|
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 23 2012 16:59 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 16:52 Dakk wrote:
I believe that no one besides then the military should be allowed guns. Guns are bad and guns kill people. Legalizing guns is just making it easier for the killers to kill....
So what do you do when a man with a gun breaks into your home? Do you just let him shoot you?
you know the chance of that happening is incredibly small, because it's not that easy to get a gun where he lives
also why do you think a guy that breaks into your house with a gun would always want to shoot you? maybe he just wants to take your TV and he brings a gun because he's afraid of some maniac that thinks he has to shoot at every shadow
|
On July 23 2012 16:59 ranshaked wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 16:52 Dakk wrote:
I believe that no one besides then the military should be allowed guns. Guns are bad and guns kill people. Legalizing guns is just making it easier for the killers to kill....
So what do you do when a man with a gun breaks into your home? Do you just let him shoot you?
Regular criminals don't have guns in my country. With decent gun control, it's difficult even for criminals to acquire a gun. They need connections to organized crime as well as a decent amount of money (illegal guns are expensive when there aren't any legal guns). Your everyday smalltime criminal will have neither. Most criminals with guns are in organized crime groups that seem to primarily use the guns on eachother.
Regular burglars emphasize stealth. They're in and out before you know what happened. And if they hear any sounds that indicate that you may be at home / awake, they will flee. Someone being injured or killed by a burglar is extremely rare in the Netherlands.
|
Hmm, I'm realizing that part of the problem in this discussion is there is a disconnection in base philosophy for those on one side of the argument... one side thinks that giving government more power to regulate and control our daily lives can't be anything but a good thing... this side believes that every day people shouldn't or can't be trusted with the grave responsibility of owning a firearm.... believes that big daddy government can be trusted to handle deadly force, but ordinary citizens are basically just immature children or barbaric animals, too stupid to understand the power or too prone to emotional outburst to use it properly. Or in their mind, every gun owner neccessarily thinks ignorant thoughts about guns like they do: as if in the mind of the gun owner they are living out some egotistical fantasy pretending that they are Segal or Eastwood. They aren't willing to look at the practical benefits of private firearm ownership, and the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of properly trained, responsible carriers. Apparently everyone in the government and police and military are simply too holy and educated to ever make mistakes or fall to human corruption and can be trusted with deadly force, but citizens with the same average intelligence and physical attributes as members of the government and police and military must be collosal dumbfucks because they aren't in position of authority.
|
On July 23 2012 17:07 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 16:59 ranshaked wrote:On July 23 2012 16:52 Dakk wrote:
I believe that no one besides then the military should be allowed guns. Guns are bad and guns kill people. Legalizing guns is just making it easier for the killers to kill....
So what do you do when a man with a gun breaks into your home? Do you just let him shoot you? you know the chance of that happening is incredibly small, because it's not that easy to get a gun where he lives also why do you think a guy that breaks into your house with a gun would always want to shoot you? maybe he just wants to take your TV and he brings a gun because he's afraid of some maniac that thinks he has to shoot at every shadow
So you can understand why the malicious thief would want to tote a gun, but when a homeowner wants to own it own it for defensive purposes he's labeled a triggerhappy maniac?
|
On July 23 2012 17:13 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 16:59 ranshaked wrote:On July 23 2012 16:52 Dakk wrote:
I believe that no one besides then the military should be allowed guns. Guns are bad and guns kill people. Legalizing guns is just making it easier for the killers to kill....
So what do you do when a man with a gun breaks into your home? Do you just let him shoot you? Regular criminals don't have guns in my country. With decent gun control, it's difficult even for criminals to acquire a gun. They need connections to organized crime as well as a decent amount of money (illegal guns are expensive when there aren't any legal guns). Your everyday smalltime criminal will have neither. Most criminals with guns are in organized crime groups that seem to primarily use the guns on eachother. Regular burglars emphasize stealth. They're in and out before you know what happened. And if they hear any sounds that indicate that you may be at home / awake, they will flee. Someone being injured or killed by a burglar is extremely rare in the Netherlands.
The problem is the US is about 20x the population of your country, and already has a HUGE amount of guns floating around, both legally owned and illegal. Tight gun control wouldn't have the same effect. There is a pretty strong link between poverty and crime, and since guns are so widely available here it makes the problem worse. It just isn't realistic to take the guns out of everyone's hands at this point. We really just need to work on our societal problems, and if we are able to do this successfully we would have more productive, happy citizens without needing to take away rights. Sounds win-win to me 
|
On July 23 2012 17:34 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 17:13 Rannasha wrote:On July 23 2012 16:59 ranshaked wrote:On July 23 2012 16:52 Dakk wrote:
I believe that no one besides then the military should be allowed guns. Guns are bad and guns kill people. Legalizing guns is just making it easier for the killers to kill....
So what do you do when a man with a gun breaks into your home? Do you just let him shoot you? Regular criminals don't have guns in my country. With decent gun control, it's difficult even for criminals to acquire a gun. They need connections to organized crime as well as a decent amount of money (illegal guns are expensive when there aren't any legal guns). Your everyday smalltime criminal will have neither. Most criminals with guns are in organized crime groups that seem to primarily use the guns on eachother. Regular burglars emphasize stealth. They're in and out before you know what happened. And if they hear any sounds that indicate that you may be at home / awake, they will flee. Someone being injured or killed by a burglar is extremely rare in the Netherlands. The problem is the US is about 20x the population of your country, and already has a HUGE amount of guns floating around, both legally owned and illegal. Tight gun control wouldn't have the same effect. There is a pretty strong link between poverty and crime, and since guns are so widely available here it makes the problem worse. It just isn't realistic to take the guns out of everyone's hands at this point. We really just need to work on our societal problems, and if we are able to do this successfully we would have more productive, happy citizens without needing to take away rights. Sounds win-win to me
You're right that in the US it's simply not feasible to just revoke the 2nd amendment and call it a day. Gun-ownership is far too prevalent and everyone who wants a gun. has one (or more).
However, that doesn't change the fact that I feel that a society that has had gun-control for many decades is inherently safer than a country without gun-control, making gun-control the idealistic scenario even though it is not, in the case of the US, a realistic scenario.
|
Another common misconception of people against private gun ownership is that defensive use of guns against criminals is an uncommon rare occurance and because it is so rare, this reason is not justifiable compared to the number of incidents where psychos or thugs murder people, therefore they do more harm then good. Tell me, if you believe this, have you actually researched the statistics?:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
|
On July 23 2012 17:40 StarStrider wrote:
Another common misconception of people against private gun ownership is that defensive use of guns against criminals is an uncommon rare occurance and because it is so rare, this reason is not justifiable compared to the number of incidents where psychos or thugs murder people, therefore they do more harm then good. Tell me, if you believe this, have you actually researched the statistics?:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
So this means that you probably have incident at least once every 5 seconds, since I suppose Defensive gun use happens in less than 50% of the cases, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all?
Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years.
Doing nothing helps no one.
And what I meant by my earlier comment is that a criminal is more likely to use/carry gun when he knows that if he doesn't he'll be at a disadvantage. Now if the case would be like in most Europe, where if you meet a guy it's probably about 1 in 100000 chance that he carries a gun, will you feel the need to carry a gun yourself? I strongly doubt that.
|
On July 23 2012 17:50 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 17:40 StarStrider wrote:
Another common misconception of people against private gun ownership is that defensive use of guns against criminals is an uncommon rare occurance and because it is so rare, this reason is not justifiable compared to the number of incidents where psychos or thugs murder people, therefore they do more harm then good. Tell me, if you believe this, have you actually researched the statistics?:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
So this means that you probably have incident at least once every 5 seconds, since I suppose Defensive gun use happens in less than 50% of the cases, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all? Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years. Doing nothing helps no one. And what I meant by my earlier comment is that a criminal is more likely to use/carry gun when he knows that if he doesn't he'll be at a disadvantage. Now if the case would be like in most Europe, where if you meet a guy it's probably about 1 in 100000 chance that he carries a gun, will you feel the need to carry a gun yourself? I strongly doubt that.
My stats were provided by a study. Where did you get yours that say that Defensive Gun Use only accounts for half of all gun use?
As far as 'criminals wouldn't carry guns if they weren't readily available' .... well, that's just a fundamental difference of our society. As has been said, trying to get guns from defensive owners, and criminals, would be inviting a transitional period of a huge crime wave, because only one side would actually obey new laws and turn them in.
|
|
|
On July 23 2012 17:54 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 17:50 anomalopidae wrote:On July 23 2012 17:40 StarStrider wrote:
Another common misconception of people against private gun ownership is that defensive use of guns against criminals is an uncommon rare occurance and because it is so rare, this reason is not justifiable compared to the number of incidents where psychos or thugs murder people, therefore they do more harm then good. Tell me, if you believe this, have you actually researched the statistics?:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
So this means that you probably have incident at least once every 5 seconds, since I suppose Defensive gun use happens in less than 50% of the cases, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all? Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years. Doing nothing helps no one. And what I meant by my earlier comment is that a criminal is more likely to use/carry gun when he knows that if he doesn't he'll be at a disadvantage. Now if the case would be like in most Europe, where if you meet a guy it's probably about 1 in 100000 chance that he carries a gun, will you feel the need to carry a gun yourself? I strongly doubt that. My stats were provided by a study. Where did you get yours that say that Defensive Gun Use only accounts for half of all gun use?
I'm pretty sure I used words probably and suppose. And does it really make a difference? It doesn't make one to me, even if the use of gun would be once per 30 minutes, it's still too much.
But to oblige you:
One Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all?
Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years.
Doing nothing helps no one.
|
I dont think so. As with most problems in this life, it all comes down to human heart. There are many people with evil hearts that will abuse this power. Yes, people will say yes to this question only for self-defense. But in reality, there is always a group of people who will abuse this power, shooting people at random, like those school massacres etc. because of the nature of their heart
So in my opinion sadly no, humans just cannot be trusted with this power(carrying a gun being legalized).
|
On July 23 2012 17:57 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 17:54 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 17:50 anomalopidae wrote:On July 23 2012 17:40 StarStrider wrote:
Another common misconception of people against private gun ownership is that defensive use of guns against criminals is an uncommon rare occurance and because it is so rare, this reason is not justifiable compared to the number of incidents where psychos or thugs murder people, therefore they do more harm then good. Tell me, if you believe this, have you actually researched the statistics?:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
So this means that you probably have incident at least once every 5 seconds, since I suppose Defensive gun use happens in less than 50% of the cases, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all? Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years. Doing nothing helps no one. And what I meant by my earlier comment is that a criminal is more likely to use/carry gun when he knows that if he doesn't he'll be at a disadvantage. Now if the case would be like in most Europe, where if you meet a guy it's probably about 1 in 100000 chance that he carries a gun, will you feel the need to carry a gun yourself? I strongly doubt that. My stats were provided by a study. Where did you get yours that say that Defensive Gun Use only accounts for half of all gun use? I'm pretty sure I used words probably and suppose. And does it really make a difference? It doesn't make one to me, even if the use of gun would be once per 30 minutes, it's still too much. But to oblige you: One Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all? Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years. Doing nothing helps no one.
I think it makes a huge difference whether your argument is fictional or based in reality, yes. Supposing and hypothesizing is a convenient way to prove any point you want because, hey, it could be true. Hard data is the only way to back up your argument.
Defensive Gun Use doesn't only happen when the criminal is carrying a gun, you know that right? This means the citizen has an incredible amount of authority in these situations that he could otherwise not exert. In the UK, for example, he would have no gun with which to threaten. The firearm always exerts the most authority. You don't have to wait for police to show up after it's too late, you can protect yourself before an incident happens. If you think that private citizens shouldn't be given this trust, you're appealing to the fallacious argument I mentioned above that says that somehow the state is always a trustworthy wielder of this force but everyday people are seen as too unstable or stupid to handle it responsibly.
|
On July 23 2012 17:57 anomalopidae wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 17:54 StarStrider wrote:On July 23 2012 17:50 anomalopidae wrote:On July 23 2012 17:40 StarStrider wrote:
Another common misconception of people against private gun ownership is that defensive use of guns against criminals is an uncommon rare occurance and because it is so rare, this reason is not justifiable compared to the number of incidents where psychos or thugs murder people, therefore they do more harm then good. Tell me, if you believe this, have you actually researched the statistics?:
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)
In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.
In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.
In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.
In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)
In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.
So this means that you probably have incident at least once every 5 seconds, since I suppose Defensive gun use happens in less than 50% of the cases, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all? Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years. Doing nothing helps no one. And what I meant by my earlier comment is that a criminal is more likely to use/carry gun when he knows that if he doesn't he'll be at a disadvantage. Now if the case would be like in most Europe, where if you meet a guy it's probably about 1 in 100000 chance that he carries a gun, will you feel the need to carry a gun yourself? I strongly doubt that. My stats were provided by a study. Where did you get yours that say that Defensive Gun Use only accounts for half of all gun use? I'm pretty sure I used words probably and suppose. And does it really make a difference? It doesn't make one to me, even if the use of gun would be once per 30 minutes, it's still too much. But to oblige you: One Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds, does that strike you as safe and well? Or do you think that it would be better to start preventing gun incidents from happening at all? Yes banning private gun ownership would have little effect in short term, but your country would be a lot safer in 50 years. Doing nothing helps no one.
The problem is, I can guarantee that a ban of private gun ownership won't happen in the US. Too many people feel too strongly about their right to own a gun, and ownership is already extremely common. There is no gun crime problem without the already existing crime problem. We need to work at fixing our poverty/drug/gang/general social inequality issues in order to reduce the number of criminals, rather than putting so much effort into unrealistic attempts to replace criminals that will shoot victims when they feel so inclined with criminals that stab victims.
|
On July 23 2012 18:00 dynwar7 wrote:
I dont think so. As with most problems in this life, it all comes down to human heart. There are many people with evil hearts that will abuse this power. Yes, people will say yes to this question only for self-defense. But in reality, there is always a group of people who will abuse this power, shooting people at random, like those school massacres etc. because of the nature of their heart
So in my opinion sadly no, humans just cannot be trusted with this power(carrying a gun being legalized).
Guns, like anything in life, are used safely and carried responsibly by the vast majority of the population. Because there are a few lunatics who misuse firearms, or a few vigilantes who misuse firearms (Zimmerman), shouldn't be a reason to outlaw them all. It's just like every other PC liberal logic "Oh, people were idiots on diving boards at the public pool and a few in millions got hurt, therefore we are going to ban all diving boards" "Oh, a few bad apples do things late at night in the streets, therefore we are implementing a curfew so no one is allowed to be out at this hour" "Oh, underage soldiers were getting drunk and disorderly off base in a foreign country, therefore no one is allowed to go off base anymore" "Oh, someone got run off the road on a bicycle on this road before, therefore no one is allowed to ride here anymore" "Oh, a few people didn't clean up their dog shit in the park, therefore no dogs are allowed in this park anymore". Your freedoms will slowly dissolve into nothingness as rare stupid idiots ruin everything for everyone, if this pattern of thought is followed. It's easy to focus on these issues as 'common' when the media stirs the pot up for weeks or months after an incident, and yet in a country with pretty free gun laws, the incidents still only happen a few times more often than incidents in restricted gun countries.
|
On July 23 2012 18:17 StarStrider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2012 18:00 dynwar7 wrote:
I dont think so. As with most problems in this life, it all comes down to human heart. There are many people with evil hearts that will abuse this power. Yes, people will say yes to this question only for self-defense. But in reality, there is always a group of people who will abuse this power, shooting people at random, like those school massacres etc. because of the nature of their heart
So in my opinion sadly no, humans just cannot be trusted with this power(carrying a gun being legalized). Guns, like anything in life, are used safely and carried responsibly by the vast majority of the population. Because there are a few lunatics who misuse firearms, or a few vigilantes who misuse firearms (Zimmerman), shouldn't be a reason to outlaw them all. It's just like every other PC liberal logic "Oh, people were idiots on diving boards at the public pool and a few in millions got hurt, therefore we are going to ban all diving boards" "Oh, a few bad apples do things late at night in the streets, therefore we are implementing a curfew so no one is allowed to be out at this hour" "Oh, underage soldiers were getting drunk and disorderly off base in a foreign country, therefore no one is allowed to go off base anymore" "Oh, someone got run off the road on a bicycle on this road before, therefore no one is allowed to ride here anymore" "Oh, a few people didn't clean up their dog shit in the park, therefore no dogs are allowed in this park anymore". Your freedoms will slowly dissolve into nothingness as rare stupid idiots ruin everything for everyone, if this pattern of thought is followed. It's easy to focus on these issues as 'common' when the media stirs the pot up for weeks or months after an incident, and yet in a country with pretty free gun laws, the incidents still only happen a few times more often than incidents in restricted gun countries.
Well, that is my opinion.
I ialso think that if guns are legal, then everyone would have at least 1 for self defense, etc. and.....seeing as how messed up the world today is, more and more people are depressed, and more depressed people = more desperate, more desperate = higher chance of doing something crazy with guns....dont be surprised if the statistics of people being shot go up, once guns are legalized. All because people are more desperate etc for money/work/etc, if they cant do anything, well, they will just do crazy stuff like those massacres, what is it gonna hurt them? They cant get a job/work/money etc , so might as well do crazy stuff.
Basically with great power comes great responsibility, and with the condition of people in today's world, it is a big no.
|
The "few bad apples" argument about diving boards and dog shit makes a pretty poor basis of comparison with gun control. Unlike diving boards and parks, guns are designed to fire metal at high velocity into another living being. Furthermore, if you prefer to reduce "one side" of the debate to a convenient straw man who thinks that no one can be trusted but the government, then you demonstrate with zero doubt a lack of earnest interest in taking the debate seriously. That would be akin to saying "the problem with them durn Republicans is that they think less government, lower taxes for the rich, and a bigger military penis are solutions to every problem." Such statements throw out any meaningful discussion about issues that some people think have real weight and merit.
The actual basis of that "one side's" desire for more/better gun control (which non-trolls distinguish from gun elimination) is not some imaginary Oceania-style commie pinko fear of the "everyday man," but a more reasonable and commonplace distrust of the notion that unmediated civil violence and vigilante justice -- or the threat of it -- should be a proper way to solve or prevent civil disputes in a civilized nation.
Even the pro-gun-ownership OP has mentioned that the society we want is one without hand- and machine-guns. We'll call this an "ideal," as Rannasha puts it:
A society that has had gun-control for many decades is inherently safer than a country without gun-control, making gun-control the idealistic scenario even though it is not, in the case of the US, a realistic scenario. Any humane civilization should strive to reach that ideal. The question is whether it can ever be done in the US and how. For example, one might argue that regulating the distribution of firearms -- so that law enforcement and lawmakers should take measures against gun trafficking, so that only sane people over a certain age who take required courses and tests to earn a license can buy guns, and so that the number of type of guns are limited -- would make a good first step toward eliminating any need for them in the distant future. Someone else on this forum, such as someone who prefers doubling down on gun ownership, would then offer a critique of those particular solutions, with the hope that they could eventually convince the other side that their ideal is unreachable forever. (They would have a harder time showing that doubling-down actually makes a good ideal in itself, since we currently live in a country that comes pretty close to matching that ideal and it has demonstrably worse violent crime statistics than most first-world countries with gun-elimination policies.)
|
After a bit of thinking, yeah. Banning guns in the US would not work, because of many reasons. First, the US cant protect its borders (not saying that they could do a better job, just stating the fact). It would be easier there to get guns illegally into the country than for example over here (and in vastly superior numbers, if you see what amount of drugs swim into the US). Which would lead to a good saturated black market. So the argument of the gun maniacs here, that a criminal would have a gun where the citizen does not, is more or less accurate.
But. And heres the funny part. The united States are really fucked up in that regard (you need a gun to feel safe, how fuckin depressing is that?), so i "get" the need to own a handgun, if even burglars are armed (and btw, its because your system is so idiotically screwed up, because in other countries they are NOT armed).
Handguns, not full-auto assault rifles (or stuff like MAC10s). Still, the gunmaniacs (and 90% of the americans in this thread are just that) dont want to ban them, even if there is actually completely no use for them at all (in a home invasion, i would not want a huge rifle, but a small manouverable handgun). It may be correct that it rarely occurs that lunatics (i mean real lunatics, not your common citizen in the us) use full-auto-weapons, but gangs use them all the time. Drive by shootings with MPs, MAC10s etc?
So, to come to an end of the rant, america needs to and really should, ban everything thats not a handgun. Because theres no need for them. And no, theres nothing you can say about that, there is absolutely no need for that. America needs to reduce the crime overall (because a country where you need a deadly force to feel safe cant be all that safe, right?), and should do everything that they can to achieve that. Banning full auto MPs etc would be a good start, even tho you cant get rid of all the guns in the us. That train is gone.
|
The issue with gun-related violence is not the guns themselves, but the people. Mentally unstable people will find a way to harm others even without guns. I think the government should be more focused on funding mental health services instead of wasting more time/resource debating and coming up with useless revisions of firearm policy. The fact that mental healthcare is an expensive and inaccessible privilege nowadays in the US says a lot about the the spike in violence (especially in the Northwest).
|
On July 23 2012 21:01 m4inbrain wrote:
After a bit of thinking, yeah. Banning guns in the US would not work, because of many reasons. First, the US cant protect its borders (not saying that they could do a better job, just stating the fact). It would be easier there to get guns illegally into the country than for example over here (and in vastly superior numbers, if you see what amount of drugs swim into the US). Which would lead to a good saturated black market. So the argument of the gun maniacs here, that a criminal would have a gun where the citizen does not, is more or less accurate.
This is quite inaccurate actually. Drugs smuggled into the USA (and other countries) are often manufactured in Central & South American countries, whereas firearms and ammunition are often manufactured in North America and Europe. This situation requires prospective gun smugglers to buy the weapons and then smuggle them back into the USA. Given that the profit margin on guns is far lower than drugs (and also taking into account that guns are not consumables which require a constant supply) it doesn't take a genius to realise that smuggling guns is a far less attractive option.
Funnily enough, the smuggling situation is actually the reverse at the moment: Mexican cartels and gangs are smuggling bullets into Mexico from the USA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
