|
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. |
(My post is meant to be in the context of the U.S.)
Well something to note is that most deaths from guns are not by some psychopathic murder, or for some crazed gunman robbing an innocent business. The majority of deaths related to guns are suicides. And another large portion are shots being fired purely accidentally.
I think sometimes we can get this idea that the people who kill someone with a gun are all very determined to do so, and that because of this, they would get a gun regardless of any limitations put on them. But that is really not the case. And when it is the case, it is generally a situation where both sides have access to guns anyways (drug/gang related murders).
Personally, I can't see how we could expect more safety by lessening gun control. Suddenly the average citizen is going to rise up as some heroic figure who will stop all crimes committed against them? I don't see how that is likely. You're just setting people up for a situation where they are far more likely to get themselves killed, or kill someone else.
I just can't imagine that gun-related murders against innocent people unrelated to drugs/gangs/etc is going to go down with loose gun control, or that it would go up with greater gun control. I just can't follow the logic of it. When you look at cases of innocent people dying, there's no way you could believe that in the vast majority of these situations, it wouldn't have happened because of loose gun laws. But I think if you look at these cases, you will indeed find that many many of these would have never happened if guns were not so accessible.
I think it is just delusional, and irrational to think greater safety for citizens lies in looser gun controls. I think you have a false idea of what the world is like, a lack of knowledge of statistics on gun murders, and have not fully thought-out the situation in your own mind.
|
On February 20 2012 03:46 Trollk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:41 Yongwang wrote:
Why are Europeans even bothering to post in this thread? Because it is an international forum that holds a significant amount of its members outside the USA...?
That's fine, but they're trying to tell people in other countries how to run their countries and how to live their lives, and that's crossing the line.
|
On February 20 2012 03:48 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:46 Trollk wrote:On February 20 2012 03:41 Yongwang wrote:
Why are Europeans even bothering to post in this thread? Because it is an international forum that holds a significant amount of its members outside the USA...? That's fine, but they're trying to tell people in other countries how to run their countries and how to live their lives, and that's crossing the line.
People have been doing that since the dawn of time. Whether it was clans, tribes, or countries.
The thread's question was also, should people be allowed to own guns. Not whether people in the United States should be allowed to own guns.
|
You can't ban guns across a nation as diverse in the US because of different lifestyles. A guy living in Manhattan does not really need a gun, but a guy who lives in Arctic Alaska might need a gun, especially if he needs to hunt for food. There should not be one single solution for everyone.
|
On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized.
A hunting rifle can kill a person just as well as a pistol or an assault rifle. Also there are a thousand things you can do other than "commit crimes" with pistols and even assault rifles. Your entire argument falls apart at the seams, since following that logic nobody should be allowed to defend themselves. What about target shooting? Gun collecting? And sports/competitive shooting?
|
On February 20 2012 03:51 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote:On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. A hunting rifle can kill a person just as well as a pistol or an assault rifle. Also there are a thousand things you can do other than "commit crimes" with pistols and even assault rifles. Your entire argument falls apart at the seams, since following that logic nobody should be allowed to defend themselves. What about target shooting? Gun collecting? And sports/competitive shooting?
Those are all perversions of hobbies and should be banned as well. Problem solved.
|
On February 20 2012 03:50 Bagration wrote:
You can't ban guns across a nation as diverse in the US because of different lifestyles. A guy living in Manhattan does not really need a gun, but a guy who lives in Arctic Alaska might need a gun, especially if he needs to hunt for food. There should not be one single solution for everyone.
Why wouldn't a guy living in Manhattan not need a gun? What if someone breaks into his house? What if he's walking down the street and a gang banger or mugger starts threatening him?
|
We have always killed each other. Whether it be with bone or rock or steel or machine, our single greatest talent and driving force for invention and progress is, and always will be, death.
Guns don't kill people. We, in all our flawed glory, do. When you have a gun, are you suddenly mentally capable of killing people? Do you suddenly feel like going on a crime spree? Do you want to go out there on the streets and hurt and slay and rob and burn? No, you do not. Guns are merely tools in the hands of men. Tools are, by themselves, harmless. The only thing that makes a tool do anything is its user.
Furthermore, criminals have easy access to illegally obtained weaponry these days. There are so many guns on the black market these days, guns that are easily acquired by the type of men who want to do evil things to their fellow man.
Cops nearly always take minutes to respond to a call, and when a violent criminal, much less one wielding an illegally obtained gun, is involved, the situation is a war of seconds. Emotions are running high. Parties involved are fighting stress, fear and adrenaline to at least think rationally. All it takes is one errant twitch of a finger, and in microseconds, a life will be erased from this world, forever. Cops are inneffective at dealing with situations like those. If the criminal isn't drunk, you wouldn't even be able to call 911 anyways.
We should be able to carry semi-automatic weapons legally after processes like psych evaluations and background checks. We should not be able to carry automatic weapons or weapons modified to have things like extended clips because those are needed for killing, not self defense. We deserve the right to defend ourselves from those who would do us and others close to us harm. We, who obtain our guns and licenses legally, who have friends and family, who have mouths to feed and people to take care of, deserve the right to live.
|
On February 20 2012 03:52 OrchidThief wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:51 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote:On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. A hunting rifle can kill a person just as well as a pistol or an assault rifle. Also there are a thousand things you can do other than "commit crimes" with pistols and even assault rifles. Your entire argument falls apart at the seams, since following that logic nobody should be allowed to defend themselves. What about target shooting? Gun collecting? And sports/competitive shooting? Those are all perversions of hobbies and should be banned as well. Problem solved.
Perversions of hobbies? What exactly do you mean by that? I'll admit, I've never gone hunting, but I still own several guns, I enjoy recreational target shooting, and once I'm 21 I am going to concealed carry. I've never killed anyone (not even in self-defense), I don't feel as though I'm committing some sort of "perversion." It's like the old saying, I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
|
I recall hearing about a study that found that income disparity is a better predictor of violent crime in the US than gun prevalence. While digging around for it, I found another interesting study;
Hemenway et al, "Firearm Prevalence and Social Capital" found that guns are more common in areas where there's low levels of social capital, that is people's trust in one another. Interestingly, they also used homicides and suicides with firearms as a measure of gun ownership.
Kennedy et al, "Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime" is probably the study I heard about. They found that "The profound effects of income inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent crime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration."
|
On February 20 2012 03:09 Rainofpain wrote:
I think about it like this: If I want to get a gun to use it for a murder or something, do I really care if I am allowed to use it or not? Gun controls make it harder for the average citizen to obtain a defensive weapon that is effective and not too hard to use/take time to learn.
Gun control is supposed to make it harder (by means of being expensive, etc) for those who want to "use it for a murder or something" to acquire guns in the first place, regardless of who is purchasing.
|
On February 20 2012 03:48 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:46 Trollk wrote:On February 20 2012 03:41 Yongwang wrote:
Why are Europeans even bothering to post in this thread? Because it is an international forum that holds a significant amount of its members outside the USA...? That's fine, but they're trying to tell people in other countries how to run their countries and how to live their lives, and that's crossing the line.
rofl irony much
As for topic im highly against gun for personal use, I cant find a single arguement why it should be allowed. Given US crime rates which is not only because of the fact that everyone has a gun obviously but it sure as hell takes part in it and makes the consequences alot worse.
|
One of the big reasons American founding fathers put the second amendment in as the SECOND, as in, one of the more important laws, was because of their background. They were, in their belief, "oppressed" by the English government, and felt that without guns you cannot stand up against your government if they ever tried to oppress you and your freedoms. So they made sure that if ever it happened in the future with the new government they were installing, that the people had the right, always, to stand against the government like they did, as for it to never encroach on your freedoms.
For other countries, you didn't have founders like that - so for you, it's different. You can debate if it's needed for your countries to control crimes, murder, suicide, etc. But for America, it's different. Our second amendment isn't only about that. It's about protecting our rights as citizens from the government. It's our right. The Bill of Rights are meant to NEVER be taken away from us, or encroached upon. They're there for a reason.
|
On February 20 2012 03:56 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:52 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 03:51 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote:On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. A hunting rifle can kill a person just as well as a pistol or an assault rifle. Also there are a thousand things you can do other than "commit crimes" with pistols and even assault rifles. Your entire argument falls apart at the seams, since following that logic nobody should be allowed to defend themselves. What about target shooting? Gun collecting? And sports/competitive shooting? Those are all perversions of hobbies and should be banned as well. Problem solved. Perversions of hobbies? What exactly do you mean by that? I'll admit, I've never gone hunting, but I still own several guns, I enjoy recreational target shooting, and once I'm 21 I am going to concealed carry. I've never killed anyone (not even in self-defense), I don't feel as though I'm committing some sort of "perversion." It's like the old saying, I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it. Like I said, if the majority of the USA thinks that it's okay to murder someone because they break into your house then people in USA will continue to have that right. Just don't act suprised when people from other countries think you are savage.
Also, you are arguing that europeans shouldn't even be allowed to post in this thread. A thread that was made by a european. See what's wrong here?
|
|
|
Simple, do guns protect more people or cause more crime.
If they protect more people the yes, if not no.
My 2 cents.
|
On February 20 2012 04:01 4Servy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:48 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:46 Trollk wrote:On February 20 2012 03:41 Yongwang wrote:
Why are Europeans even bothering to post in this thread? Because it is an international forum that holds a significant amount of its members outside the USA...? That's fine, but they're trying to tell people in other countries how to run their countries and how to live their lives, and that's crossing the line. rofl irony much
hahaha oh dear, I was thinking the same :DDD
|
On February 20 2012 04:01 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:56 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:52 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 03:51 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote:On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. A hunting rifle can kill a person just as well as a pistol or an assault rifle. Also there are a thousand things you can do other than "commit crimes" with pistols and even assault rifles. Your entire argument falls apart at the seams, since following that logic nobody should be allowed to defend themselves. What about target shooting? Gun collecting? And sports/competitive shooting? Those are all perversions of hobbies and should be banned as well. Problem solved. Perversions of hobbies? What exactly do you mean by that? I'll admit, I've never gone hunting, but I still own several guns, I enjoy recreational target shooting, and once I'm 21 I am going to concealed carry. I've never killed anyone (not even in self-defense), I don't feel as though I'm committing some sort of "perversion." It's like the old saying, I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it. Like I said, if the majority of the USA thinks that it's okay to murder someone because they break into your house then people in USA will continue to have that right. Just don't act suprised when people from other countries think you are savage. Also, you are arguing that europeans shouldn't even be allowed to post in this thread. A thread that was made by a european. See what's wrong here?
So wait are you saying it's not okay to shoot some strange man who breaks into your house in the middle of the night? Okay next time a murderer, rapist, or burglar breaks into your house and threatens your family, why don't you go make him some tea and crumpets, and hope he doesn't do anything bad. Meanwhile I'm going to defend myself, my family, and my property.
|
On February 20 2012 03:56 Yongwang wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 03:52 OrchidThief wrote:On February 20 2012 03:51 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:40 Vorenius wrote:On February 20 2012 03:24 Yongwang wrote:On February 20 2012 03:15 Maitolasi wrote:
My opinion is that all automatic weapons and pistols should be illegal and only guns that are mainly used for hunting should be allowed. Automatic weapons I could understand, but there's still a much stronger argument for supporting the right to own a machine gun than there is against the right. However, why in the world would you want to ban pistols? I assume in your ideal world rifles and shotguns would be extremely regulated to the point where they were impossible to own as well? Hunting rifles are for shooting animals. Hand guns or automatic weapons are used only to kill humans and nothing else. If you are buying a hand gun and don't meant to shoot another human being then you shouldn't buy it in the first place. If you buy a hand gun and do mean to shoot another human being you should be kept far away from weapons of any kind. This is my opinion of course. If more than 50% of the population of a given country thinks hand guns are cool they are free to use their democratic power and elect people who will give them that right. It still doesn't make it a good idea of course, but people are free to do what they want with themselfs. In the meant time I'm just happy I live in the part of the civilized world that is actually civilized. A hunting rifle can kill a person just as well as a pistol or an assault rifle. Also there are a thousand things you can do other than "commit crimes" with pistols and even assault rifles. Your entire argument falls apart at the seams, since following that logic nobody should be allowed to defend themselves. What about target shooting? Gun collecting? And sports/competitive shooting? Those are all perversions of hobbies and should be banned as well. Problem solved. Perversions of hobbies? What exactly do you mean by that? I'll admit, I've never gone hunting, but I still own several guns, I enjoy recreational target shooting, and once I'm 21 I am going to concealed carry. I've never killed anyone (not even in self-defense), I don't feel as though I'm committing some sort of "perversion." It's like the old saying, I'd rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it.
That people that make a sport out of playing with instruments that has but one purpose -- killing should find themselves a different hobby, one not quite as, ehh, morally corrupt.
|
On February 20 2012 03:53 Yongwang wrote:
What if someone breaks into his house? What if he's walking down the street and a gang banger or mugger starts threatening him?
If someone breaks into his house, a dog has more effect in preventing burglary and is equally as effective as a gun in defending my home.
If you are walking down the street and you are being threated by a mugger, you have a pretty high chance that the mugger has a gun too. If he does, then you would have to be a trained gunuser, who practises regularly in shooting and pulling a gun in order to have a respectable chance of winning the standoff against that mugger. It would be convenient just to hand over your wallet. It might seem 'cowardly' or 'chickenish' but dead heros don't live.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
