|
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. |
United States24773 Posts
On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why?
You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?"
I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though.
|
On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though.
Basically. I was just curious because I was reading a person's posts recently who seemed content with allowing people to have all sorts of arms from assault weapons to bombs (explosives in general I guess) and even went as far as to say that he'd be fine with allowing people to have guns on an airplane.
Seemed kind of extreme on the last one, but I was curious as to what other people thought on the same subject. Because his premise was basically the fact that a gun's use isn't just for killing people. There's recreational value in it (hunting, shooting at trees, Olympics), and so there's a difference between say....a gun and a nuclear bomb. And so long as it's people making the decision to shoot rather than the weapons, people should be allowed to bare these arms at will.
|
On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment in this regard has expired. The Founding Fathers knew that if every family didn't have a musket over their mantle, then the revolution never would have succeeded. Firearms provided people with a way to overthrow an oppressive government if they have to.
Warfare is much different today. Basic firearms are no match for what armies use today. And non-violent revolution is far, far more effective, as it has been shown in India, East Germany, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, the Philippines, Ecuador and even recently in Egypt and Tunisia. People only need to stop listening to the government and then suddenly the government is illegitimate and is making decisions for no one. This has been proven time and again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-violent_revolution
So the only use for the 2nd Amendment then is for protect the rights of people to bear arms for sport. Should that really be protected so heavily in the face of massacre after massacre? Why shouldn't everyone who buys a gun have to submit themselves to a background check so criminals, gang members and people with mental health issues don't get a gun?
I think we can all agree on that, and that is pretty much what most politicians who support gun control are asking for, serious background checks for every gun bought. Sure people can get them on the black market, but the Connecticut shooter wasn't involved in crime and wouldn't know who to talk to, and would have a difficult time getting a gun on the black market, especially a good one capable of mass murder. And buying ammunition would have been an issue too. But with gun shows, people can walk into them and buy anything legally, criminals, gang members and people like the Connecticut shooter.
|
On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though.
Nobody thinks people should have nukes or missiles. I made a post about bombs too, the type of bomb that can kill 10-50 people. The type you can make or buy.
You can ban guns, but small bombs will still exist. Some people claim that bombs are too hard to make, but this has already been proven wrong.
-Unabomber- made cheap bombs that he transited through the mail
-Al queda- they love suicide bombers and have no problem making/finding them even in their 3rd world country
-James holmes rigged his apartment with explosives, they didn't go off because he told law enforcement about them
-You can find random bombers in the news
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing , killed 168 people, injured more than
680. No one could do this with a gun.
|
On December 17 2012 04:24 guN-viCe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though. Nobody thinks people should have nukes or missiles. I made a post about bombs too, the type of bomb that can kill 10-50 people. The type you can make or buy. You can ban guns, but small bombs will still exist. Some people claim that bombs are too hard to make, but this has already been proven wrong. -Unabomber- made cheap bombs that he transited through the mail -Al queda- they love suicide bombers and have no problem making/finding them even in their 3rd world country -James holmes rigged his apartment with explosives, they didn't go off because he told law enforcement about them -You can find random bombers in the news - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing , killed 168 people, injured more than 680. No one could do this with a gun.
Bombs are easy to make? Relative to the ease of accessing a gun that is not true at all. Making a bomb is far more difficult for a criminal than walking into a gun show and dolling out a few Benjamins and getting a gun with ammunition. Easy and legal.
Yes, if people want to hurt other people there are plenty of ways to do it. However guns are incredibly effective at hurting people with lethal force and we just shouldn't make it that easy to get them. It should be harder to get access to a gun than rent a DVD from Blockbuster (and it is easier to get a gun than rent a DVD if you don't have membership).
And the proof is in the statistics. How many people year die from homemade bombs in the United States compared to guns? Stop trying to distract people with almost non-issues.
|
On December 17 2012 04:03 Tewks44 wrote:
To anyone saying "blaming guns for murder is like blaming spoons for making people fat" are totally missing the point. A gun makes it possible to kill someone from a distance just by pointing a barrel at them and pulling a trigger. No one is saying guns should be banned because they are capable of killing people. Guns should be banned because they make it extremely easy to kill people. It's as simple as that. You can keep throwing around cutesy catch phrases such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but just look around. How many gun related massacres will it take until you realize that guns are the problem, and no amount of fun slogans and clever one liners are going to change the fact guns are at the center of the problem. Hell, on the same day the awful massacre occurred in Connecticut a similar even happened in China and no one died because the individual didn't have a gun. That should serve as a stark comparison, and hopefully will be an eye opener to some people. Why are some people so resistant to admitting guns are a problem, and they assist in murders, and without them, murdering would be more challenging.
On the page before this one you can find a more detailed version of what I'm about to tell you:
The highly motivated (This especially applies to the examples in your post) will not be deterred because guns are illegal.
|
On December 17 2012 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:24 guN-viCe wrote:On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though. Nobody thinks people should have nukes or missiles. I made a post about bombs too, the type of bomb that can kill 10-50 people. The type you can make or buy. You can ban guns, but small bombs will still exist. Some people claim that bombs are too hard to make, but this has already been proven wrong. -Unabomber- made cheap bombs that he transited through the mail -Al queda- they love suicide bombers and have no problem making/finding them even in their 3rd world country -James holmes rigged his apartment with explosives, they didn't go off because he told law enforcement about them -You can find random bombers in the news - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing , killed 168 people, injured more than 680. No one could do this with a gun. Bombs are easy to make? Relative to the ease of accessing a gun that is not true at all. Making a bomb is far more difficult for a criminal than walking into a gun show and dolling out a few Benjamins and getting a gun with ammunition. Yes, if people want to hurt other people there are plenty of ways to do it. However guns are incredibly effective at hurting people with lethal force and we just shouldn't make it that easy to get them. It should be harder to get access to a gun than rent a DVD from Blockbuster (and it is easier to get a gun than rent a DVD if you don't have membership). And the proof is in the statistics. How many people year die from homemade bombs in the United States compared to guns? Stop trying to distract people with almost non-issues.
I mean, explosives in general are used for a variety of non-military uses, like fireworks, construction work, blowing up mountains, blowing up stuff in general for fun. I think the question is less of it being a nonissue and more of...if you believe someone has a right to have a gun, does that also entitle him to other things as well?
I mean, the right to bare arms is inherently a philosophical question of rights, so based on the framework of the right to bare "arms", I think the question of whether it's right for people to have explosive material is kind of relevant.
|
On December 17 2012 04:31 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:24 guN-viCe wrote:On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though. Nobody thinks people should have nukes or missiles. I made a post about bombs too, the type of bomb that can kill 10-50 people. The type you can make or buy. You can ban guns, but small bombs will still exist. Some people claim that bombs are too hard to make, but this has already been proven wrong. -Unabomber- made cheap bombs that he transited through the mail -Al queda- they love suicide bombers and have no problem making/finding them even in their 3rd world country -James holmes rigged his apartment with explosives, they didn't go off because he told law enforcement about them -You can find random bombers in the news - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing , killed 168 people, injured more than 680. No one could do this with a gun. Bombs are easy to make? Relative to the ease of accessing a gun that is not true at all. Making a bomb is far more difficult for a criminal than walking into a gun show and dolling out a few Benjamins and getting a gun with ammunition. Yes, if people want to hurt other people there are plenty of ways to do it. However guns are incredibly effective at hurting people with lethal force and we just shouldn't make it that easy to get them. It should be harder to get access to a gun than rent a DVD from Blockbuster (and it is easier to get a gun than rent a DVD if you don't have membership). And the proof is in the statistics. How many people year die from homemade bombs in the United States compared to guns? Stop trying to distract people with almost non-issues. I mean, explosives in general are used for a variety of non-military uses, like fireworks, construction work, blowing up mountains, blowing up stuff in general for fun. I mean, the right to bare arms is inherently a philosophical question of rights, so based on the framework of the right to bare "arms", I think the question of whether it's right for people to have explosive material is kind of relevant.
It's not relevant at all. There's no responsible way of using bombs so why the hell should they be available legally?
There are however responsible/logical uses for a fire arm, such as to shoot some guy in the dick when he's trying to break into your home, how unlikely that may be.
|
I also made a post about knives/swords, people claimed that they can't do as much damage as a gun, and point to the recent 20 slicings of chinese students as proof of such.
Adam Lanza was trained proficiently with guns for many years. If he had a sword, and he took sword training classes, he still would have killed 20 children or near that amount. Swords were designed for killing, after all. And little kids are defenseless, it would be slaughter, either way.
Guns are stronger than swords, of course, but swords/knives are still AMAZING killing utensils.
|
On December 17 2012 04:30 Linkirvana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:03 Tewks44 wrote:
To anyone saying "blaming guns for murder is like blaming spoons for making people fat" are totally missing the point. A gun makes it possible to kill someone from a distance just by pointing a barrel at them and pulling a trigger. No one is saying guns should be banned because they are capable of killing people. Guns should be banned because they make it extremely easy to kill people. It's as simple as that. You can keep throwing around cutesy catch phrases such as "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but just look around. How many gun related massacres will it take until you realize that guns are the problem, and no amount of fun slogans and clever one liners are going to change the fact guns are at the center of the problem. Hell, on the same day the awful massacre occurred in Connecticut a similar even happened in China and no one died because the individual didn't have a gun. That should serve as a stark comparison, and hopefully will be an eye opener to some people. Why are some people so resistant to admitting guns are a problem, and they assist in murders, and without them, murdering would be more challenging. On the page before this one you can find a more detailed version of what I'm about to tell you: The highly motivated (This especially applies to the examples in your post) will not be deterred because guns are illegal.
If someone wants to break into your home, do you know what the best deterrent is? Locking your doors. Most break-ins happen at places where the doors are unlocked. If the door is locked, the criminal often moves on. Sure, he could break a window or break down the door but that draws attention to him crime and his chances of getting caught go up dramatically. Why not just go somewhere where you can walk in?
The same logic applies with guns. Why go to black market to get a gun when a criminal, gang member, or mental ill person can walk into a gun show with cash and walk out with any type of gun legal in the United States (which is pretty much anything!).
Also, as I stated above, people like Connecticut shooter aren't involved in organized crime. They wouldn't know how to get a gun on the black market, and getting a semi-automatic assault rifle with ammunition would be damn near impossible for them. But it is entirely possible at the a gun show to purchase one with no background check. Now he had access to guns, which a whole different story in itself.
Also purchasing one illegally on the black market means that laws are broken before the massacre, thus the police and undercover agents have a chance to nab the buyer before they get to shoot anyone.
And that is whole point here. Let's make it hard for people who shouldn't have guns to get them, while still allowing people who should have guns to own them.
|
On December 17 2012 04:34 Linkirvana wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:31 Zergneedsfood wrote:On December 17 2012 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:24 guN-viCe wrote:On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though. Nobody thinks people should have nukes or missiles. I made a post about bombs too, the type of bomb that can kill 10-50 people. The type you can make or buy. You can ban guns, but small bombs will still exist. Some people claim that bombs are too hard to make, but this has already been proven wrong. -Unabomber- made cheap bombs that he transited through the mail -Al queda- they love suicide bombers and have no problem making/finding them even in their 3rd world country -James holmes rigged his apartment with explosives, they didn't go off because he told law enforcement about them -You can find random bombers in the news - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing , killed 168 people, injured more than 680. No one could do this with a gun. Bombs are easy to make? Relative to the ease of accessing a gun that is not true at all. Making a bomb is far more difficult for a criminal than walking into a gun show and dolling out a few Benjamins and getting a gun with ammunition. Yes, if people want to hurt other people there are plenty of ways to do it. However guns are incredibly effective at hurting people with lethal force and we just shouldn't make it that easy to get them. It should be harder to get access to a gun than rent a DVD from Blockbuster (and it is easier to get a gun than rent a DVD if you don't have membership). And the proof is in the statistics. How many people year die from homemade bombs in the United States compared to guns? Stop trying to distract people with almost non-issues. I mean, explosives in general are used for a variety of non-military uses, like fireworks, construction work, blowing up mountains, blowing up stuff in general for fun. I mean, the right to bare arms is inherently a philosophical question of rights, so based on the framework of the right to bare "arms", I think the question of whether it's right for people to have explosive material is kind of relevant. It's not relevant at all. There's no responsible way of using bombs so why the hell should they be available legally? There are however responsible/logical uses for a fire arm, such as to shoot some guy in the dick when he's trying to break into your home, how unlikely that may be.
If the point of a gun was to stay in someone's home and only be used to shoot some guy's balls off if he was intruding on your property, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be as much heat as the topic is getting, because there are plenty of people who would vigorously defend gun rights even just based on the premises of recreational uses despite what's been going on.
Same thing with explosives. You can use explosives in a recreational fashion (fireworks and conducting random interesting experiments as just one example), so what's the real difference? It's not even a question of legality, it's a question of what is the distinction between a right to bare a gun and the right to have explosives if you can argue both ways that there are interesting recreational uses for both of them? o_O
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other.
|
On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other.
You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense in your home.
On the street, you have a duty to retreat from conflicts. If you do not and hurt you someone, you are responsible, even if you did not start the altercation. Self defense only applies when you are trapped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
You don't have the right to be jury, judge and executioner. Unless you live in a state with stand your ground laws... then you're in danger of people like George Zimmerman attacking and killing you. He'll should get off free because he can claim he was attacked and defend himself. He did not have a duty to retreat.
And then we'll see more cases like this, because the stand your ground law is flawed. I could invite someone over for dinner, claim they attack me and shoot them, and I would be protected legally.
|
On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense. You don't have the right to be jury, judge and executioner.
Ah is that right? Ahh, I forgot about that.
Thanks for enlightening me.
|
On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense. You don't have the right to be jury, judge and executioner.
One cannot (and should not) protect themselves from unlawful intruders?
|
On December 17 2012 04:49 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense. You don't have the right to be jury, judge and executioner. One cannot (and should not) protect themselves from unlawful intruders?
Don't think he's saying you can't protect yourself from them. I think he's just saying don't blow their balls off and kill them.
|
On December 17 2012 04:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:24 guN-viCe wrote:On December 17 2012 04:10 micronesia wrote:On December 17 2012 04:07 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Just feel like asking this, but for the people who think people should have the right to have guns, do you think people should also have the right to have bombs?
I know it sounds silly, but just curious, and if you do think so, why? You're just bringing up the question of "what items that can be used as weapons are okay for people to have, and where do we draw the line?" I don't believe people should have easy access to nuclear warheads. I do think people should have access to baseball bats. I don't think people should have easy access to surface to air missiles, but I do think people should have access to cooking knives. As you get more towards the middle of the spectrum, it becomes much more subjective though. Nobody thinks people should have nukes or missiles. I made a post about bombs too, the type of bomb that can kill 10-50 people. The type you can make or buy. You can ban guns, but small bombs will still exist. Some people claim that bombs are too hard to make, but this has already been proven wrong. -Unabomber- made cheap bombs that he transited through the mail -Al queda- they love suicide bombers and have no problem making/finding them even in their 3rd world country -James holmes rigged his apartment with explosives, they didn't go off because he told law enforcement about them -You can find random bombers in the news - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing , killed 168 people, injured more than 680. No one could do this with a gun. Bombs are easy to make? Relative to the ease of accessing a gun that is not true at all. Making a bomb is far more difficult for a criminal than walking into a gun show and dolling out a few Benjamins and getting a gun with ammunition. Easy and legal. Yes, if people want to hurt other people there are plenty of ways to do it. However guns are incredibly effective at hurting people with lethal force and we just shouldn't make it that easy to get them. It should be harder to get access to a gun than rent a DVD from Blockbuster (and it is easier to get a gun than rent a DVD if you don't have membership). And the proof is in the statistics. How many people year die from homemade bombs in the United States compared to guns? Stop trying to distract people with almost non-issues.
I never claimed bombs are EASY to make. I said "people claim that bombs are too hard to make", which is incorrect. They are difficult to make, but not nearly close to impossible. Quit acting like bombs are some mysterious substance than only the elite know how to construct.
People choose to mass murder with guns because they are efficient and easy to obtain. Yet, a true psychopath won't care if guns aren't available. He will go to the next destructive weapon on the list; bombs, cars, poison, knives/swords, etc.
Most of these mass killings aren't a spur of the moment thing, they are planned extensively. Over the course of days/months/years. You really think banning guns will stop a homicidal maniac who's goal is to kill as many people as possible?
The proof is in the statistics? Please source these statistics that show mass murders kill more people in the USA in the last 20 years with guns than with bombs. I don't deny that it's true, but I doubt it's nearly as accurate as you think. Remember, we aren't talking about gang shootings/suicides/accidents/defense, we(at least I am) are talking about psychopaths who go on murderous rampages.
|
On December 17 2012 04:49 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2012 04:45 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 17 2012 04:40 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Also you can blow some guy's balls off with an explosive if he was trying to enter your house. You might suffer unwanted property damage but you're still getting the same effect, albeit a bit more unsanitary than the other. You'd go to jail for this. And if someone breaks into your home and you kill them you're probably going to end up in jail. Your property is not worth another human's life. You would have to prove self-defense. You don't have the right to be jury, judge and executioner. One cannot (and should not) protect themselves from unlawful intruders?
If you setup traps, or have a guard dog and an innocent lost child opens your door and dies because of the trap or dog, you are responsible for that.
Again, you don't have the right to be jury, judge and executioner.
Now if someone is attacking you and you fight back, that is self defense, totally different. But if they are there for property, again, the death penalty is not an appropriate response for theft. Your TV is not worth someone else's life.
On December 17 2012 04:53 guN-viCe wrote:
You really think banning guns will stop a homicidal maniac who's goal is to kill as many people as possible?
No I don't and I don't support banning guns. I support background checks and gun accountability (holding people responsible for anything done with their gun). And I am talking about all gun violence, not just mass murders.
This thread is in regards to whether or not people should be able to own guns (read the title), not just mass murders.
I support people owning guns, but think everyone who purchases one should have to go through a background check so criminals, gang members, and mentally ill people do not obtain guns legally. Do you disagree?
|
Like I said before, it takes 1 bullet to kill someone. Standard issue firearms come with several magazines - how many people are Americans planning on shooting/killing?
In my opinion, it shows an intent BEFORE the action or situation has even occurred. This does not deter crime but encourage it. Shots fired and already innocents are caught in the backlash either by being hurt themselves or being involved enough to want to protect themselves later on to 'prevent' it happening again.
Like some people have already said, if a madman wants to obtain a weapon, he will get it one way or another. But instead, the American laws wants to hand him a weapon.
|
On December 17 2012 04:56 NarAliya wrote:
Like I said before, it takes 1 bullet to kill someone. Standard issue firearms come with several magazines - how many people are Americans planning on shooting/killing?
In my opinion, it shows an intent BEFORE the action or situation has even occurred. This does not deter crime but encourage it. Shots fired and already innocents are caught in the backlash either by being hurt themselves or being involved enough to want to protect themselves later on to 'prevent' it happening again.
Like some people have already said, if a madman wants to obtain a weapon, he will get it one way or another. But instead, the American laws wants to hand him a weapon.
Great point. American laws make it so easy for people to access guns that it doesn't allow for gun violence, it encourages gun violence. Want to hurt someone, get a gun!
Cars are dangerous, you have to have a license to get one. But you can legally own something even more dangerous and something that manufactured to do harm, a gun, without even getting a background check at a gun show...
God Bless America!
|
Maybe we should be investing our energies into fixing America's broken mental healthcare system and help these very very sick people before they do the terrible things they do. I know lots of people who have guns and they worst trouble they get into is an occasional speeding ticket. The whole issue has become fanatically politicized with both sides trying to "Win" over the other. There needs to be consensus and concession to not only strengthen our gun laws but fix our damn society.
Its very easy to sit back after a tragedy such as what has just passed and say " lets just ban all guns" and then give yourself a pat on the back and walk away without of solved the underlying problems at all. It takes a lot more then that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
