|
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. |
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ytueIl.png)
Dude that went to my school just posted this on Facebook, damn I'm glad guns are not so readily available here in Australia.
|
Maybe it's time for some Americans to rethink their hobbies, if they include guns.
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
This article claims that there are 88 firearms per 100 Americans... I can't name five people I know that own a gun. Are they counting hunting rifles as guns? Sure, but even still... This figure is misleading and ambiguous. There are many gun owners that own multiple guns. Do they inflate these figures? It's not really fair. A multiple gun owner can only use, at maximum, 2 guns at a time. So all of those "gun nuts" that each of us know greatly skew the figure, even though many of those guns may be relics at best.
And even still, most gun collectors aren't even dangerous, they're just "enthusiasts." The NRA for example is not a group of guys eagerly waiting to shoot anyone that steps on their porch. They're just enthusiasts with too much free time and a weird fixation.
These things like school shootings are isolated incidents at best. I consider myself, on average, politically moderately liberal, but the crap I read and hear about gun control... I almost sympathize with the right.
|
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
|
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence.
|
Now as I think about it, incident like this CT shooting might just boost the gun sales in the US. As weird as it sounds but its might be true, American like the poster above(SayGen) me has some delusional thought that if they own a gun they can defend themselves and owning a gun is a sign of freedom.
@SayGen: So people panic that can't even call the police and you trust them with a gun? Now talking about logic here. A strict gun law doesn't mean you give up all the gun and only a "group" of the government has them. Why American thinks gun is a symbol of freedom is beyond me.
|
On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
The most obvious counter to it is, why would you make it easier for the "criminals" to get them in the first place, making the crime an easy one they can pull off especially as a crime of passion.
You also failed to realize that most of these "criminals" got their guns perfectly legally,a dn were perfectly legal and considered safe gun owning citizens, until AFTER they committed the crime.
And the other concern with what you say is whos to say an untrained citizen such as yourself, not the member of the military or a militia, would not cave under the pressure of the situation and accidentally end up harming yourself or others rather than actually stopping the crime?
Something to think about.
|
On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence.
1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense.
The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm.
If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others.
2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E)
I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal.
|
On December 16 2012 12:54 Caphe wrote:
Now as I think about it, incident like this CT shooting might just boost the gun sales in the US. As weird as it sounds but its might be true, American like the poster above(SayGen) me has some delusional thought that if they own a gun they can defend themselves and owning a gun is a sign of freedom.
@SayGen: So people panic that can't even call the police and you trust them with a gun? Now talking about logic here. A strict gun law doesn't mean you give up all the gun and only a "group" of the government has them. Why American thinks gun is a symbol of freedom is beyond me.
You can defend yourself with a gun. I'm a military member, I defend my country with my weapons- not my fist.
The ability to fight off oppression= freedom
No defnese= easy target
Why do more old people and woman get robbed in comparison to 20-40year old males?
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal.
Lol shoot first ask questions later? If i had a gun i could kill him first?
It scares me to think that this may actually be the dominant perspective in the US.
|
On December 16 2012 12:56 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
The most obvious counter to it is, why would you make it easier for the "criminals" to get them in the first place, making the crime an easy one they can pull off especially as a crime of passion. You also failed to realize that most of these "criminals" got their guns perfectly legally,a dn were perfectly legal and considered safe gun owning citizens, until AFTER they committed the crime. And the other concern with what you say is whos to say an untrained citizen such as yourself, not the member of the military or a militia, would not cave under the pressure of the situation and accidentally end up harming yourself or others rather than actually stopping the crime? Something to think about.
I'm in the military and am trained on 3 weapons- M16A1/M9/M-4
and while I think you make a good point about most criminals getting their weapons legally, doesn't mean they wouldn't get them if it was illegal.
The point is- one group would still get weapons, while one would not. the group that would not would be oppressed by the group who does.
I've actually defended myself thanks to a weapon- and it resulted in no loss of life/limb. I've been extra pro gun ever since.
|
On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal.
So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him?
Know what would be better? if no one had to die.
|
On December 16 2012 13:01 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:54 Caphe wrote:
Now as I think about it, incident like this CT shooting might just boost the gun sales in the US. As weird as it sounds but its might be true, American like the poster above(SayGen) me has some delusional thought that if they own a gun they can defend themselves and owning a gun is a sign of freedom.
@SayGen: So people panic that can't even call the police and you trust them with a gun? Now talking about logic here. A strict gun law doesn't mean you give up all the gun and only a "group" of the government has them. Why American thinks gun is a symbol of freedom is beyond me. You can defend yourself with a gun. I'm a military member, I defend my country with my weapons- not my fist. The ability to fight off oppression= freedom No defnese= easy target Why do more old people and woman get robbed in comparison to 20-40year old males?
Judging by your last few posts, thank god you are not in control of anything in the US or i would really feel sorry for Americans.
|
On December 16 2012 13:03 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. Lol shoot first ask questions later? If i had a gun i could kill him first? It scares me to think that this may actually be the dominant perspective in the US.
Don't take what I say out of context, you'll never convince anyone to come to your way of thought with those type of tactics.
|
On December 16 2012 13:05 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. So your answer to a mugging is, hey he want's my wallet, so i'll just execute him? Know what would be better? if no one had to die.
No one died, no one got shot, no one got hurt.
Maybe after he fled he decided that stealing from people wasn't worth losing his life, and decided to walk away form his life of crime.
|
On December 16 2012 13:03 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. Lol shoot first ask questions later? If i had a gun i could kill him first? It scares me to think that this may actually be the dominant perspective in the US.
It actually is a very dominant view point amongst US citizens. I differ from my fellow citizens on that regard, but it's rare to ever find someone that doesn't share that viewpoint. And I dont even live in the south, I'm in a liberal area of the country.
|
On December 16 2012 13:04 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:56 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
The most obvious counter to it is, why would you make it easier for the "criminals" to get them in the first place, making the crime an easy one they can pull off especially as a crime of passion. You also failed to realize that most of these "criminals" got their guns perfectly legally,a dn were perfectly legal and considered safe gun owning citizens, until AFTER they committed the crime. And the other concern with what you say is whos to say an untrained citizen such as yourself, not the member of the military or a militia, would not cave under the pressure of the situation and accidentally end up harming yourself or others rather than actually stopping the crime? Something to think about. I'm in the military and am trained on 6 weapons- M16A1/M9/M-4 and while I think you make a good point about most criminals getting their weapons legally, doesn't mean they wouldn't get them if it was illegal. The point is- one group would still get weapons, while one would not. the group that would not would be oppressed by the group who does. I've actually defended myself thanks to a weapon- and it resulted in no loss of life/limb. I've been extra pro gun ever since.
Ok, you are extra pro gun, so no point of arguing with you. I just hope you are not the norm in the US.
Things like this CT shooting will happen again and very soon. We are just like 3 months apart from the Aurora Batman shooting to this CT shooting. I predict a perfectly normal person will mass murder people at some crowd public places in the US in the next few months with his totally legal guns.
|
On December 16 2012 13:04 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:56 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
The most obvious counter to it is, why would you make it easier for the "criminals" to get them in the first place, making the crime an easy one they can pull off especially as a crime of passion. You also failed to realize that most of these "criminals" got their guns perfectly legally,a dn were perfectly legal and considered safe gun owning citizens, until AFTER they committed the crime. And the other concern with what you say is whos to say an untrained citizen such as yourself, not the member of the military or a militia, would not cave under the pressure of the situation and accidentally end up harming yourself or others rather than actually stopping the crime? Something to think about. I'm in the military and am trained on 6 weapons- M16A1/M9/M-4 and while I think you make a good point about most criminals getting their weapons legally, doesn't mean they wouldn't get them if it was illegal. The point is- one group would still get weapons, while one would not. the group that would not would be oppressed by the group who does. I've actually defended myself thanks to a weapon- and it resulted in no loss of life/limb. I've been extra pro gun ever since.
Okay so you are trained, that is good, you probably wouldn't cave to that pressure then. But you really think average joe wouldn't, would you want to risk that?
Both groups would get weapons under stricter gun control, the main difference is how much harder it would be for either group to get them. if it's harder to get, there will not only be less citizens with guns, but less criminals, and potential criminals with guns. Also it would be a lot harder for criminals to get away with having guns in the first place.
The frequency of events like this latest one is a result of how easy it is to pull off, it would be way less frequent if it was much harder, in large part due to the fact that these people tend to do it because its easy, and it being difficult would be a deterrent for most of them.
|
On December 16 2012 13:09 Caphe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:04 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:56 Keldrath wrote:On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
I after reading page after page (not the entire thread, but p damn close)
I still can not understand a counter to the
'Criminals don't obey gun laws'
'Law abading citizens do'
argument for the pro gun side.
Why would you want to take guns away and trust only one 'group' the government to have them.
It just doens't make sense, life is about balance not giving one group something that has no checks or balances.
Every citizen imho who has not commited a felony should be able to buy and carry (in the open) a firearm.
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
It takes the police a long time to respond, and that's after the long time it takes for someone to be competent enough to call the police. So many people were freaking out and didn't call the police right away. Panic is not the friend of good decesion making.
The most obvious counter to it is, why would you make it easier for the "criminals" to get them in the first place, making the crime an easy one they can pull off especially as a crime of passion. You also failed to realize that most of these "criminals" got their guns perfectly legally,a dn were perfectly legal and considered safe gun owning citizens, until AFTER they committed the crime. And the other concern with what you say is whos to say an untrained citizen such as yourself, not the member of the military or a militia, would not cave under the pressure of the situation and accidentally end up harming yourself or others rather than actually stopping the crime? Something to think about. I'm in the military and am trained on 6 weapons- M16A1/M9/M-4 and while I think you make a good point about most criminals getting their weapons legally, doesn't mean they wouldn't get them if it was illegal. The point is- one group would still get weapons, while one would not. the group that would not would be oppressed by the group who does. I've actually defended myself thanks to a weapon- and it resulted in no loss of life/limb. I've been extra pro gun ever since. Ok, you are extra pro gun, so no point of arguing with you. I just hope you are not the norm in the US. Things like this CT shooting will happen again and very soon. We are just like 3 months apart from the Aurora Batman shooting to this CT shooting. I predict a perfectly normal person will mass murder people at some crowd public places in the US in the next few months with his totally legal guns.
I wish I was hte norm in the US, we need more responsible citizens to have and carry their weapons.
People kill each other- it happens. You think if you take away guns humans won't murder? How do you explain all the murders before guns existed? You can kill a human in so many ways it's near limitless. Don't blame guns for murder, blame sick humans for murder.
If a river was polluted would you say get rid of all the water? I mean let's attempt to be rational here.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 16 2012 13:05 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:03 bkrow wrote:On December 16 2012 12:59 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 12:51 Keldrath wrote:
I believe it would be a much safer country if we at the very least had much stricter gun control legislation. A lot of people say, well i want a gun so if someone does something i can defend myself, well for 1, shooting people shouldn't be your first line of defense in the first place, and certainly not killing people, that should be your LAST resort to protect yourself. and for 2 I would rather have a much much much MUCH lower chance of that event even occurring in the first place where I would even want to have one. loose gun control only leads to much higher chances of that situation occurring in the first place. rather not be in that situation at all thank you.
Second, I think the answer is the 2nd amendment, sorry joe in kentucky and bob in tennesse, you are not part of a well regulated militia. That's the qualifying statement in the clause in the first place, it wasn't so every average joe could load up on AK's, hell assault rifles didnt even exist in those days, let alone fully or semi automatic weapons.
This individual interpretation of the constitution for the 2nd amendment didn't even appear until the 1900s. I'm more of a constitutional literalist than other people seem to be. I take it for what it says, what it meant, what it was intended to do, I don't take warped interpretations people invented later to suit their own agendas.
Overall this newer interpretation has been devastating to the country as a whole and I hope something gets done about it. How many more people have to die because of this craziness? These shootings are happening way too frequently, so much so that people are starting to not even treat it as news but as a common occurrence. 1) Shooting is your best line of defense, and therofore my 1st line of defense. The point of shooting someone is so you don't have to go hand to hand with them and risk personal harm. If they charge you, you shoot. the situation is likly over unless your using a low caliber gun- then just double tap and you should be good. Also a gun is a deterent. In my own personal experience, some guy attempted to rob me with a knife, I slowly pulled out what he was expecting to be my wallet and soon as he saw the gun he ran. if I pulled out a knife, he may of attmepted to duel me--and I would of lost cuase I don't know anything about knife fighting. A gun is a low skill weapon- aka the great equalizer. No longer can a big thug bully his way through life by oppressing others. 2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E) I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal. Lol shoot first ask questions later? If i had a gun i could kill him first? It scares me to think that this may actually be the dominant perspective in the US. Don't take what I say out of context, you'll never convince anyone to come to your way of thought with those type of tactics.
On December 16 2012 12:48 SayGen wrote:
Just think if I was just dropping off my child at this newest US elementary school shooting, I could of saved lifes by putting that nutjob down.
2) Most home shootings occur after a crime has already been committed (usually B&E)
I tend not to feel sorry for criminals, incapitate them and worry about the why later. Safety of law abiding citizens should be our 1st goal
If you could clarify where I got it wrong please, I may be able to understand your point of view better then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
