|
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. |
Who the hell is this SayGen guy, jesus.. i wish you could get banned for stupidity.
If he read as much of this thread as he claims he wouldnt be bringing up old arguements that have already been proven wrong.
|
On December 16 2012 13:13 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:09 Caphe wrote: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.
Guns make it easier to kill people, a LOT easier. Why should we make it easier for them to kill people?
|
On December 16 2012 12:39 MountainDewJunkie wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-listThis 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.
Yeah that sounds a little bit off...maybe if they are counting the military's weapons??? I can probably name like 5-6 people that I know who owns a gun.
|
On December 16 2012 13:11 Keldrath 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. 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.
You think guns are an easy way to kill?
If you wanted to kill people in a movie theatre, use bombs. Anarchist Cookbook. Make bombs from material at any convince store. Bar/explode the side doors and a few incendiary bombs later you get a 100% kill rate. A gun at least has ammo that runs out. Carry 200 rounds of ammo isn't easy, despite what video games/movies may show. A bomb that starts a raging fire will burn every human inside. A gun will not kill everyone inside.
You still seems to be making the argument that because guns are easy to get (which isn't true) that by getting rid of them the murder rate will go down. Guns are only one method of murder.
|
Australia8532 Posts
On December 16 2012 13:13 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:09 Caphe wrote: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.
Wow you really believe everyone else is being irrational and that more "responsible" people (whatever that means) should carry guns?
Who decides what makes someone a responsible person? Enough so that they can be trusted with a gun? Sure there are other weapons out there, but you can't argue against the deathly efficiency and life-threatening dangers of a gun - you said so yourself, that's why you want to carry one! I still haven't heard one good argument against the fact that the issue isn't that "people kill people", the issue is clearly the level of _access_ to guns.
|
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.
What's so wrong about putting your safety above the safety of someone trying to rob you at knife point? There are plenty of gun regulation arguments you can use that are fair enough. Saying he should risk his safety in the spirit of preventing the possibility of having to shoot the person holding him up with a knife is rather stupid.
You want to argue guns are bad? That's fine but saying you should put your safety in a knife wielding drug heads hands is not smart, it's stupid. It's not an argument against guns it's just grasping at straws for any reason at all to say guns are bad.
|
On December 16 2012 13:16 Reaps wrote:
Who the hell is this SayGen guy, jesus.. i wish you could get banned for stupidity.
If he read as much of this thread as he claims he wouldnt be bringing up old arguements that have already been proven wrong.
They havn't been proving wrong, and i've explained to you why they arn't wrong, but your not even trying to see pass your own personal bias.
|
On December 16 2012 13:17 bkrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:13 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:09 Caphe wrote: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. Wow you really believe everyone else is being irrational and that more "responsible" people (whatever that means) should carry guns? Who decides what makes someone a responsible person? Enough so that they can be trusted with a gun? Sure there are other weapons out there, but you can't argue against the deathly efficiency and life-threatening dangers of a gun - you said so yourself, that's why you want to carry one! I still haven't heard one good argument against the fact that the issue isn't that "people kill people", the issue is clearly the level of _access_ to guns.
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone.
|
On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:17 bkrow wrote:On December 16 2012 13:13 SayGen wrote:On December 16 2012 13:09 Caphe wrote: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. Wow you really believe everyone else is being irrational and that more "responsible" people (whatever that means) should carry guns? Who decides what makes someone a responsible person? Enough so that they can be trusted with a gun? Sure there are other weapons out there, but you can't argue against the deathly efficiency and life-threatening dangers of a gun - you said so yourself, that's why you want to carry one! I still haven't heard one good argument against the fact that the issue isn't that "people kill people", the issue is clearly the level of _access_ to guns. The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them. Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone.
I'm sorry, this isn't related to the topic, but upon seeing your comment I immediately thought of
+ Show Spoiler +
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
On-topic: But isn't there a strong tendency for the deranged to use the deadliest weapon available? And if we restrict gun use, we can take away that avenue?
|
On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone.
Surely then you could easily defend yourself with a grenade. I mean, who would fuck with a guy with a grenade?
|
On December 16 2012 13:27 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone. Surely then you could easily defend yourself with a grenade. I mean, who would fuck with a guy with a grenade?
What the hell? Grenades clearly have no defensive purposes.
|
On December 16 2012 13:17 Chewbacca. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 12:39 MountainDewJunkie wrote:http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-listThis 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. Yeah that sounds a little bit off...maybe if they are counting the military's weapons??? I can probably name like 5-6 people that I know who owns a gun.
Stats are the best way to tell a lie.
I own 6 guns. To the antigun crowd this number sounds gross and excessive. The reality is there are many different guns for many different purposes. They are like tools. You dont just own a single wrench and expect to be able to fix your car with it. I have a 12 gauge shotgun and a .308 for hunting. I have 2 .22s for target practice. I have a .410 shotgun which my grandfather gave me and is somewhat of a collectors item along with my WWI US Army issued 1911 which is a personal collectors item as well as a home defense gun.
If I were really into guns and hunting, I could conceivably own dozens of different guns.
|
On December 16 2012 13:30 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:27 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone. Surely then you could easily defend yourself with a grenade. I mean, who would fuck with a guy with a grenade? What the hell? Grenades clearly have no defensive purposes.
If you were going to mug someone, and they pulled out a grenade, you'd surely think twice.
|
On December 16 2012 13:30 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:27 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone. Surely then you could easily defend yourself with a grenade. I mean, who would fuck with a guy with a grenade? What the hell? Grenades clearly have no defensive purposes.
Don't get baited.
They are resulting to being extreme, because they are logically beaten.
They hate guns so much they will say anything to demonize them.
|
On December 16 2012 13:34 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:30 heliusx wrote:On December 16 2012 13:27 ControlMonkey wrote:On December 16 2012 13:21 SayGen wrote:
The access to guns as I've said now 3 times is near irrelevent. If you want to kill someone you will kill them.
Guns do it pretty well. I can kill you with a car, a bomb, poisen, etc. Take away guns and you will not stop me (or a criminal) from killing someone. Surely then you could easily defend yourself with a grenade. I mean, who would fuck with a guy with a grenade? What the hell? Grenades clearly have no defensive purposes. If you were going to mug someone, and they pulled out a grenade, you'd surely think twice.
Are you trying to make some kind of point?
|
You have the right to defend yourself. How far does that right extend? To automatic weapons? What about explosives?
I was responding to SayGen's "criminals can poison people" argument. The question is why guns? Because they are good at inflicting voilence. Which can be used by criminals to murder.
A society with more legal guns makes it easier for criminals top get guns. Legally or illegally.
|
Dont bother using logic with SayGen, it goes right over his head.
|
Oh fuck I though the religion vs religion is the worst argurment on TL forum, this is worse. Well I am out of this thread, just wait for another shooting to happen in the US so we can all be back at square one in this thread again. I am pretty sure everything we argue about today had been discussed before in this thread.
The conclusion is, pro gun people will want to keep their gun no matter what happens, even purchase more of them after incident like CT shooting.
I really don't see the US will have any gun control law at all in a foreseeable future so really no point of discussing it here.
On December 16 2012 13:41 Reaps wrote:
Dont bother using logic with SayGen, it goes right over his head.
Not only him but most pro-gun people. They are like gun is the answer for mostly everything they face in life. One gun to rule them all? lol.
|
On December 16 2012 13:17 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 13:11 Keldrath wrote: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. 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. You think guns are an easy way to kill? If you wanted to kill people in a movie theatre, use bombs. Anarchist Cookbook. Make bombs from material at any convince store. Bar/explode the side doors and a few incendiary bombs later you get a 100% kill rate. A gun at least has ammo that runs out. Carry 200 rounds of ammo isn't easy, despite what video games/movies may show. A bomb that starts a raging fire will burn every human inside. A gun will not kill everyone inside. You still seems to be making the argument that because guns are easy to get (which isn't true) that by getting rid of them the murder rate will go down. Guns are only one method of murder.
The aurora colorado shooter bought and had 6000 rounds of ammunition.
No one thought it was suspicious or that anything illegal was going to go down.
That's a lot more than you 200 comment.
|
I believe that reducing guns is the way to go. All guns should be considered weapons of mass destruction. If you can kill more than 25 people(kids) in less than one hour, its like a bomb.
There are other weapons to disable someone. Like stun guns, tranquilizers, etc. If you have a killer with a gun pointing at you, for sure you'll probably die even if you have a gun yourself. You kill the murderer, but you're likely dead also. Why not just shoot with a tranquilizer? You'll die. But the murderer can be knocked out for a day. What if the no one comes and the murderer gets away?
Heres the other change that really needs attention. We live in such a technological time, but yet we rely so much on guns. If we have touchscreen phones by now, how hard is it to have a device, that disables a murderer, and also signals law enforcement?
If we make guns harder to obtain through more extensive licensing, transition over to non-deadly guns, and add the necessary technology behind guns, it will drastically reduce these shooting rampages.
You can argue that someone with such intention will always get their hands on an illegal gun no matter what. At least it'll increase the difficulty by implementing said changes.
I don't want my neighbor to own a gun that can kill more than 100 people in less than an hour. I don't know them, and they live so close to me. Guns are for killing, its not the cowboy days anymore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
