EPTI'm willing to be that most of you who oppose guns have never shot one. Ignorance is bliss in this case as you have never actually seen how safe they are in the hands of an educated person.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
I'm willing to be that most of you who oppose guns have never shot one. Ignorance is bliss in this case as you have never actually seen how safe they are in the hands of an educated person. | ||
|
Chibithor
Brazil514 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:16 CaptainCrush wrote: As long as people can have things like knives, then people should be able to have guns too.... knives dont have a safety and can kill you just as quickly if you handle it like a retard. I'm willing to be that most of you who oppose guns have never shot one. Ignorance is bliss in this case as you have never actually seen how safe they are in the hands of an educated person. I don't think anyone is arguing that guns are bad because an educated person can accidentally harm someone with it. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:16 CaptainCrush wrote: As long as people can have things like knives, then people should be able to have guns too.... knives dont have a safety and can kill you just as quickly if you handle it like a retard. I'm willing to be that most of you who oppose guns have never shot one. Ignorance is bliss in this case as you have never actually seen how safe they are in the hands of an educated person. Gotta love the irony of this, since not many are actually making this statement, or basing their arguments on it. Ignorance is bliss indeed. | ||
|
Khenra
Netherlands885 Posts
On topic: No, people should not be allowed to own and carry guns. | ||
|
Asol
Sweden109 Posts
On February 22 2012 20:46 Brethern wrote: I knew that this was going to be brought up. Germany did have gun control in the 1930's And according to wikipedia Jew's were forbidden from owning guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany Now, it's pretty clear that the Nazi's were in power, and they were sending Jewish residents to camps as early as 1933. There's nothing on record stating how many people tried to defend themselves from being arrested even though they must have known what was happening. But it boils down to this. People are here trying to take our guns away. I'm sure that most of the people against guns have never shot one in their life. They are basing their views on the news and the internet. Yet when you're internet or video games are threatened to be banned. Or regulated, you are ready to take up arms. What's the difference between us and you? You can't actually ask this question. You're assuming that it's the same people who "take up arms" to oppose internet / video games being banned that are also supporting guns being regulated. That's just a wild assumption, you can't answer questions like that. There's no "us", stop blindly attempt to put people into groups you've got no indication that they belong in. "People on the internet are opposed to the internet / video games being regulated! THAT MUST MEAN THAT SINCE THESE PEOPLE ARE ALSO ON THE INTERNET THEY 100% OPPOSE THE INTERNET / VIDEO GAMES SHOULD BE CENSORED." That's not true, you can't assume that thus making your question invalid. Most people here probably are against the internet / video games being censored (I am against it being censored, apart from CP which I believe should be censored since children are getting harmed / abused). That doesn't mean that you can group everyone who's against gun control into the same group though. There's also a huge difference between the censorship of actual items and ideas / opinions. A item can be considered to be too dangerous for society to be freely allowed. That's why only trained specialists are allowed to use / keep them. That's censorship, but there's a _huge_ difference between that and censoring opinions / ideas aka Freedom of Speech and such. I also don't completely understand what your point is; ofc I realize that people will oppose the idea of regulating guns. That's what this discussion thread is all about. It's not hard to understand that there is no difference between us and you, apart from our different views on life (pretty big difference). There's no point to bringing something like this up - do you think that everyone who want to regulate guns aren't human, that their different? Ofc you don't - why do you attempt to point this obvious realization out for us then? You haven't argued why guns shouldn't be regulated, you've just pointed at the clouds and said "look mom, the clouds their white!". It doesn't bring this conversation forward. | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:16 CaptainCrush wrote: As long as people can have things like knives, then people should be able to have guns too.... knives dont have a safety and can kill you just as quickly if you handle it like a retard. I'm willing to be that most of you who oppose guns have never shot one. Ignorance is bliss in this case as you have never actually seen how safe they are in the hands of an educated person. A knifes primary function isnt to kill people. A handgun/automatic weapons primary function is to kill people. Knives designed for combat (switchblades, butterfly knives, etc...) are also banned here, and should not be allowed. Its also easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife for many reasons (less personal of an act, more lethal of a weapon, etc...) You dont need to have shot a gun to know that it is a lethal weapon. Lethal weapons do not belong in the hands of the masses, as most people cannot be trusted with them. | ||
|
gchan
United States654 Posts
| ||
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:20 Chibithor wrote: I don't think anyone is arguing that guns are bad because an educated person can accidentally harm someone with it. Right, but the educated needs to be able to defend himself from a knife or another gun that is obtained illegally. You cannot stop illegal guns, no country can and its silly to think so. There will always be places like somalia, syria, or mexico where crime is rampant and there is a huge black market for such things. There is absolutely no reason to ban guns, it would hurt the good guys more than the bad. | ||
|
Brethern
231 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:29 Focuspants wrote: A knifes primary function isnt to kill people. A handgun/automatic weapons primary function is to kill people. Knives designed for combat (switchblades, butterfly knives, etc...) are also banned here, and should not be allowed. Its also easier to kill someone with a gun than a knife for many reasons (less personal of an act, more lethal of a weapon, etc...) You dont need to have shot a gun to know that it is a lethal weapon. Lethal weapons do not belong in the hands of the masses, as most people cannot be trusted with them. A switchblade butterfly etc knives are tools. They should not be banned. When it comes to cutting a seat belt being able to open your blade fast is important. If you never shot a gun you'll never understand how much fun it is. On February 22 2012 21:34 gchan wrote: Silly Europeans. Bottom line is that Americans are just generally less civil than Europeans (being a young country and all) and thus, we are less likely to respect our laws. As a result, we need guns to defend ourselves. It's that simple. It's funny. Europe went through two major wars in less than 40 years. Millions dead and the remains of landmines and shells are still there today. Then they were in the middle of the cold war for nearly 40 years. You'd think of all places they would cherish the idea of having an armed milita ready at a moments notice. | ||
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:41 Brethern wrote: If you never shot a gun you'll never understand how much fun it is. QFT, as an advocate it should be no surprise that I own a few firearms but I actually use them too, nearly every weekend. The enjoyment I get out of them alone is reason not to ban. I shoot skeet and sporting clays almost every weekend and depending on which range I go to, I may also take my pistols. It does indeed make me feel better about home security too, we even have a few shady neighbors and I'm in a nice neighborhood  | ||
|
blackone
Germany1314 Posts
On February 22 2012 18:37 TheGeneralTheoryOf wrote: Tarias : Let's say you have a wife and kids. Someone breaks into your house and murders them. Don't you wish you had a gun to defend yourself and your family? That doesn't happen. Even in the rare event that someone breaks into your house, in 99,99999% they don't want to physically harm anyone, they want to steal your shit. Pulling a gun in that case is the best way to make sure they start shooting as well. Edit: Actually I don't really have a problem with gun ownership, more with that insane castle doctrine that allows people to murder pretty much everyone as long as they're at home. | ||
|
MoooN1
Germany128 Posts
i start wondering if the average us citizen really is so dumb or if they are blended by the weapon lobby | ||
|
HULKAMANIA
United States1219 Posts
On February 21 2012 23:14 Tarias wrote: While I can see why you would think like that, thats unfortunately not the way things are anymore. If the army wants you dead they will most likely use more advanced means then guns. (UAVs, Armored vehicles, smart bombs etc.) I can see how this concept was valid 250 years ago, but it isn't anymore in my opinion. Right. Because if the war in Afghanistan has taught us anything, it's that low-tech insurgencies are powerless against the omnipotence of satellite technology and superior firepower! | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:44 CaptainCrush wrote: QFT, as an advocate it should be no surprise that I own a few firearms but I actually use them too, nearly every weekend. The enjoyment I get out of them alone is reason not to ban. I shoot skeet and sporting clays almost every weekend and depending on which range I go to, I may also take my pistols. It does indeed make me feel better about home security too, we even have a few shady neighbors and I'm in a nice neighborhood "QFT, as an advocate it should be no surprise that I own a few handgrenades but I actually use them too, nearly every weekend. The enjoyment I get out of them alone is reason not to ban. I blow up stuff and and other stuff almost every weekend and depending on which range I go to, I may also take my flamethrower. It does indeed make me feel better about home security too, we even have a few shady neighbors and I'm in a nice neighborhood ".You can't argue this kind of things based on it's value for recreation if the primary effect is something harmful to society. You have to convince people it's not harmful to society first, before recreation becomes a real topic. Recreation is a secondary parameter in the discussion. (And clearly people, including me, aren't convinced it's not harmful to society). | ||
|
Poffel
471 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:44 CaptainCrush wrote: QFT, as an advocate it should be no surprise that I own a few firearms but I actually use them too, nearly every weekend. The enjoyment I get out of them alone is reason not to ban. I shoot skeet and sporting clays almost every weekend and depending on which range I go to, I may also take my pistols. It does indeed make me feel better about home security too, we even have a few shady neighbors and I'm in a nice neighborhood Thank you! This is the first real reason I've seen in this thread for ages. There's no paranoid construction of freak cases, no references to obscure racial policies, no hypothetical what-if-shootouts... just plain and simple: Owning a gun is nice for entertainment purposes. Mind you, I don't agree with you in the slightest (firstly because I found firing a gun rather boring - which is my personal problem, if you so will -, secondly because I don't think that the benefit outweighs the risk - which could be discussed at length), but I appreciate that you're actually giving a reason. | ||
|
Asol
Sweden109 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:46 MoooN1 wrote: after reading page one i start wondering if the average us citizen really is so dumb or if they are blended by the weapon lobby Meh, most people from the US probably just grew up with having a "gun" seen as something fun / cool / awesome that their dads had and sometimes they were allowed to use them. Their fathers probably told them that it was very important, it can be used against burglars and people trying to harm us etc. Thus little Timmy though that guns were his best friends etc bla bla bla. In Europe, when we see guns it's either in movies / TV / Internet / Newspappers / Friends-who-go-hunting etc. Our image of guns are that they are used for killing / threatening / harming other people. We see them as something bad, but something that can be used for good but shouldn't be allowed to be freely accesible, because we don't trust the average Joe enough with them and we simply don't see any reasons for there being guns everywhere. You can still "easily" get a hunting exam and get a gun, but that's still very regulated. We view having a gun as something very primitive, and something that maybe our grandfathers had back in the dark ages. Thus we frown upon our neighbours accros the pond. | ||
|
Silvertine
United States509 Posts
On February 22 2012 21:16 CaptainCrush wrote: As long as people can have things like knives, then people should be able to have guns too.... How does that logically follow? knives dont have a safety and can kill you just as quickly if you handle it like a retard. No, knives can not kill as quickly or as easily. That's the entire concept of a firearm. I'm willing to be that most of you who oppose guns have never shot one. Ignorance is bliss in this case as you have never actually seen how safe they are in the hands of an educated person. How is that relevant at all? Explain how having shot a gun would help someone understand gun policy. | ||
|
Nivoh
Norway259 Posts
| ||
|
Chibithor
Brazil514 Posts
On February 22 2012 22:03 Poffel wrote: Thank you! This is the first real reason I've seen in this thread for ages. There's no paranoid construction of freak cases, no references to obscure racial policies, no hypothetical what-if-shootouts... just plain and simple: Owning a gun is nice for entertainment purposes. Mind you, I don't agree with you in the slightest (firstly because I found firing a gun rather boring - which is my personal problem, if you so will -, secondly because I don't think that the benefit outweighs the risk - which could be discussed at length), but I appreciate that you're actually giving a reason. Then not giving guns for self defense should be no problem at all. That's how Finland does it, in any case. I do agree with OrchidThief that enjoyment is secondary. On February 22 2012 21:39 CaptainCrush wrote: Right, but the educated needs to be able to defend himself from a knife or another gun that is obtained illegally. You cannot stop illegal guns, no country can and its silly to think so. There will always be places like somalia, syria, or mexico where crime is rampant and there is a huge black market for such things. There is absolutely no reason to ban guns, it would hurt the good guys more than the bad. There's no reason only if your assumptions are correct. Firstly situations where a weapon would actually be handy are rare. It's not everyday that you get robbed. (If it is, I suggest you move somewhere else.) The good that would come out of having a gun would be minimal. Secondly, a robber has no reason to shoot before you pull out your gun. There was some study on how people with guns are more likely to get shot (here) but I haven't read too deeply into it. "When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." is basically what I'm going for. | ||
|
Rob-Zero
Germany453 Posts
First : I never, NEVER got threatened by anyone who has got a gun, and I am pretty sure it will never happen. I wonder how much of you were ? Second : Terrorists don´t come at your house ! They just don´t. They blow themselves up at a place where many people are or such. I don´t get where a gun should help me in that situation. Third : So there is a man standing in front of me with a gun, aiming at me. I suppose you don´t aim at him before he aims at you, just because he is the bad man, and you are the good. So, how does a gun help me in that situation ? When I pull mine, he already shoots, or not ? I would if I were him. So a gun only protects me if the other guy has none, if we are speaking of DEFENDING yourself, in which case you will always be the one who pulls the gun after the other one. And if the other one got no gun, I do not need any neither. Apart from that people here are always talking of "well educated people", well, the most people are not well educated. And even if the most are, there are always a lot, that are not. So there will ALWAYS be danger if guns are legal. Just look at your own statistics. | ||
| ||
