EPT![[image loading]](http://d.asset.soup.io/asset/3955/1693_939d.gif)
Most people are stupid. Guns are bad in the hands of stupid people. Smart people don't need guns. Ban guns.
User was warned for this post
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. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17236 Posts
Most people are stupid. Guns are bad in the hands of stupid people. Smart people don't need guns. Ban guns. User was warned for this post | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
In Canada, guns are relatively rare. If you are attacked by a crazy person, it is likely that the crazy person won't have a gun. On the other hand, if you are a law-abiding person you won't have any weapon at all to defend yourself. Any law-abiding bystanders also won't have any weapons to help you. The crazy person might have a machete, or brass knuckles, or a taser. You will have nothing. So there is a tradeoff. I believe that Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in, don't get me wrong. But I am also suspicious of giving governments too much power. If it were legal to carry a concealed weapon here I would seriously consider getting one. I would rather be able to protect myself than have to rely on the police who may or may not get there in time. That would make me safer from random crazies, and it would also allow me to protect others if I happen to be present when a random crazy attacks them. | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
On December 16 2012 01:35 ziggurat wrote: In Canada the philosophy is that only the police should have guns. No one is allowed to carry any kind of weapon to defend themselves. Even women carrying pepper spray in their purses are technically committing a crime. The state is means to have a monopoly on the use of force. In Canada, guns are relatively rare. If you are attacked by a crazy person, it is likely that the crazy person won't have a gun. On the other hand, if you are a law-abiding person you won't have any weapon at all to defend yourself. Any law-abiding bystanders also won't have any weapons to help you. The crazy person might have a machete, or brass knuckles, or a taser. You will have nothing. So there is a tradeoff. I believe that Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in, don't get me wrong. But I am also suspicious of giving governments too much power. If it were legal to carry a concealed weapon here I would seriously consider getting one. I would rather be able to protect myself than have to rely on the police who may or may not get there in time. That would make me safer from random crazies, and it would also allow me to protect others if I happen to be present when a random crazy attacks them. If the crazy person had a gun you'd probably be dead with your gun in your pocket. Fists or even running away might help against that other stuff, unlikely to help against any sort of firearm tho. And there's a far better chance of survival even with wounds inflicted than surviving gunshots. | ||
|
Jamial
Denmark1289 Posts
On December 15 2012 07:28 Nagano wrote: Seems to be your culture, to ban everything you don't like. You don't like it, others shouldn't have access to it because they have to feel the same as you. The United States has somewhat more "freedom" in this respect. Sure there are a lot of things wrong with this place, but there are still some people here who respect liberty. You didn't read a word of what I wrote, did you? I said you're HURTING OTHER PEOPLE by smoking. You're LITERALLY making them sick/ill. You're KILLING them in some sense. If anything, it makes even more sense to ban smoking than to ban guns, just because guns can actually be used defensively, whereas cigarettes are bad all around. | ||
|
Hypemeup
Sweden2783 Posts
On December 16 2012 01:41 Taguchi wrote: If the crazy person had a gun you'd probably be dead with your gun in your pocket. Fists or even running away might help against that other stuff, unlikely to help against any sort of firearm tho. And there's a far better chance of survival even with wounds inflicted than surviving gunshots. Yeah, the fact that criminals or lunatics have access to other things that could be used at lethal weapons is not really a solid argument against gun control. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 16 2012 01:41 Taguchi wrote: If the crazy person had a gun you'd probably be dead with your gun in your pocket. Fists or even running away might help against that other stuff, unlikely to help against any sort of firearm tho. And there's a far better chance of survival even with wounds inflicted than surviving gunshots. Actually, there's plenty of situations where the gun helps. My aunt (granted she's batshit crazy in the good way, and lives with a cop, does some sort of reporting involving the cops) recently-ish chased down a druggy who had a knife that was going to an old ladies house near her, and held the guy at gunpoint until the cops showed up. The NRA (whackjobs) collect stories for their Armed Citizen segment of American Rifleman, with the situations you don't normally hear about, thankfully citing sources that aren't so batshit. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx Honestly, I think that's about the best thing they do, from the perspective of a sane gun owner. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On December 16 2012 01:41 Taguchi wrote: If the crazy person had a gun you'd probably be dead with your gun in your pocket. Fists or even running away might help against that other stuff, unlikely to help against any sort of firearm tho. And there's a far better chance of survival even with wounds inflicted than surviving gunshots. I don't agree. The usual scenario is not that a crazy person walks up and shoots you dead with no warning. Every now and then there are major tragedies like the one that re-launched this thread, but statistically those are very very rare. The far more common situation is that there are warning signs so that you can prepare to defend yourself. Further, when you look at these cases where an insane gunman arms himself and sets out to shoot as many people as possible, it's true that the first couple people will probably die with no warning. But if there are a few law-abiding types who are armed they might be able to stop the madman before he kills 20 or 30 or 40 people. Of course if you're in a "gun-free zone" then no law-abiding person will have a gun so no one will be able to do anything. In which case, like you said, fists or running away are unlikely to help anyone. | ||
|
phipsL
Germany189 Posts
| ||
|
goldenwitch
United States338 Posts
What do you guys think about this as an alternative to the very difficult or even impossible banning of guns in the United States? | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:01 goldenwitch wrote: Here is a thought. Instead of banning the right to own guns, why don't we start by severely limiting the right to make guns or ammunition? Even the best kept guns don't have more than a 200 year life span, and if they are being kept well enough to last 200 years, they are probably in responsible care. What do you guys think about this as an alternative to the very difficult or even impossible banning of guns in the United States? Honestly, I think you are approaching the problem from the wrong angle. Before you tackle of How to remove guns, you need to make people think that you Should remove guns. I am sorry for repeating my message as people are probably bored of it by now, but I really do not think that it is a logistical matter. It is a cultural matter. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:01 goldenwitch wrote: Here is a thought. Instead of banning the right to own guns, why don't we start by severely limiting the right to make guns or ammunition? Even the best kept guns don't have more than a 200 year life span, and if they are being kept well enough to last 200 years, they are probably in responsible care. What do you guys think about this as an alternative to the very difficult or even impossible banning of guns in the United States? There's already pisstons of reloading stuff out on the market. Maintaining firearms that aren't seeing tons of use doesn't take much. Long term solutions have the problem of not fitting the political concepts of "do something token and visible now" that so many of our politicians think in terms of. Also, if there's not proper oversight, licensing, and training, a limited supply won't help much, and if those things get fixed to where the majority of gun owners end up being legal, we won't need to restrict supply artificially, as the economic side of reduced demand would handle it. | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:05 hzflank wrote: Honestly, I think you are approaching the problem from the wrong angle. Before you tackle of How to remove guns, you need to make people think that you Should remove guns. I am sorry for repeating my message as people are probably bored of it by now, but I really do not think that it is a logistical matter. It is a cultural matter. The majority of people already think you should remove them, its only mainly americans that actualy own guns that want to keep them, so of course they are going to be biased. Its a never ending arguement, i just hope the US goverment comes to their senses and does something. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On December 16 2012 01:48 ziggurat wrote: I don't agree. The usual scenario is not that a crazy person walks up and shoots you dead with no warning. Every now and then there are major tragedies like the one that re-launched this thread, but statistically those are very very rare. The far more common situation is that there are warning signs so that you can prepare to defend yourself. Further, when you look at these cases where an insane gunman arms himself and sets out to shoot as many people as possible, it's true that the first couple people will probably die with no warning. But if there are a few law-abiding types who are armed they might be able to stop the madman before he kills 20 or 30 or 40 people. Of course if you're in a "gun-free zone" then no law-abiding person will have a gun so no one will be able to do anything. In which case, like you said, fists or running away are unlikely to help anyone. It also helps to be in a place where people do less shootings. But for every "law-abiding citizen" + Show Spoiler + Probably also described as "hard-working 'merican hero" and "christian family values church-going citizen of the great republic" Let's not forget the fact that good people with guns also risk escalating situations. If I'm in a convenience store and there's a robbery, I'll be unarmed so I'll stand in a corner, the convenience store will lose $100 and we're all going home. If I have a gun and I'm a bit nervous, I may shoot the robber dead, and because my hands are shaky, the cashier may take one in the head too. But I swear, I'm an upstanding citizen - or so you thought when you gave my my license to carry a gun. Now that I've said that, the argument that I'd expect is "yeah but I'm a good shot and I have friends who have guns and they all have specialforces-level nerves and would use their gun properly in every situation, and so would I". Personally I say, for someone so distrustful you think you should carry a gun, you sure seem to trust people to be "law-abiding citizen"! That said I'm not a proponent of anti-gun legislation, not at all. I just think that there are counter-arguments to consider when it comes down to having citizen carrying deadly weapons in public places. Just because you're incredibly smart with your guns doesn't mean everyone is. Law-abiding citizen are fully capable of suddenly becoming idiots. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:07 Reaps wrote: The majority of people already think you should remove them, its only mainly americans that actualy own guns that want to keep them, so of course they are going to be biased. Its a never ending arguement, i just hope the US goverment comes to their senses and does something. The majority of Americans want guns removed? Source? I don't think the majority of Americans feel we even need to increase gun control, let alone actually go all the way to removing them. Actually, fuck it. Here's Gallup on it. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx According to them, 45% own a gun, 44% of people support increased gun control as of 2011. A few years ago you could have argued the majority of people want stricter gun control, but not now. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:06 Esk23 wrote: It's impossible to ban guns in the USA anyways, this has been brought up before and it always shot down here, a big majority of Americans are in favor of the 2nd Amendment, the only thing that might pass is banning people who have mental illnesses from owning guns, or people who are on psychiatric drugs are banned from owning guns. Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles. I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8000 Posts
The only problem with that is that every statistic shows that keeping a gun to protect yourself have a much much larger chance of harming you than actually helping. Yes, sure, you might be able to shoot a rapist. But you might also 1. shoot yourself by accident, 2. shoot someone else by accident, 3. someone finds your gun and shoot themselves or others by accident, or 4. miss, and have the mugger/rapist shoot you instead, which he normally would just run away with the money instead (actually surpassingly normal in robberies. You'd think hitting someone with a handgun is easy, especially if you've played a lot of computer games with near perfect aim. But its incredibly easy to miss if you've never had any practice before). There are way fewer scenarios where guns help you than where they don't. Yes, if everyone knew how to handle their guns, most of this would actually not be a problem. But the truth is that everyday Joe doesn't. I actually quite like guns, and I don't think banning them completely will solve much (not in the short run at least). But restrictions, definitely. What those restrictions should be, I don't quite know yet (In any other country I would say recreational purpose and hunting only, but this is after all the US we are talking about, culture just wont allow that), but one thing is for certain, no one should be able to just go home, steal their mothers assault rifle and gun down a bunch of children at a school. | ||
|
Esk23
United States447 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:15 hzflank wrote: Is it actually about the 2nd amendment? The wording is a bit ambiguous. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The above is the 2nd amendment as written in 1788. It mentions a militia to keep the state free. My take is that is about the use of guns by a regulated group of citizens to protect their rights from the federal government. The fact that it mentions the well regulated militia makes me question whether it was intended to cover citizens keeping arms for self defence. Also consider that in 1788 the arms they were referring to were single shot rifles. I think the modern gun culture is America is not due to the 2nd amendment, but rather due to the general concept that an American should be free to own whatever they can afford. Americans have already conceded some freedom by allowing certain items to be banned (drugs, etc), and now want to stand their ground and protect their remaining liberties. Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote: Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean. Even though you're right, I think it's funny that you'd phrase it like that. As if foreigners couldn't possibly understand your laws. | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On December 16 2012 02:20 Esk23 wrote: Another foreigner who thinks he knows what our laws mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&playnext=1&list=PLED4B1EDB91E96CB7&feature=results_main How does me being a foreigner have anything to do with my interpretation of your laws? My profession or education might (in my case it does not), but my country of origin does not change how I interpret a sentence. If I were to make a post starting with 'Yet another American..' I would have people saying that I am just another USA basher. I could post a dozen sources agreeing with that video, and another dozen that disagree. SCOTUS basically agree with that video, although it was by 5-4, with the 5 conservative judges agreeing. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html I would say the he fact that it was 5-4 means that the wording is in fact ambiguous, because the supreme court judges did not agree on it. Either that or the supreme court was politically motivated in this case. | ||
| ||
