|
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 24 2012 22:13 Frozenhelfire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 21:50 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2012 21:45 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote: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! 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. Flamethrower, and why not just go with movie theater since that is what sparked the surge in this discussion?
Arson in general can be highly effective - especially if you block off exits.
|
On July 24 2012 22:08 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 21:56 taintmachine wrote:On July 24 2012 21:50 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2012 21:45 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote: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! 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. 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.
Hold on, you think a bow and arrow and a suit of armor and an axe are more effective killing tools than an assault rifle? You also think the most effective way to kill someone is corroding a dam?
|
gun control is not only about restictign gun usage, but also about creating a mentality.
I cant explain how weird it sounds when someone says "if you have a gun you can kill the intruder in your house"
Yeah maniacs will always find a way, if he didnt had guns he might have used bombs, no bombs? burn the thearthe down. its not about tools, its about toning down the maniacs. It is not healty to live in a society that everyone might have firearms and shoot people at every second. its too much distrust, too much anxiety. Thats bound to brew up some unstable people into killer.
I can see why you dont beleive when a european says "muggers or burglers dont shoot people here" but thats the truth. america needs to fix this wild west theme going around, and banning guns and telling people its not ok to shoot people is a very good place to start.
|
Or a chainsaw in a subway station/train cars.
By the way controlmonkey, I put a response to your post in an edit to mine underneath it. It was kind of foolish to do that because it already got buried by the time I posted it. Just letting you know it is there.
On July 24 2012 22:18 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 22:08 -_-Quails wrote:On July 24 2012 21:56 taintmachine wrote:On July 24 2012 21:50 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2012 21:45 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote: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! 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. 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. Hold on, you think a bow and arrow and a suit of armor and an axe are more effective killing tools than an assault rifle? You also think the most effective way to kill someone is corroding a dam?
The movie theater assault rifle guy killed 12 people right? Corroding a dam can definitely do a lot more damage than that. Granted, the movie theater guy probably could have also done a lot more damage than what he actually did too.
|
is anyone here opposed to gun control on basis of, let's say, "basic human rights" (or the 2nd amendment, whatever), also all for the concept of free availability of nuclear weapons and tactical missiles to anyone and everyone willing to have them? why/why not?
|
On July 24 2012 13:44 Blurry wrote:
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.
If you look at the Wikipedia page for "Gun Control" its important to note that the availability of guns is *not* the direct cause of massive homicide rates.
Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates. There was also a significant though lesser correlation between gun ownership and total homicide rates...This study indicates correlation, but not causality. This could mean that the easier the access to guns leads to more violence. It could also mean that larger amounts of violence lead to a higher level of gun ownership for self defense, or any other independent cause.
Its also relevant to point out that criminologist Gary Kleck found that:
Crime victims who defend themselves with guns are less likely to be injured or lose property than victims who either did not resist, or resisted without guns. This was so, even though the victims using guns typically faced more dangerous circumstances than other victims. The findings applied to both robberies and assaults.
Also one final quote on the effects gun control has had on crime reduction:
University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt argues in his paper, "Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do not", that available data indicate that neither stricter gun control laws nor more liberal concealed carry laws have had any significant effect on the decline in crime in the 1990s. While the debate remains hotly disputed, it is therefore not surprising that a comprehensive review of published studies of gun control, released in November 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was unable to determine any reliable statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information.
If I'm reading this correctly, then gun control laws that would ostensibly reduce overall levels of gun ownership have not influenced gun-related homicide rates, which would go against one of the possible implications of the first study by Killias that easier access to guns leads to more violence (or less, for that matter!).
If that is true then there really shouldn't be any factor barring people from having guns for self-defense, as the net effect it has is positive in protecting people against crime...although there were studies that reported a higher risk of suicide when guns are more readily available.
I guess I'm not too sure about handguns and the specific situations you're talking about, but I just wanted to share the information I found. From my cursory review of this thread I haven't found any references to this info yet!
Edit: I really love Wikipedia. I found a great quote from Dalai Lama too :D The Dalai Lama said, "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon
|
To all the people saying that stuff like flamethrowers, corrosive acid, bombs etc. are better choices, they also seem to be a lot harder to get your hands on/manufacture than just buying a gun and shooting a couple of guys..
I know the point you are trying to make, I am just not really surprised that for instance the batman shootings happened in America of all countries..
|
On July 24 2012 22:18 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 22:08 -_-Quails wrote:On July 24 2012 21:56 taintmachine wrote:On July 24 2012 21:50 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2012 21:45 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 24 2012 14:44 Defacer wrote: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! 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. 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. Hold on, you think a bow and arrow and a suit of armor and an axe are more effective killing tools than an assault rifle? You also think the most effective way to kill someone is corroding a dam?
I think that a skilled archer with good placement could be as effective as Charles Whitman was.
Well-fitting and well-constructed armor will be easy enough to move in, lighter than it appears, and decent at deflecting bullets and physical attacks by those trying to intervene. A dane axe tends to be as tall as the wielder at least. Once you start swinging it, anyone within 8-12 feet of you dies and you can walk while you swing. You would be better off attacking in the station than on a train for space reasons. This kind of axe is rarely wielded by re-enactors because you have to train much hard than with a sword to learn to hold and move it safely around other people for mock battles.
I think that damaging enough of the core structure of a dam to trigger a collapse before the damage can be noticed and fixed is one of the most effective ways to kill a lot of people and potentially wipe out any towns or areas of a city downstream and on the river. It is equivalent to blowing up the dam, but you get to walk away much further in advance.
On July 24 2012 22:27 Grovbolle wrote:
To all the people saying that stuff like flamethrowers, corrosive acid, bombs etc. are better choices, they also seem to be a lot harder to get your hands on/manufacture than just buying a gun and shooting a couple of guys..
I know the point you are trying to make, I am just not really surprised that for instance the batman shootings happened in America of all countries..
You can make explosives, corrosives and acids using readily available commodities. Incidentally, so is phosgene.
Flamethrowers can be extremely simple, and many potential fuels are available at every gas station. Most people who go on sprees are more focused on taking their distress out on the world around them than on efficiency, creativity, or what comes after. Or they lack imagination, planning skills or elementary chemistry skills. This is a good thing.
I don't think anyone was surprised about it being in the USA. Place has a well-deserved reputation for stuff like this.
|
On July 24 2012 22:27 Grovbolle wrote:
To all the people saying that stuff like flamethrowers, corrosive acid, bombs etc. are better choices, they also seem to be a lot harder to get your hands on/manufacture than just buying a gun and shooting a couple of guys..
I know the point you are trying to make, I am just not really surprised that for instance the batman shootings happened in America of all countries..
Lol. A flamethrower isn't much harder to get than a gun. If you're premeditating a mass murder then you probably want the most effective option. Saying that you're not surprised something happened in "America" (which by the way is a continent, but w/e) is incredibly ignorant. I guess I'm not surprised that the bomb/shoot'em up thing happened in, what was it, Norway? Oh wait. That statement makes no fucking sense. The problem isn't guns.
|
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.
What a delightful argument in favor of gun restrictions!
I mean, who the fuck needs guns? They don't even kill people lol.
In case someone threatens to molest your family just kill them some other convenient way. You can always bite off their face or slash their veins with a folded 20 dolla bill.
|
On July 24 2012 22:32 Frozenhelfire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 22:27 Grovbolle wrote:
To all the people saying that stuff like flamethrowers, corrosive acid, bombs etc. are better choices, they also seem to be a lot harder to get your hands on/manufacture than just buying a gun and shooting a couple of guys..
I know the point you are trying to make, I am just not really surprised that for instance the batman shootings happened in America of all countries.. Lol. A flamethrower isn't much harder to get than a gun. If you're premeditating a mass murder then you probably want the most effective option. Saying that you're not surprised something happened in "America" (which by the way is a continent, but w/e) is incredibly ignorant. I guess I'm not surprised that the bomb/shoot'em up thing happened in, what was it, Norway? Oh wait. That statement makes no fucking sense. The problem isn't guns.
I am sorry if I sounded like all US citizens are gun-nuts/triggerhappy. I just wasn't that surprised that when it happened, it was in the US, because when "everybody" can buy and own a handgun, shit will go down some time.
Also I am aware that America=Continent, but I know you know what I meant.
And I was just thinking that you were going to cite the Norwegian tragedy, which surprised me, the batman shooting didn't really. Sorry that pisses you off, maybe I am just another ignorant European who doesn't know what he is talking about.
|
On July 24 2012 22:36 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +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. What a delightful argument in favor of gun restrictions! I mean, who the fuck needs guns? They don't even kill people lol. In case someone threatens to molest your family just kill them some other convenient way. You can always bite off their face or slash their veins with a folded 20 dolla bill.
In most of the developed world, including most of the USA, there are very few occasions on which citizens must act in self-defense or the defense of others.
|
On July 24 2012 22:41 Grovbolle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 22:32 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 24 2012 22:27 Grovbolle wrote:
To all the people saying that stuff like flamethrowers, corrosive acid, bombs etc. are better choices, they also seem to be a lot harder to get your hands on/manufacture than just buying a gun and shooting a couple of guys..
I know the point you are trying to make, I am just not really surprised that for instance the batman shootings happened in America of all countries.. Lol. A flamethrower isn't much harder to get than a gun. If you're premeditating a mass murder then you probably want the most effective option. Saying that you're not surprised something happened in "America" (which by the way is a continent, but w/e) is incredibly ignorant. I guess I'm not surprised that the bomb/shoot'em up thing happened in, what was it, Norway? Oh wait. That statement makes no fucking sense. The problem isn't guns. I am sorry if I sounded like all US citizens are gun-nuts/triggerhappy. I just wasn't that surprised that when it happened, it was in the US, because when "everybody" can buy and own a handgun, shit will go down some time. Also I am aware that America=Continent, but I know you know what I meant. And I was just thinking that you were going to cite the Norwegian tragedy, which surprised me, the batman shooting didn't really. Sorry that pisses you off, maybe I am just another ignorant European who doesn't know what he is talking about.
That's fine if you aren't surprised. Saying it the way you did took all the power out of your argument.
because when "everybody" can buy and own a handgun, shit will go down some time.
because when "everybody" can buy and own a knife, people will get stabbed.
because when "everybody" can buy and own household chemicals, people will get poisoned/blown up.
I like that you said this because you've basically admitted that the problem is not guns.
|
On July 24 2012 23:25 Frozenhelfire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 22:41 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2012 22:32 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 24 2012 22:27 Grovbolle wrote:
To all the people saying that stuff like flamethrowers, corrosive acid, bombs etc. are better choices, they also seem to be a lot harder to get your hands on/manufacture than just buying a gun and shooting a couple of guys..
I know the point you are trying to make, I am just not really surprised that for instance the batman shootings happened in America of all countries.. Lol. A flamethrower isn't much harder to get than a gun. If you're premeditating a mass murder then you probably want the most effective option. Saying that you're not surprised something happened in "America" (which by the way is a continent, but w/e) is incredibly ignorant. I guess I'm not surprised that the bomb/shoot'em up thing happened in, what was it, Norway? Oh wait. That statement makes no fucking sense. The problem isn't guns. I am sorry if I sounded like all US citizens are gun-nuts/triggerhappy. I just wasn't that surprised that when it happened, it was in the US, because when "everybody" can buy and own a handgun, shit will go down some time. Also I am aware that America=Continent, but I know you know what I meant. And I was just thinking that you were going to cite the Norwegian tragedy, which surprised me, the batman shooting didn't really. Sorry that pisses you off, maybe I am just another ignorant European who doesn't know what he is talking about. That's fine if you aren't surprised. Saying it the way you did took all the power out of your argument. Show nested quote +
because when "everybody" can buy and own a handgun, shit will go down some time.
because when "everybody" can buy and own a knife, people will get stabbed. because when "everybody" can buy and own household chemicals, people will get poisoned/blown up. I like that you said this because you've basically admitted that the problem is not guns.
nice strawman, but i believe that individual was commenting on the mass proliferation of firearms not the mass proliferation of mr.clean and butter knives.. w/e tho. arm the homeless.
the way you imply things is such that arming the homeless with guns would be no worse than arming them with javex and steel wool.
|
There was a time when carrying a gun made sense. I imagine that the right to bear arms was so that citizens felt that they had some recourse and were able to rise up if they were unhappy with the way the government was running things. That time is long gone. Americans, in general, are fat, lazy, and apathetic. Any legitimate reason to carry a gun is gone. In an ideal world, I would like to see guns taken from every citizen who was not associated with the military or law enforcement.
|
On July 24 2012 23:25 Frozenhelfire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2012 22:41 Grovbolle wrote:On July 24 2012 22:32 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 24 2012 22:27 Grovbolle wrote:
To all the people saying that stuff like flamethrowers, corrosive acid, bombs etc. are better choices, they also seem to be a lot harder to get your hands on/manufacture than just buying a gun and shooting a couple of guys..
I know the point you are trying to make, I am just not really surprised that for instance the batman shootings happened in America of all countries.. Lol. A flamethrower isn't much harder to get than a gun. If you're premeditating a mass murder then you probably want the most effective option. Saying that you're not surprised something happened in "America" (which by the way is a continent, but w/e) is incredibly ignorant. I guess I'm not surprised that the bomb/shoot'em up thing happened in, what was it, Norway? Oh wait. That statement makes no fucking sense. The problem isn't guns. I am sorry if I sounded like all US citizens are gun-nuts/triggerhappy. I just wasn't that surprised that when it happened, it was in the US, because when "everybody" can buy and own a handgun, shit will go down some time. Also I am aware that America=Continent, but I know you know what I meant. And I was just thinking that you were going to cite the Norwegian tragedy, which surprised me, the batman shooting didn't really. Sorry that pisses you off, maybe I am just another ignorant European who doesn't know what he is talking about. That's fine if you aren't surprised. Saying it the way you did took all the power out of your argument. Show nested quote +
because when "everybody" can buy and own a handgun, shit will go down some time.
because when "everybody" can buy and own a knife, people will get stabbed. because when "everybody" can buy and own household chemicals, people will get poisoned/blown up. I like that you said this because you've basically admitted that the problem is not guns.
The thing is that handing out forks and knifes to people all over the globe may be a risk but that risk is pretty slim while at the same time those objects possess a bunch of good reason for existence that makes up for the risk.
Guns on the other hand are way more risky while having pretty much no purpose at all in private use. Yes I get that there are people who collect guns, yes I get that there are people who want to shoot on a range but is that enough reason to endanger everyone? If that's the case why are we not ok with people collecting mines / bombs, poisonous gas or whatever else? You could use those things for self defense as well as as trophies for your collection or enjoy the loud bang it makes when you're blowing up stuff on a range with your explosives pretending to be a chief blaster.
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.
|
there are many objects that will do the job better than a gun depending on the situation
Many of them are restricted. Bombs, explosives, chemicals, biohazardous materials... I know you are probably anti restrictions but why do you list restricted materials as your example? By your logic guns should be restricted more because an assault rifle can be just as dangerous as a pipe bomb.
I'm not in favor of a gun ban, just restrictions on more dangerous military grade types which are beyond any reasonable hunting/defense/recreation need. I think the same applies to other restricted substances which I HIGHLY DOUBT anyone here would object to. For example access to nuclear weapons.
Clearly the principle of restricting overly dangerous stuff Is sound and in the case of guns, it is Relatively simple to draw the line. In a rational world the us would have banned assault rifles for private use a long time ago.
As for the studies which show no decrease in crime during the 90s... A wikipedia search on the 90s assault weapon ban pointed me to two studies which said the time period that the ban was active was too short to make statistically significant conclusions, and that assault weapons used in spree killings were statistically insignificant as well (though their cultural impact is high)
Compare this to assault weapons being used in self defense, which is beyond statistically insignificant... Statistics actually point to guns being more likely to kill the purchaser or a family member than an intruder. So yeah. Not exactly a powerful case in favor of unrestricted military guns.
|
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the average citizen to be able to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. None at all. I would be in favor of outlawing guns in all shapes and sizes but I do not object to say, a hunting rifle or a small-caliber pistol. Neither of these weapons can be used for any kind of large-scale killing spree, the way automatic or semi-automatic guns can be.
|
On July 25 2012 00:52 Toadesstern wrote:
As mentioned, if you have a bat in your place you could easily smash someone to the ground trying to get you with a knife, if you wanted to. The smart move would still be to tell the guy to take whatever he wants and leave afterwards so noone gets hurt but that's beside the point. Unless of course living in the US (in some places) really is like living in congo during civil war. Because frankly that's what I'm getting from reading this thread.
I don't think I'd be able to defend myself (if I wanted to) against a gun unless I have a gun myself. That is a big difference.
Unbelievable.
|
On July 25 2012 01:14 Lagcraft wrote:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for the average citizen to be able to own an automatic or semi-automatic gun. None at all. I would be in favor of outlawing guns in all shapes and sizes but I do not object to say, a hunting rifle or a small-caliber pistol. Neither of these weapons can be used for any kind of large-scale killing spree, the way automatic or semi-automatic guns can be.
Good luck being able to defend yourself with a .22. The extra danger of confronting a criminal with a gun wouldn't even be worth the small amount of firepower at your disposal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
