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. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9754 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
Hunting is one of the oldest human activities still in existence. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1057 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:26 Esk23 wrote: Self-defense. A concept not understood in the UK as your right to bear firearms was taken away from you. Not even the avarage cop carries a firearm in the UK, still the the people are way safer. Care to explain that? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9754 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:29 r00ty wrote: Not even the avarage cop carries a firearm in the UK, still the the people are way safer. Care to explain that? Its because you can't buy guns  | ||
|
number1gog
United States1081 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:29 r00ty wrote: Not even the avarage cop carries a firearm in the UK, still the the people are way safer. Care to explain that? Safer? By what metric? The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.htmlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Well when someone tried to rob my house and attacked me - some people don't run away when they realize the house isn't empty - I would have liked to have had a gun to scare him away with. I didn't enjoy getting hit in the face or particularly enjoy hitting back. I didn't know what he was going to do - tie me up, certainly, maybe rape my girlfriend when she got back from tanning, maybe kill my dog, definitely steal all my stuff, maybe beat me up a little when I'm tied up and can't fight back - none of which happened fortunately, but the physical damage we did to each other wouldn't have happened if I'd pulled out a handgun and he ran away. And if he didn't run away, fuck him, he can get shot. You don't get to run up into someone's house and assault them and put them in fear for their life and cry about it if you get a few new breathing holes. | ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
| ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:23 Esk23 wrote: You're logic is because a few people abuse the 2nd Amendment everyone else should lose it. There are no other real means of protection against criminals, robbers, etc other than guns. Many people have successfully defended themselves and their families by use of firearms. I'm sure those people in the UK missed their right to have firearms for self defense when their stores and shops got looted and robbed by that mob who were angry over the POLICE shooting. ...what? I completely lost whatever point you were trying to make. You said "Hell, should we start making the possession of pencils illegal if someone goes on a mass stabbing with pencils?" I replied that there's no comparison, because a pencil isn't anywhere near as dangerous as a gun. Then it kind of all fell apart when you started accusing me of trying to take away your guns, something I never even brought up. My favorite part though is where you start saying that guns are they only means you have of protecting yourself, when you've clearly stated that anything can be an effective, deadly weapon. Either guns are special and require special consideration, or they're not dangerous because they are simply tools, and like many other tools can be used to harm others when used incorrectly. These two arguments are incompatible, you have to pick one or the other. You're not allowed to use both. | ||
|
Thenerf
United States258 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:18 Jockmcplop wrote: So why would you want a gun, if not to inflict cruelty on other people? TO SHOOT CRUEL PSYCHOPATHIC SADISTS! My brother likes to buy and shoot guns for no other purpose than to hear a big BOOM at the range. He would not even in self defense discharge his gun at another living creature. He also likes driving superfast cars and at the same time does not want to hit people with his car. It's like objects don't control people. You sir are an asshole. | ||
|
DoctorD
Germany4 Posts
If you take into consideration that many of those mass shootings in the US involve those nerdy, lonely, socially inept adolescents, raising the bar just a tiny tiny bit would probably prevent a lot of those tragic incidents... Just think about that Virginia Tech shooter, can you really imagine that guy managing to get his hands on a gun if to do so he would have to make friends with criminals or even become a member of a gun club? | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9754 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: Well when someone tried to rob my house and attacked me - some people don't run away when they realize the house isn't empty - I would have liked to have had a gun to scare him away with. I didn't enjoy getting hit in the face or particularly enjoy hitting back. I didn't know what he was going to do - tie me up, certainly, maybe rape my girlfriend when she got back from tanning, maybe kill my dog, definitely steal all my stuff, maybe beat me up a little when I'm tied up and can't fight back - none of which happened fortunately, but the physical damage we did to each other wouldn't have happened if I'd pulled out a handgun and he ran away. And if he didn't run away, fuck him, he can get shot. You don't get to run up into someone's house and assault them and put them in fear for their life and cry about it if you get a few new breathing holes. So you're already talking seriously about murdering a person who is in your house because they didn't leave when you showed up. This has gone through your mind and you don't seem affected by it, in fact the way you are talking about it is as if you are making light of it. There are two possiblities here 1: The guy is armed, because of the lack of gun regulation 2: The guy is unarmed, and you kill him with a gun. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
My favorite part though is where you start saying that guns are they only means you have of protecting yourself, when you've clearly stated that anything can be an effective, deadly weapon. Either guns are special and require special consideration, or they're not dangerous because they are simply tools, and like many other tools can be used to harm others when used incorrectly. These two arguments are incompatible, you have to pick one or the other. You're not allowed to use both. Guns are the only weapons around where physical strength and numbers don't matter. There is no other weapon that, say, an 75-year old can use successfully to defend himself from someone or several someones in the prime of life. Mace? Taser? Single-target, and can be physically overcome. So the special nature of guns requires consideration both ways. Maybe we should replace guns with automatic tranq-dart shooters, but then people would buy just the darts to get fucked up with probably... So you're already talking seriously about murdering a person who is in your house because they didn't leave when you showed up. This has gone through your mind and you don't seem affected by it, in fact the way you are talking about it is as if you are making light of it. There are two possiblities here 1: The guy is armed, because of the lack of gun regulation 2: The guy is unarmed, and you kill him with a gun. I'm talking about someone who bum-rushed me when I opened the door and tried to choke me out and kneed me in the face when I resisted. I wasn't making light of it then and I'm not now. You are, though. 1. Gun regulation fails totally at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Fails in Europe, Canada, the US, anywhere. If you want a gun bad enough you can get one. Simple fact of life, proven over and over again. 2. He doesn't get a free pass from getting shot because he's unarmed when he comes into MY house and tries to knock ME out at which point I'm defenseless from whatever he wants to do. I only get one life, I didn't come into HIS house and attack HIM out of the blue. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:26 felizuno wrote: Hunting? Target shooting? Home defense? I will never own a gun, but I'm not scared that my neighbor can buy a .22 rifle and going hunting. That being said, I recently went to a gun show in Demming, WA (FYI Euro friends, Washington state is like the Switzerland of the US) and saw on sale: 1) A Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle, the same high-power sniper rifle issued to US snipers in active duty 2) A table covered in UZIs ... I really can't see why anybody would need either of these items for "recreation" and it made me more than a little nervous that they were being sold to my neighbors. Especially considering the Barrett could be purchased for cash on site with no background check :-( If that's true, that really is disturbing. I think in a heathy democracy we could easily strike a balance where guns and rifles would still be available for home defense, hunting and recreational shooting, but access to the types of military grade weapons which have enabled so many shooting sprees would be restricted. A line should be drawn where it's like "ok this weapon can satisfy any rational persons defense or hunting needs but this semi auto is clearly dangerous enough to be restricted" The only argument I can see against this is a) resisting a government gone mad, which i consider would be futile compared to the efficacy of a nonviolent struggle against the iNevitably and infinitely more powerful us military... Or b) people who are afraid an even more heavily armed, assault rifle toting criminal might invade their home, but I just don't see that. I have never heard of such an invasion outside of spree killings (which this entire initiative would help to stop) or criminals trying to take each other out. And I don't think a shoot out with automatic weapons is the solution in that case, calling the cops would. It is a sign of the times in this country that legislation to restrict the deadlier guns is a political impossibility despite it being the best solution, and despite how much of the Population would likely support it. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1057 Posts
Burglary, Robbery, etc... At least they stay alive. Headline says "violent", article doesn't. I rather get robbed 10 times, than shot 1 time. Don't you? Or are you one of those guys willing to start a duel for your dvd player? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Burglary, Robbery, etc... At least they stay alive. Headline says "violent", article doesn't. I rather get robbed 10 times, than shot 1 time. Don't you? Or are you one of those guys willing to start a duel for your dvd player? You get robbed a few times, you might understand why people don't want it to ever happen again. The material possessions are meaningless too by the way, people don't start duels for their DVD players, they fight back because self-defense is a natural and good instinct. | ||
|
r00ty
Germany1057 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:50 DeepElemBlues wrote: You get robbed a few times, you might understand why people don't want it to ever happen again. The material possessions are meaningless too by the way, people don't start duels for their DVD players, they fight back because self-defense is a natural and good instinct. I got robbed, i got beaten. It hurts your ego damn hard yeah, but it's not worth a kill. In the heat of the moment i would have shot maybe, gladly me and people in general don't carry guns around over here. edit: Hurt ego and paranoia together with slack gun control ultimately leads to accidents and overreactions as well. You should know there's quite alot of them in the US. | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
Anyone against this? It is impossible for the US to get rid of its guns, and it seems that a majority don't want to. But at least the 2 measures I said don't harm Americans freedom to own guns, and lower the dangers private gun ownership can bring. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On July 24 2012 08:01 Heweree wrote: After 136 pages I think we can make an agreement. Guns should be harder of access (background check, training etc), and not all guns should be available on sale (war weapons). Anyone against this? It is impossible for the US to get rid of its guns, and it seems that a majority don't want to. But at least the 2 measures I said don't harm Americans freedom to own guns, and lower the dangers private gun ownership can bring. Hear hear. | ||
|
whatevername
471 Posts
On July 24 2012 07:01 Defacer wrote: Any favours? Your assuming its difficult to get your hands on illicit material - which everyone knows is completely false because everyone here has dranken before the legal age, seen pot and other drugs, has probably engaged in said activities, and is friends with those who do. Its not a favour, if anything the relaxed gun laws were the very thing that precipitated him wearing a bullet proof vest; he considered it a realistic chance that he would be shot and his rampage stopped early. Why should the state of Colorado do a psychopath any favours by have such relaxed gun laws? What benefits are there to making guns so easy to purchase? The risks are self-evident -- at least to the average person. Your argument is silly as well. Teenagers will also drink and get high. Should be deregulate all alcohol, prescription and illegal drugs? The argument about gun control and it's limits should be more nuanced than this. This is how out-of-hand and far-removed gun control advocates are: you can't even get some gun enthusiasts to admit that guns are dangerous. On July 24 2012 07:29 r00ty wrote: Yeah lets pretend that every study ever conducted has shown there to be no correlation with the amount of guns owned and the murder rate never happened, lets ignore the fact that finland and canada which have nearly as high per capita firearms have dramatically lower fatalities than the states [some stats has canada ABOVE the states with per capita firearms] and lets ignore the fact that britain has been rattled with an epidemic of stabbings all of which would of been casually put down with a gun. From anyone. An eldery fucking women.Not even the avarage cop carries a firearm in the UK, still the the people are way safer. Care to explain that? | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
I guess it's the same thing like german Autobahn. We all know we should regulate it and it's way safer to limit the speed at 130km/h instead of having people drive with 200+km/h but if you ask us noone wants that because it's awesome to drive fast every once in a while or if you want to get somewhere fast. I am fully aware that people die because of that and it's sad but honestly I'd rather not lose that part of my life although it's completly irrational and I have no idea why. When I think about it, it makes me look/sound like a complete idiot to still want our unregulated Autobahn but I can't really help it. Imo it's the same thing with guns in the us. We know it would be a lot safer without guns in the us, noone is seriously doubting that part (I guess?) but there are other reason that let people stick with the idea of having them legal everywhere. Yeah robberies with guns and homedefense might be an issue for some people but this topic isn't up to date because of some armed robbery. It's because with legal weapons everywhere it's so easy for basicly everyone to get weapons and kill a bunch of people. The reason this is a topic are children being mobbed in school who come back with a gun or something like that. The important part here is that it's normal people (except for their mental issues or whatever made them do it) doing those things and not some professional criminals. Also I don't really like the argument "even if you make them illegal, everyone knows how to get them anyways". No idea where everyone is comming from when they say that. It's the same thing with drugs just that it's way more extreme with guns because they are way more prohibited in a way. At least I guess it's harder to get them. Here's the thing: I most certainly don't have a clue about how to get heroin. I don't have a clue about how to get weapons either. I guess it's way harder to get a weapon in comparison to some drugs though and I'm pretty sure even if I tried to I wouldn't be able to get one at all, let alone "easily". Pretty sure it's the same way for everyone I know, literally. So that statement is just bullshit. If you make weapons illegal in general or at least reduce it a little (handguns / hunting rifle ok, semi-automatic guns not ok) I'm pretty sure some kid going to a school won't be able to get a gun either. tl;dr: Just a sidenote. It's the same thing with the german Autobahn. It would be a lot safer with a speedlimit and less people would die, yet noone seems to want that. I think it's the same with the us guns and there has to be something really big happening for this to change or nothing will change at all. | ||
| ||
