|
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. |
guns shuoldnt be allowed
the only reason we have big guns is because people have small guns. Why do you think guns exist? Because they pierce armor, kill from a distance and most importantly ... need almost zero skill to be a killer with ... moreover trained professionalls only hit their intended target 33% of the time (wish i could fine the stats on that again) with small firearms.
When you are asking about guns the question is really
'We feel scared, will carrying larger weapons dissipate the situation'
The answer is no, because i will go out and buy a bigger gun than you BECAUSE you have a gun.
The whole argument is based on a theory of deterrence that is horribly flawed (and has statistical studies to back that up)
Might i point out that the US is responsible for brining to world to the brink of nuclear war several times BECAUSE it has the capability to which means others must at least equal that capability or else a power imbalance is formed.
'knives dont have safeties' are you seriously using that as an argument? Let me ask you something do you think of yourself as intelligent or a fucking moron? Because i will bludgeon you to death with a gun with its safety on if you think that wasn't rhetorical
|
Both sides of the argument are wrong to an extent.
In the perfect situation, I would absolutely say ban guns. They are a tool that were invented with the primary (and sometimes sole) purpose of killing another human being. They are extremely dangerous (especially in the hands of an uneducated person), increase your chance of getting injured if you pull them on a criminal, and potentially endanger your family by having them in the house (if you have them locked and secured, you probably don't have time to get them in the case of a break-in). Furthermore, Europe gives us quite a few excellent examples of how banning guns can work. The U.S. has a noticably higher crime rate and a noticably higher death rate involving guns. Pro-gun people that claim that banning guns just doesn't work are simply denying reality.
That said, people who want to ban guns in the U.S. aren't thinking about the situation enough. Yes, banning gun ownership has worked across Europe and several other countries across the world, but all of these countries are very different from the U.S. Guns are incredibly rampant across this country, and because they already are, you're never going to get rid of them. Criminals may never (or very, very rarely) have guns in other countries, but if you ban guns here, criminals will still have them due to the sheer amount of guns that are already in place in our country/culture. This means that this can't be used as a legitimate excuse to ban gun ownership.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1338 Posts
On February 22 2012 22:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Both sides of the argument are wrong to an extent.
In the perfect situation, I would absolutely say ban guns. They are a tool that were invented with the primary (and sometimes sole) purpose of killing another human being. They are extremely dangerous (especially in the hands of an uneducated person), increase your chance of getting injured if you pull them on a criminal, and potentially endanger your family by having them in the house (if you have them locked and secured, you probably don't have time to get them in the case of a break-in). Furthermore, Europe gives us quite a few excellent examples of how banning guns can work. The U.S. has a noticably higher crime rate and a noticably higher death rate involving guns. Pro-gun people that claim that banning guns just doesn't work are simply denying reality.
That said, people who want to ban guns in the U.S. aren't thinking about the situation enough. Yes, banning gun ownership has worked across Europe and several other countries across the world, but all of these countries are very different from the U.S. Guns are incredibly rampant across this country, and because they already are, you're never going to get rid of them. Criminals may never (or very, very rarely) have guns in other countries, but if you ban guns here, criminals will still have them due to the sheer amount of guns that are already in place in our country/culture. This means that this can't be used as a legitimate excuse to ban gun ownership.
Basically this, should people be allowed to have guns? No. It's the system we have in the vast majority of the developed world, and it is working much better than the US model.
Would banning guns in the US work? No. It would probably make it worse, for exactly the same reasons that the pro gun people tell us why it wouldn't work.
That said it does mean we shouldn't be allowed guns, just that the transition from every random crack addict having a gun to virtually no guns around will probably be a painful one, and might well be unrealistic to try and implement in the US.
|
Disagree with above.
You can stop selling them and make their purchase illegal. The result: the number of guns declines.
TBH if you really want to reduce gun crime in the us you should just legalise all drugs. Then the gangs don't have that revenue stream anymore which means they cannot afford guns.
You do get that wars are promoted by companies that make weapons right (admittedly on a different scale to guns - but its the synptons and reasonings that are constant)? All in the name of 'defence', 'freedom' and empowerment. All those things are ways of saying 'you should be scared now, because you do not have freedom, we will give you the answer - we have the Good News ... HOT SMOKING LEAD BITCHES'. That is why i suspect most people who are pro guns are also religious ... you poor scared little people. I'm sorry you feel that way and need something external to feel better about your existances. We do that in this country too, we give our big kids teddy bears and comfort blankets.
Lets put it this way
Scenario 1) You have insurance .... and no gun. You get robbed you lose stuff and get it back from insurance
Scenario 2a) You have a gun and insurance ... you shoot him, and have to go through a legal process which you win (you get your stuff back but lose 3 years of your life due to the stress of at least 6 months in a legal system not knowing if your goign to jail or not)
Scenario 2B) You have a gun and he shoots your wife because he misses you - you dont shoot him as you cant believe what just happened.
Scenario 2C) You have a gun so he just fucking kills you
Scenario 3) You ahve a gun, you both pull and the situation gets defused
All apart from the last are called PYRIC victories. You lost. If you go through scenario 3 then you may as well not have a gun because your odds of surviving will be higher.
If you get into shit you do not want to have a gun. Shit will get ugly FAR faster as people will be AFRAID. If you want to make someone behave unpredictably and irrationally then you make the AFRAID. It is not a good idea in a situation where you want them to pack up and go home. You make people afraid when you want them to push all in at you as they will believe that is their only option ... especially if they are the aggressors (which they are in a situation where you are being robbed).
Even if you are allowed to own a gun its a BAD idea driven by the same fear that will get you shot when you pull on someone.
|
On February 22 2012 22:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That said, people who want to ban guns in the U.S. aren't thinking about the situation enough. Yes, banning gun ownership has worked across Europe and several other countries across the world, but all of these countries are very different from the U.S. Guns are incredibly rampant across this country, and because they already are, you're never going to get rid of them. Criminals may never (or very, very rarely) have guns in other countries, but if you ban guns here, criminals will still have them due to the sheer amount of guns that are already in place in our country/culture. This means that this can't be used as a legitimate excuse to ban gun ownership.
I definitely agree. You can't ban guns overnight and expect gun related crime to disappear, it would be a lengthy iterative process. (Gun) violence and crime in general is a symptom of some problems that exist in society, if people are happy they don't commit muggings or burglery. (Of course there are passion related murders as well as psychopaths and the sort that wouldn't be affected). People commit burglery and muggings and the sort because of desperation and poverty, and you don't remove violence related to these things until people stop living in these situations. It's essentially social politics. This is also partially why some countries with less gun control than the US can have lower gun related crime rates.
|
The US is too far gone down their path of gun ownership - there is merit in the idea of needing firearms for protection when criminals have easy access to firearms themselves. Just as most who live in gun-free countries cannot see the sense behind the situation in the US, those in the US probably also cannot imagine being denied a means of self-defense against gun-wielding criminals.
A more interesting debate would be to suppose that the US (or any other country with legalized firearms for that matter) somehow has the option to remove all existence of firearms within the country, and then apply the strict regulations that other gun-banning countries have applied on gun ownership such that it is virtually impossible to obtain firearms. Americans - would you be in favor?
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1338 Posts
On February 22 2012 23:07 uriel- wrote:
The US is too far gone down their path of gun ownership - there is merit in the idea of needing firearms for protection when criminals have easy access to firearms themselves. Just as most who live in gun-free countries cannot see the sense behind the situation in the US, those in the US probably also cannot imagine being denied a means of self-defense against gun-wielding criminals.
A more interesting debate would be to suppose that the US (or any other country with legalized firearms for that matter) somehow has the option to remove all existence of firearms within the country, and then apply the strict regulations that other gun-banning countries have applied on gun ownership such that it is virtually impossible to obtain firearms. Americans - would you be in favor?
Well for starters that would already be a fairly meaningless hypothetical situation, since noone can even imagine a way to make that happen. But even if they had the means, I suspect they still wouldn't want it. There is just a very strong cultural attachment to firearms in the US, I mean it's written into their constitution, and given how proud they are as a country of their constitution there would still be a strong cultural backlash against the idea of gun control. I suspect the answer would be, they would agree that if your magical situation could be implemented that it would certainly work, but they would still not want it.
Ultimately you can implement laws and make firearms fairly difficult and inconvenient to obtain, but you can't legislate away social and cultural attitudes.
|
I would like to know how many crimes are prevented or lives are saved because a citizen had a gun. How many of you guys shot an intruder and saved your life that way? And how many couldn't prevent a murder cause you didn't have a gun?
|
Hmm... some of these arguments dont hold.
I think people are forgetting that there is huge onus on the banning side of things due to the simple idea that people should be able to do what they want. That's the fundamental idea to start with. The default position should always be freedom over restriction. It is on the people to ban guns to have convincing evidence.
I'm not saying that there isn't convincing evidence because I haven't really checked. But the default is allowing.
|
This idea that reform would be impotent because there are already so many guns in America is baseless nonsense. I've yet to hear any explanation as to why that would be the case.
|
On February 22 2012 23:38 DoubleReed wrote:
Hmm... some of these arguments dont hold.
I think people are forgetting that there is huge onus on the banning side of things due to the simple idea that people should be able to do what they want. That's the fundamental idea to start with. The default position should always be freedom over restriction. It is on the people to ban guns to have convincing evidence.
I'm not saying that there isn't convincing evidence because I haven't really checked. But the default is allowing.
Well said. The argument because they should be isn't good enough, and until they provide convincing evidence, my guns are staying right where they are.
|
My thoughts are simple. People equating guns with crime are looking to the criminal minority as setting the precedent for the general majority. The two are completely different entities, and the general majority's gun availability has very little if any effect on the criminal minority's gun availability precisely because the criminal minority tends to use completely different guns in general than the general majority.
An armed general majority somewhat marginalizes the criminal minority. Learn from Switzerland's example.
|
There's a massive amount of evidence, it's your own fault that you're not aware of it. Weigh that evidence against your argument, that it's 'fun' to shoot stuff.
All you need do is compare the murder rate in the United States to other industrialized nations that have stricter gun laws. That should be a blatantly obvious indication that our way is worse.
On February 23 2012 00:14 AutomatonOmega wrote:
The two are completely different entities, and the general majority's gun availability has very little if any effect on the criminal minority's gun availability precisely because the criminal minority tends to use completely different guns in general than the general majority.
Can you substantiate that in any way? There are so many baseless concepts being thrown around in this thread.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1338 Posts
On February 23 2012 00:14 AutomatonOmega wrote:
My thoughts are simple. People equating guns with crime are looking to the criminal minority as setting the precedent for the general majority. The two are completely different entities, and the general majority's gun availability has very little if any effect on the criminal minority's gun availability precisely because the criminal minority tends to use completely different guns in general than the general majority.
An armed general majority somewhat marginalizes the criminal minority. Learn from Switzerland's example.
Noone's equating guns with crime, people equate guns with crimes escalating to death really easily and being really hard to stop.
For the US, I completely agree with you, there are already so many guns, even in the hands of petty criminals, that banning them would only deprive people who actually follow the law of guns.
For the rest of the developed world, your example doesn't hold. Yes a very small minority even the criminal world will still have guns, so do our policemen. The problem isn't a big one, those who actually have guns are such an insignificant minority, and most petty criminals don't have guns because, really it is a hassle to get access to one and a hassle to keep it.
I don't think you guys really understand how it is in countries with effective gun control, just as many don't understand how it is in the US. It would literally take me days if not weeks of research to even find out how to get a gun where I am.
Yes, in the US, any random crack addict could have a gun, the possibility that he does is quite high, and if not one of his friends probably has one lying around. In that sort of environment it makes sense to have a gun to protect yourself.
In, say Australia, most people, even the vast majority of criminals don't have guns. Is it impossible to get a gun? Probably not. But they arn't just lying around, it is literally alot of effort to even find a gun to get your hands on illegally. The random crack addict is simply not going to have access to one, noone they know will have access to one. If they by some miracle got access to one, it would be a hassle to have around, because it's not expected for people to have guns, when the police see it, they confiscate it, when normal people see it, they report it to the police etc.
Given just how much of a hassle it is to get and keep a gun, it would take a high level of premeditation for anyone to get there hands on a gun. This is not the sort of stuff petty criminals (eg 99% of the criminal world) do, only gangs/mafia get their hands on guns, and they don't generally go around killing people willy nilly.
THAT is what effective gun control looks like, criminals COULD get their hands on a gun, but the vast majority won't, because it is alot of effort, the gangs get them, but law enforcement cracks down hard on them, like they are supposed to.
Most of the time, noone gets shot, cos well, theres noone to shoot them, for when the mafia get guns, they attract alot of police attention, becaues it is so strange for people to have guns, so even they only use guns when they have to.
Basically, your premise that gun availability for the public is unrelated to gun available for the criminal minority only applies in the US (well probably some undeveloped countries too). Where gun control actually works, guns simply become so hard and so annoying to own that the system effects cascade even to the criminal element.
We have literally nothing to learn from Switzerland, while I admire that they have a system that works well with basically compulsory gun ownership, and certainly don't believe they need to change anything. But statistics seem to indicate that it works even better here and in several other developed countries with gun control, so there's hardly any reason for us to be learning from them.
|
On February 22 2012 23:41 Silvertine wrote:
This idea that reform would be impotent because there are already so many guns in America is baseless nonsense. I've yet to hear any explanation as to why that would be the case.
It's actually very simple. Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none.
It doesn't mean reforms would be impossible, but it makes a decent case why it's harder to outlaw guns in the US than in countries where guns have been outlawed for ages.
|
On February 22 2012 22:57 MrTortoise wrote:
Disagree with above.
You can stop selling them and make their purchase illegal. The result: the number of guns declines.
TBH if you really want to reduce gun crime in the us you should just legalise all drugs. Then the gangs don't have that revenue stream anymore which means they cannot afford guns.
You do get that wars are promoted by companies that make weapons right (admittedly on a different scale to guns - but its the synptons and reasonings that are constant)? All in the name of 'defence', 'freedom' and empowerment. All those things are ways of saying 'you should be scared now, because you do not have freedom, we will give you the answer - we have the Good News ... HOT SMOKING LEAD BITCHES'. That is why i suspect most people who are pro guns are also religious ... you poor scared little people. I'm sorry you feel that way and need something external to feel better about your existances. We do that in this country too, we give our big kids teddy bears and comfort blankets.
Lets put it this way
Scenario 1) You have insurance .... and no gun. You get robbed you lose stuff and get it back from insurance
Scenario 2a) You have a gun and insurance ... you shoot him, and have to go through a legal process which you win (you get your stuff back but lose 3 years of your life due to the stress of at least 6 months in a legal system not knowing if your goign to jail or not)
Scenario 2B) You have a gun and he shoots your wife because he misses you - you dont shoot him as you cant believe what just happened.
Scenario 2C) You have a gun so he just fucking kills you
Scenario 3) You ahve a gun, you both pull and the situation gets defused
All apart from the last are called PYRIC victories. You lost. If you go through scenario 3 then you may as well not have a gun because your odds of surviving will be higher.
If you get into shit you do not want to have a gun. Shit will get ugly FAR faster as people will be AFRAID. If you want to make someone behave unpredictably and irrationally then you make the AFRAID. It is not a good idea in a situation where you want them to pack up and go home. You make people afraid when you want them to push all in at you as they will believe that is their only option ... especially if they are the aggressors (which they are in a situation where you are being robbed).
Even if you are allowed to own a gun its a BAD idea driven by the same fear that will get you shot when you pull on someone.
You support prohibition of guns and then say your against prohibition of drugs despite using the words completely wrong. You then decide to say silly things about how gangs get their money and assume that they'll won't just get a legitimate stream of income and have a list of clients all ready to buy their newly legalized product. You go onto randomly bashing religious people because we are "poor sad little people" when more Christians died in the 20th century because of their faith then any other time period. More random hate against religious people. You go though stupid generalized situations that are wildly silly and so wildly biased and presented in a horrible way. Random capitalization make your point clearer and make people believe you more.
if you want to be taken seriously please take this seriously.
|
On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2012 23:41 Silvertine wrote:
This idea that reform would be impotent because there are already so many guns in America is baseless nonsense. I've yet to hear any explanation as to why that would be the case. It's actually very simple. Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none.
Again, these are simply baseless assumptions.
|
On February 23 2012 01:28 Silvertine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 00:51 Tobberoth wrote:On February 22 2012 23:41 Silvertine wrote:
This idea that reform would be impotent because there are already so many guns in America is baseless nonsense. I've yet to hear any explanation as to why that would be the case. It's actually very simple. Only law-abiding citizens would hand in their guns, criminals wouldn't. And with the amount of guns in circulation in the US, that would make those law abiding citizens quite unsafe since suddenly, criminals have tons of weapons and they have none. Again, these are simply baseless assumptions.
Its a baseless assumption that criminals wouldn't follow the law?? If you think it would be easy to collect hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms from people who want to own them, just telling them to hand them in, your crazy.
|
Yeah, but just saying it makes no sense because it won´t work isn´t the right thing either. You must beginn at one point. If everyone had said flying to the moon isn´t possible, you Americans would have never been there (and i don´t want to provoke a discussion if it´s true or not  ). Of course it would take time, but that is no argument at all. And the criminals in the US all have already guns or not ? They would not have MORE guns if they were illegal, and it would not make a difference if they would. So what ?
Besides that you would fuck the rich american weapon industry that makes politics and war only for their own sake.
|
Like many americans are saying in this, we also believe it's fair to have a gun.
You can have a revolver or a hunting shotgun but you can't have a m60 or a sniper rifle in Portugal, why you ask? Because it's a goddamn army weapon.
It isn't meant to save your life or protect your family, it's meant to kill human beings in a war!!!
See the thing here? In EU almost anyone can have a gun if they pay for it, pay their taxes, doesn't have criminal offences, takes the lessons and buy something for hunting/sport or defense.
You can't have armor piercing bullets, sniper rifles, heavy machineguns or SMG.
Also our culture don't define gun wielding people like heroes and our banks don't offer shotguns when you open an account, they might give you a toaster or blender and that's it.
Your culture allows people to have 20 machine guns in their house.. why? For what purpose? Is that freedom or is that stupid? Why can you have a gun before you are allowed to legaly drink?
For instance any country in europe will allow you to drink when you are 18 and all of us have way less murders then what you guys have.. Not to mention what your corrupted weapons industry does to everybody else.. They want to sell gun, they don't care if thousands of americans die or mexicans btw...
Weapons are produced and need to be sold.. not matter what.. no matter who dies
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
