the same, and buys a bigger, better gun, ad infinitum). It's reasoning devoid entirely of morality to say that the initiator of violence should get a free pass because violence should be avoided. Statistically, less people die if there are far less guns, and less people get injured or killed in altercations if there are less guns. I like to play the odds. First part true, second part totally untrue. You managed to write a whole paragraph with only half of one sentence being accurate, that's pretty bad. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:42 Focuspants wrote: You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. Nowhere does he say that a revolution from 250 years ago could take the US military. He was saying that revolutions can and do overthrow more "powerful" regimes all the time. Besides, look how well some obsolete AK47's, and duct-taped bombs work in Iraq right now. Look how well home-made landmines and boobytraps worked in Vietnam. It is not hopeless in any situation, and owning guns will certainly NOT hurt your chances. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:38 OrchidThief wrote: Nope, I fear that someone out there would turn violence (or accidents) into murder. I don't fear that anyone I personally know would be violent if they got a gun, but that someone in society would. See, and I hesitate to put this as it starts to veer off topic, but that effectively starts punishing people for crimes they have not committed. Someone is always going to be out there to hurt you, that I agree with, whether they or you realize it. But who are "they"? And in turn who are you to tell them they can't own a gun without knowing them? Apply this same argument to something like drugs (which I think should be legal). Pot should be illegal because someone out there is going to ruin their lives toking up all day. We all know stoners who smoke a bit too much and their lives suffer financially and otherwise because of it. It's this idea that we can control everyone all the time from making poor decisions. It's not realistic, nor is it even humane since you're reducing what is likely a reasonable, responsible human being to an insignificant piece in a collective whole. Consider Dunbar's Number. I understand what you're trying to say, and to a degree I'm inclined to think the same. But then it becomes a matter of empathy and equity and I'm just not willing to tell others how to live their lives until they explicitly prove they are incapable of living alongside other humans in a peaceful manner. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
it goes the same evrytime anyways. US "we need guns to defend ourselves from whatever" vs rest of the world "guns are used to kill people. no one that doesnt need one for his job should have one". i dont blame the americans. they live in a different world when it comes to guns and the nra , media etc does the rest. still i dont see the reason for the gunlove and fear (but i guess if evryone in my country would have a gun i might be scared too) but i accepted that its pointless to argue about it. its like talking to the japanese government about whale hunting. | ||
|
nicotn
Netherlands186 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:27 Hertzy wrote: Ergo, I buy a gun as an additional layer of security. It wont help you when there are multiple serial killers, if you don't have a proper alarm with police notification, you're doing it wrong. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:44 Meta wrote: Just going to weigh in here... in my opinion, of course people should be allowed to own firearms. You can do more with firearms than just kill people. In fact, I'd wager that among privately owned firearms in the US, a vast majority are used for recreation and have never been used in a violent act. Saying people shouldn't own firearms because they might be used to kill other people is like saying people shouldn't own cars because they might choose to run people over with them. Psychopaths are going to do what they are going to do whether or not firearms are legal, and making them illegal would only promote a black market in which it would actually be EASIER for criminals and psychopaths to get them. A lot of people are making the hobbies and recreation argument. I find this highly irrelevant, people having guns as a hobby is a derived effect of guns being available not the other way around. People in countries with strict gun laws don't have this huge craving for recreation through guns. If there were no guns, these people would find another hobby (or die of boredom so help me god). People could do recreation with gunships and handgrenades, and if they were available they would, but it's not really relevant. The difference between guns and cars are that guns are designed to kill living things, cars aren't. And if a significant amount of crimerelated deaths due to cars, comparable to gun violence was present, I'm sure people would discuss it as well. See, and I hesitate to put this as it starts to veer off topic, but that effectively starts punishing people for crimes they have not committed. Someone is always going to be out there to hurt you, that I agree with, whether they or you realize it. But who are "they"? And in turn who are you to tell them they can't own a gun without knowing them? You can make that argument with anything. Why can't we drive as fast on the roads as we like, aren't we punishing people for accidents they haven't caused? Edit: Changed Insane to huge. =| | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
| ||
|
StayPhrosty
Canada406 Posts
personally i don;t have a home invasion every other day, and im not really worried about being raped all the time either. i really have no reason to carry a handgun, i don;t intend to kill anyone. period. i disagree with most of the general populace on most things, so i honestly don't trust their sense of vigilante justice, weilding deadly weapons just for the sake of having the, | ||
|
esperanto
Germany357 Posts
Germany is a quite safe place, even if there is someone trying to break in my house the chance that he has a gun is quite small and then I just take my baseball bat... From a "socialist european" point of view, I would say that there is no reason why anyone should be able to carry guns outside of sports or hunting. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:42 Focuspants wrote: You want to compare a revolution from 250 years ago to revolting against the current US military? You do realize your military could probably take on the rest of the world combined at the moment right? You really think you have a chance of stopping if they wanted to dominate you? (which they dont) I am sorry, but you are out to lunch. You are also presuming, as I previously mentioned, that all of the military will stay on the government's side. If it goes to civil war, you can either leave the army to fight it out, at which point the ones who got the bulk of the army win, or you can start arming the populace. At this point you have either the option of taking green recruits and starting them up from "this end toward the bad guys", or you can have people who are already experienced shooters and at least half-decent shots. For that matter, there would be a lot of people who served in the military among the rebels. | ||
| ||
