EPTCannot stop the black market
Let people be safe
If you have a gun
you can stop an intruder
save your family
If 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. | ||
|
aRyuujin
United States5049 Posts
Cannot stop the black market Let people be safe If you have a gun you can stop an intruder save your family | ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
It was just a madman who wanted to kill a bunch of people, and there is nothing anybody can do to stop that. Stricter gun control would not help. I still do not see any reason for handguns being legal to possess as they are far easier to conceal than a rifle or shotgun and provide no advantage over those two for something such as home defense. I believe to own a handgun one should have to be registered as part of a gun enthusiast club so that people who enjoy shooting them can still own them and shoot them for fun. Also, for those of you claiming that you could protect yourself from a mugging with a gun: it is illegal to conceal a weapon without explicit permits, which are far harder to obtain then your standard gun license. This fancy notion of carrying a gun around to protect yourself is nonsense. If you get mugged, give the criminal your wallet, 1000 dollars at most is not worth risking your life. Please give me valid reasons for why handguns should be remain as easy to obtain as they are now. I can't think of any logical reason why I would get a handgun for protection over a shotgun when all I want to do is protect my house. Of course, this discussion is irrelevant as it would be impossible to retroactively create gun control but realize that the availability of guns is a direct cause for the massive homicide rates in your country compared to the rest of the developed world. Either that or your culture is simply more violent, take your pick. | ||
|
blinken
Canada368 Posts
People kill people, not guns. When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:25 blinken wrote: I think it is hilarious when people argue about gun control. People kill people, not guns. When these psychos want to kill people, they will find a way with or without guns. At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
Handguns provide manny advantages over rifles when used in small confined areas at close range Biggest problem with rifles at close combat is their seize and the ability to move around quickly from one side to the other with your aim i think. | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
On July 24 2012 13:31 aRyuujin wrote: Even a gun ban Cannot stop the black market Let people be safe It will however make it more difficult to obtain a weapon when there are no easily available channels to obtain one. This is known as a "barrier to entry". Things with lots of barriers to entry tend to discourage people from doing them. For instance more people will answer yes to the following: A) Would you like to go to a gun store, purchase a weapon, then go shoot someone? than B) Would you like to find a black market, convince them you are trust worthy enough to sell to, purchase a weapon, then go shoot someone. Making guns harder to obtain won't stop all gun violence, it will however prevent a great deal of it. BTW last sentence is a non sequitur. It does not follow from guns still being available that making them more available will make people safer. It might be true but you are skipping over the logic part of the argument. (Note I know you're doing haikus, but that doesn't give you the ability to skip the argument.) If you have a gun you can stop an intruder save your family If you have a gun it could possibly misfire. Bang! Save your family. See two can play at that game. | ||
|
TheSwedishFan
Sweden608 Posts
| ||
|
Agathon
France1505 Posts
On July 24 2012 13:01 Esk23 wrote: "When was the last time the police or military opened fire on the civilian population with semi automatic weapons?" I guess you haven't heard of all the shooting sprees some US soldiers have done in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. on the civilians there. You can go look it up yourself and learn something. I suppose you haven't heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting either. Perhaps one of the reasons you haven't is that US citizens can own firearms. You missed my point which is wheher it's government or people, both can abuse weapon rights and murder. That's just how it is on this planet unfortunately. The 2nd Amendment has a purpose which is 1)US citizens can own firearms for self defense 2)US citizens as a whole can own weapons as a way to fight government oppression if the government ever needed to be overthrown if it got out of hand. It's that way so a country of people never become the victim of an oppressive government. And there have been many examples, Jews in Nazi Germany, 6 million of them executed, none had the right to own guns and fight back. German citizens were not allowed to own firearms in Nazi Germany, etc. In the same times it gives the opportunity to some extremist fools in America to commit acts of terrorism or start a civil war inside the US. And it already happend several times. Free guns access means free opportunity to kill TOO. The european consensus on this topic is that the cost of lives don't worth the gain of freedom. When i read the comments of "pro" guns, i understand that they made the choice of freedom and that the cost of lives (by accidents/fools/domestic terrorism) is not that important. But when i watch the TV news, i see people crying, saying that it's sooo horrible. Hey guys, it's your choice, deal with it. Stop crying, it's the normal cost of the US politic about weapons. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On July 24 2012 13:31 aRyuujin wrote: Even a gun ban Cannot stop the black market Let people be safe If you have a gun you can stop an intruder save your family If you have a gun You can reach in time to help Accidents occur You are more likely to hurt yourself or someone you love than a burglar with a firearm kept for home defense. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
| ||
|
taintmachine
United States431 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote: At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! and you listed the main advantage of a gun for home defense. a gun is an equalizer. you do not have to be a brute to use one effectively against a brute. there are downsides to guns being easy to use. downsides come with everything. | ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
I understand all these arguments. Usually when I disagree with someone I can come to the point where i understand where they are coming from, and can agree to disagree. But on the issue of guns, I have a much harder time doing this. I live in Australia, a country with restrictive gun laws and low gun ownership. So when I hear Americans talking about the right to own guns, I immediately think "How does more guns make you safer?" I understand the arguments, and the logic behind it, but something in me just balks at that idea. I cannot understand what makes a person come to the conclusion that more guns makes you safer. I cannot get over the fact that guns are specifically designed to kill people. If you own a gun, you own it with the specific intention of, one day, killing someone (whether in self defense or otherwise). I cannot get past that fact. Anyway that's how I feel. | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote: At least once per page, some random poster will make this hilariously stupid argument to justify doing nothing about gun control, or avoiding the discussion of gun control altogether. It's no different than saying ... NEWSFLASH: Rain is wet, and it will rain if we do or don't have umbrellas. Well thank you, Dr. Einstein! But you've kind of missed the basic and most obvious point of the entire discussion. It's easier to kill things with Guns than other objects! In fact, that's what they're designed to do -- kill things easily! If they were bad at killing things easily, no one would need to buy guns! Guns are more dangerous than other things! In fact, that's what makes them effective! Hmmmm ... Do you think that the sale of guns needs some limitations and rules? Discuss! If a post has one sentence per line it is probably stupid. If a post over uses exclamation marks it is probably stupid. This post did not fail the former metrics. So what if guns kill things more easily than other objects? Your "argument" fails to address why guns need limitations and rules. There are many objects that will do the job better than a gun depending on the situation and you can get your hands on those objects arguably more easily than a gun. On July 24 2012 21:37 ControlMonkey wrote: I can understand the pro gun arguments. I can understand the idea that people should have the right defend themselves. I can understand that gun owners can be (and usually are) responsible and law abiding. I understand that owning a gun does not make you a bad person, but merely a person with a gun. I understand all these arguments. Usually when I disagree with someone I can come to the point where i understand where they are coming from, and can agree to disagree. But on the issue of guns, I have a much harder time doing this. I live in Australia, a country with restrictive gun laws and low gun ownership. So when I hear Americans talking about the right to own guns, I immediately think "How does more guns make you safer?" I understand the arguments, and the logic behind it, but something in me just balks at that idea. I cannot understand what makes a person come to the conclusion that more guns makes you safer. I cannot get over the fact that guns are specifically designed to kill people. If you own a gun, you own it with the specific intention of, one day, killing someone (whether in self defense or otherwise). I cannot get past that fact. Anyway that's how I feel. Australia probably doesn't have the huge gun black market that we have here in the States. To our south we have Mexico and Central/South America. These countries are known to have the occasional drug cartel. Drug cartels are generally violent and don't/can't depend on their governments for protection. The United States are a big source of profit for the cartels primarily because drugs are illegal here and a lot of people want to do drugs. Much like the alcohol prohibition this system doesn't work. Drug handlers/dealers/users in the U.S. can't depend on the government for protection. These people have to take things into their own hands. While you're already smuggling illegal substances across the border and through the different states you had might as well also include guns as your cargo. If you think about it this adds a lot of danger to the average citizen. People often steal to feed addiction to harder drugs. If someone obtained they are probably not very far away from obtaining a gun from that same supply route. I don't know much about the mindset/psychology of a crack head, but I'm sure they are willing to do a lot to get the money required for their addiction. Even if the government tries to clamp down on gun sales, the people willing to get a gun illegally will not be affected by this action. I don't trust the police with my safety. If I can assume that it will take the police at least 5 minutes to reach me that is probably 5 minutes too long. The prevailing thought pattern today seems to be putting less responsibility on the individual and more responsibility on the government. Personally I am against this mindset. I want more responsibility on me and less (none) on the government. I can do things better and more efficiently than the government. Objectively the government shouldn't even have their hands in gun control, but I can't open that can of worms without a pretty long essay and a new topic :/ | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
On July 24 2012 21:45 Frozenhelfire wrote: If a post has one sentence per line it is probably stupid. If a post over uses exclamation marks it is probably stupid. This post did not fail the former metrics. So what if guns kill things more easily than other objects? Your "argument" fails to address why guns need limitations and rules. There are many objects that will do the job better than a gun depending on the situation and you can get your hands on those objects arguably more easily than a gun. Please mention one that is not poison. And the situation. | ||
|
taintmachine
United States431 Posts
On July 24 2012 21:37 ControlMonkey wrote: I can understand the pro gun arguments. I can understand the idea that people should have the right defend themselves. I can understand that gun owners can be (and usually are) responsible and law abiding. I understand that owning a gun does not make you a bad person, but merely a person with a gun. I understand all these arguments. Usually when I disagree with someone I can come to the point where i understand where they are coming from, and can agree to disagree. But on the issue of guns, I have a much harder time doing this. I live in Australia, a country with restrictive gun laws and low gun ownership. So when I hear Americans talking about the right to own guns, I immediately think "How does more guns make you safer?" I understand the arguments, and the logic behind it, but something in me just balks at that idea. I cannot understand what makes a person come to the conclusion that more guns makes you safer. I cannot get over the fact that guns are specifically designed to kill people. If you own a gun, you own it with the specific intention of, one day, killing someone (whether in self defense or otherwise). I cannot get past that fact. Anyway that's how I feel. why say you understand something when you, admittedly, don't? you go on to say that it is factual that a gun owner has the intention of killing another human being. | ||
|
taintmachine
United States431 Posts
On July 24 2012 21:50 Grovbolle wrote: Please mention one that is not poison. And the situation. homemade explosives. international and domestic terrorism. | ||
|
Grovbolle
Denmark3811 Posts
On July 24 2012 21:56 taintmachine wrote: homemade explosives. international and domestic terrorism. Good point. | ||
|
Heweree
United Kingdom497 Posts
On July 24 2012 21:54 taintmachine wrote: why say you understand something when you, admittedly, don't? you go on to say that it is factual that a gun owner has the intention of killing another human being. Read him again please. He just said, I may have misunderstood him as well, that on a personal scale he understands what drives the desire of people to own guns for self-defense. But on a society scale he finds it absurds that everyone has a guns, which purpose is to kill other people. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On July 24 2012 21:56 taintmachine wrote: homemade explosives. international and domestic terrorism. Couple of other examples: Crossbow or traditional bow from a height and wielded by someone skillful can be used in exactly the way a sniper in a tower uses their rifle to the same ends. It is also quieter and there is no muzzle flash. Small-ish amounts of corrosives in structurally essential points of structures like dams. The weight of water will do most of the work once the critical points are weakened. Similar applies in tower blocks - especially those where stabilisation due to strong winds or frequent earthquakes is a problem. Obviously you could also fill a basket with acid-balloons and run through a busy street or mall throwing them in peoples' faces too. Traditional armor and a dane axe or other large, sharp melee weapon in a crowded area like a subway. You will look like a re-enactor in costume until you start swinging. Basic knowledge of chemistry lets you manufacture explosives, corrosives and acids of sufficient strength using easily available components. | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On July 24 2012 21:50 Grovbolle wrote: Please mention one that is not poison. And the situation. Flamethrower, and why not just go with movie theater since that is what sparked the surge in this discussion? | ||
| ||
