EPTi dont know where it comes from (maybe from their harsh social-caresystem?) but here(germany) we dont care that much about people breaking in your house and you need to protect yourself against it, so you need a gun. sometimes i dont even lock my door when im too tired getting up to do so. so as a result im not very interested in having a gun or something to protect me, i just dont see any need to do so. i didnt hold a real gun in my hands either and i dont know how i should get one when im in need of one ^^, but its just because there are very few guns around and most of them are registered.
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. | ||
|
ChriseC
Germany440 Posts
i dont know where it comes from (maybe from their harsh social-caresystem?) but here(germany) we dont care that much about people breaking in your house and you need to protect yourself against it, so you need a gun. sometimes i dont even lock my door when im too tired getting up to do so. so as a result im not very interested in having a gun or something to protect me, i just dont see any need to do so. i didnt hold a real gun in my hands either and i dont know how i should get one when im in need of one ^^, but its just because there are very few guns around and most of them are registered. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
all that aside, it is the hieght of irresponsibility, imo, to own a gun but not train oneself and one's family in proper control/responsible use. of the people i know who use guns, those of them who have been using them since childhood are the most responsible, safest, and most knowledgeable about them. a gun is a weapon, plain and simple. anything can be a weapon. weapons do not cause crime, nor do they cause death. the people wielding the weapons cause crime/death/injury. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On February 23 2012 17:30 TanGeng wrote: According this single-minded search for safety, people should resign themselves to be pillaged and raped and never fight back. The scenario points out that single-minded search for safety by disarming the law-abiding citizenry isn't a full guarantee of safety, and in the extreme situation, attrition by retribution favors law-abiding citizenry. In the general case, the change in risk-reward also favors non-criminals. Just because gun proliferation is not safer for lawful citizens doesn't mean that criminals will enjoy it. I'm not really sure what your point is, but mine was simply that if it's valid to assume people will murder you to facilitate a lesser crime, then it's valid to assume mass retribution. Both of these assumptions are ridiculous exaggerations. Also, attrition by retribution isn't law-abiding so it doesn't favor law-abiding citizenry. Retribution is illegal. The list was based on home invasion because that's the most reasonable reason for gun ownership. There's no point in making a list outlining assumptions for someone delusional enough to believe they need to bring a gun to a restaurant. Finally, gun control isn't a pipe dream, it's a process that is underway in many nations. 1) Some people experience it more often than others. Police and security are often useless for these people. That's the reason they're picked out as targets by criminals. They need it more than most people. Situations vary. 2) Risk-reward dynamic tilts against criminals when there is mutual danger. Criminals prefer zero risk gain. 3) Having gun, not having gun makes no difference. Not an argument for or against. 4) If they are wearing masks, they're going to be committing burglary and not murder. They'd prefer a victim that can't fight back. Again risk-reward dynamic. 5) People can have dogs and guns. Not an argument for or against. 6) In case of unarmed assailants, armed defense can prevent burglary. 7) Again risk-reward dynamic. 8) On part of the victim, people would choose not having their stuff taken in their presence. 9) Having gun, not having gun makes no difference. Not an argument for or against. 10) So it's a game of attrition. If all law abiding citizens had guns then friendly fire could be a serious problem, but then so would committing and getting away with a crime. Attrition appears to heavily favor law-abiding citizens. There are plenty of risks. People have to be adults about it. 1) Is your point that we should only allow certain people to own guns? You can't point to the very highest risk scenarios in support of general gun ownership, sorry. And again, guns don't make this problem in society go away. At best they mask it, at worse they cause tragedies, accidents, and murders. 2) What?? Should I bother reminding you that criminal activity is inherently risky? Police don't appear to stop them. Mass gun ownership doesn't appear to be stopping them. Is gun ownership solving the problem? 3) Not sure what you're saying 4) Not sure what you're saying, but again the point was that with a mask they wouldn't need to commit murder for the reason Caitlin gave. 5) People can also have guns and landmines. You don't need to take it to a dangerous extreme that undermines public safety when something simpler often works. 6) Armed defense doesn't distinguish between armed and unarmed in the middle of the night. It points and shoots. This is the reason so many family members get killed. And it isn't morally valid to kill someone to prevent them from removing whatever they can carry from your house. 7) Not sure what your point is 8) Not sure what your point is 9) Not sure what your point is 10) The fact that you're defending your point by singing the praises of attrition means our argument is over. | ||
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 03:34 sevencck wrote: I'm not really sure what your point is, but mine was simply that if it's valid to assume people will murder you to facilitate a lesser crime, then it's valid to assume mass retribution. Both of these assumptions are ridiculous exaggerations. Also, attrition by retribution isn't law-abiding so it doesn't favor law-abiding citizenry. Retribution is illegal. The list was based on home invasion because that's the most reasonable reason for gun ownership. There's no point in making a list outlining assumptions for someone delusional enough to believe they need to bring a gun to a restaurant. Finally, gun control isn't a pipe dream, it's a process that is underway in many developed nations. People bring guns to restaurants. People carry guns with them in cars. People carry guns on the streets. There are conceal carry permits. There are open carry laws. It's surprising that you don't know that. Retribution was your point not mine. In fact your point appear to be that the threat of retribution by a criminal's friends' against lawful citizenry practicing self-defense should dissuade people from self-defense. My counter is that it is going to result in attrition. Such attrition will be at the insistence of the criminal element and we already know their regard for legality. The only exception is when society is dominated by the criminal element and their organization forms defacto government. In such a scenario, gun proliferation is not going to be the biggest problem in society. | ||
|
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On February 24 2012 03:34 sevencck wrote: 1) Is your point that we should only allow certain people to own guns? You can't point to the very highest risk scenarios in support of general gun ownership, sorry. And again, guns don't make this problem in society go away. At best they mask it, at worse they cause tragedies, accidents, and murders. People don't have to own guns. People can choose to own them if their situation warrants it. People aren't forced to buy or own guns. Forced gun ownership is not the situation that arises from lack of gun control. Fundamentally, you are approaching the problem from an entirely different direction. You are arguing entirely based on an obsession with safety in which citizens should bend over to the criminal element. In my opinion, that's your prerogative, but there should be other options. I'm arguing that people can be adults about gun ownership, don't have to be intimidated, and may choose to elevate the risks associated with encountering the criminal element at their own discretion. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada704 Posts
On February 24 2012 03:55 TanGeng wrote: People bring guns to restaurants. People carry guns with them in cars. People carry guns on the streets. There are conceal carry permits. There are open carry laws. It's surprising that you don't know that. I realize people do all of these things. This thread is entitled "Should people be allowed to own and carry Guns?" In other words, we are examining and critiquing the current philosophy of gun ownership. If your point is that people should be allowed to own and carry guns because it is legal to own and carry guns then I'll remind you that is circular logic. Retribution was your point not mine. In fact your point appear to be that the threat of retribution by a criminal's friends' against lawful citizenry practicing self-defense should dissuade people from self-defense. My counter is that it is going to result in attrition. Such attrition will be at the insistence of the criminal element and we already know their regard for legality. I've already said my point about retribution was an exaggeration used to put someone else's exaggeration in perspective. But if you really want to discuss this point then so be it. Let's imagine retribution could become a significant problem. Your point is an example of the false dichotomy logical fallacy. You're saying that if I'm against people practicing John Wayne style self defense, then therefore I'm in favor of people bending over the barrel for the criminal element. I really shouldn't even bother explaining this but it's not one or the other. You don't have to have a shoot-to-kill mindset of self defense in order to practice self defense, or to combat the criminal element, especially if that shoot-to-kill mindset causes more problems than it solves. If your solution to a problem involves beating the criminal element through attrition, then your cure is probably worse than the disease, notwithstanding the fact that you're assuming you'd be in any position to beat a criminal element that wants to kill you. As an example, if I shot and killed a Hell's Angel, whatever the circumstances, self defense or otherwise, I'm done. They'll get me and maybe my family too, that's the way it works. You're deluding yourself if you believe you'd be in any position to defeat them through legal means. You'd lose. You'd be killed by someone who is expendable to the organization, and if even there were witnesses, nobody would testify against them. My original point was that you're not solving the problem of the criminal element through gun ownership, at best you're keeping it at bay, or maybe sending it to someone else's door, and at worst you're escalating a minor offense into a hopeless situation that could potentially cost multiple lives, and plunging society into the throws that go along with mass gun ownership, for no real reason other than infantile fear of being powerless against a criminal element that comprises an infinitesimal percentage of the general population, when a more complete solution would be to allocate more resources to the police. It's a very childish solution. Fundamentally, you are approaching the problem from an entirely different direction. You are arguing entirely based on an obsession with safety in which citizens should bend over to the criminal element. In my opinion, that's your prerogative, but there should be other options. I'm arguing that people can be adults about gun ownership, don't have to be intimidated, and may choose to elevate the risks associated with encountering the criminal element at their own discretion. On the contrary, you're the one with the obsession with safety. My position presumes a relatively safe society, yours presumes an unsafe one that requires extreme preventative measures, with little regard for the cost in terms of the big picture. You're only interested in personal safety, you don't appear to be particularly interested in the outcome in terms of the cost to society, and in fact you've even said you're fine with a war of attrition against the criminal element. I can't even begin to describe how costly this would be to society, were it even feasible (it's not). | ||
|
Dryzt
Canada118 Posts
fast forward over the last 10 years specifically in the last couple of years my view has dramatically changed. I seen a great deal of information over the last few years which shows heavy corruption within the united states government, this coupled with spying laws, patriot act, now the NDAA being passed i am now a very firm believer that the Second Amendment is there to protect the First Amendment. AKA the US citizens need guns to protect themselves from their government. So please keep your guns down there and if you dont own one consider getting one... | ||
|
deadcowboy
Germany74 Posts
It's basically talking about two very different things. One is a moral counter-factual comparison, the other one is a question on public policy. It's like apples and oranges, really. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On February 23 2012 10:14 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: People keep trying to make it an argument between having a gun when the criminals have one, or not having a gun when the criminals still have one. That is not how gun control works. Yes, some hardcore criminals will still have guns even where there is effective gun control, this is a tiny, almost insignificant minority, what gun control does is ensure that the availability of guns dries up for your everyday burglar/mugger/addict. The real tradeoff between effective gun control and not having it is this: Either you can defend yourself from criminals with guns, but many more of them will have a gun. Or the vast majority of criminals simply can't get access to a gun, but sometimes you will be unable to defend yourself if you do come up against those with one. If you believe it's better to be able to defend yourself, but must come up against firearms MUCH more often, sure thats your preference, we can chalk that up to cultural difference, I can understand and accept your reasoning. But be aware that THIS is the real trade off between the two. For the rest of the developed nations, It's makes perfect sense to be better off unarmed if you have a reasonable assurance that most people you deal with will also be unarmed. I don't think you understand the point of effective gun control. People don't support gun control because they want to not own a gun. They support it because they want everyone else to not own a gun, and not being allowed to own a gun themselves is the price they are willing to pay for it. It makes no sense in your 'real world' to be unarmed if everyone else is going to be armed anyway. It makes perfect sense to be better off unarmed if it all but ensures that everyone else is also unarmed, which is the whole point of gun control. As people have been conceding, it may indeed be difficult or even unrealistic to enforce gun control, at least in the short term in the US. But for most people arguing the case for gun control, in their(our) 'real world', gun control works and the laws and the enforcement of the laws that make them be unarmed also makes the vast, vast majority of the society they live in, even the criminal element unarmed. The other issue is that two people that both have guns are roughly evenly matched however two people without guns are potentially Much more unevenly matched... the majority of crime is commited by young males.. who are likely to be the winner in a contest with a random victim. So I would rather be in a society where criminals and citizens had guns, than one in which neither did. (because the criminals will not be unarmed, just not armed with guns) The counter point is that if both sides have guns, then there is more likely going to be death/injury if the criminal does Not intend it. (however, that assumes you are dealing with a nonviolent criminal) | ||
|
Brosaurus
United States12 Posts
The places with the highest murder rate are Louisiana and the District of Columbia with 11 and 24 murders per 100,000 people respectively. Now Louisiana has pretty average American gun laws but District of Columbia has the toughest in the US where it's illegal to own any firearms. Meanwhile at the bottom of the list are Vermont and Hawaii, with 1.1 and 1.8 murders per 100,000 people respectively. Hawaii also has very strict gun laws, but on the other hand Vermont has the most liberal gun laws in the nation where you don't even need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Crime has much more to do with socioeconomic conditions than gun laws. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls | ||
|
Forbidden17
666 Posts
On February 24 2012 02:03 sc2superfan101 wrote: i believe that people should be allowed to own and carry registered firearms. i do not believe that abuse/accidents are valid arguments against allowing them, but i can see where people come from with those types of arguments. having fired many different types of firearms, and knowing many people who own and use them, i can say that they are very, very fun to use (for me at least), and with proper control/education will almost never result in misuse/accidental shootings. all that aside, it is the hieght of irresponsibility, imo, to own a gun but not train oneself and one's family in proper control/responsible use. of the people i know who use guns, those of them who have been using them since childhood are the most responsible, safest, and most knowledgeable about them. a gun is a weapon, plain and simple. anything can be a weapon. weapons do not cause crime, nor do they cause death. the people wielding the weapons cause crime/death/injury. so you can assure that your friends who got guns because they are "very, very fun to use", will never ever misuse it? If say an outrageous scenario where his girlfriend cheated on him with his close friend and neither of them apologized or cared about his feelings, you really think he'll be able to keep his emotions in check? You had better be right because that's a person's life on the line just because he is allowed to own a firearm, initially because it was "very, very fun to use". There have already been quite a few college/university shootings for similar scenarios. A lot of innocent lives were taken simply because someone's life went downhill and he happens to own firearms. | ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
| ||
|
leperphilliac
United States399 Posts
I just want people to recognize us gun owners as ordinary people really. I'm tired of people assuming just because I own guns I'm some right wing nutjob. I'd have voted for Obama if I were a citizen at the time/very pro gay-rights/abortion/taxation for rich/etc.etc. and people just assume that I'm the opposite of all that. | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
I haven't even been in the US for a month yet and I'm already dealing with America's dumb gun problems. There was a shooting/murder on my highway today and someone actually caught it on tape and sent it to the news people. So today I was stuck in traffic all night... I miss Korea where there were no guns and you didn't have to worry about someone robbing you at gunpoint.  I told my wife on the phone and she's like "Hell nah I'm not coming to the US to live with you." She's Korean haha... PS: I think it was last year... someone from my hometown in Georgia got shot driving on one of the interstates near Home Depot and they weren't even the intended target. I really think gun laws should be more strict... Or the time when apartment complexes not too far from mine where a girl got shot in her living room while watching TV. She wasn't the intended target either but she was minding her own business and got killed from the crossfire. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On February 24 2012 10:03 Forbidden17 wrote: so you can assure that your friends who got guns because they are "very, very fun to use", will never ever misuse it? If say an outrageous scenario where his girlfriend cheated on him with his close friend and neither of them apologized or cared about his feelings, you really think he'll be able to keep his emotions in check? You had better be right because that's a person's life on the line just because he is allowed to own a firearm, initially because it was "very, very fun to use". There have already been quite a few college/university shootings for similar scenarios. A lot of innocent lives were taken simply because someone's life went downhill and he happens to own firearms. the comment about them being very fun to use was about me and no one else. i can say without a doubt that if my friends and family members who own guns didn't have guns, but wanted to kill or harm someone, that they would be able to. they could use a car, club, knife, or even their own bare hands. i do not believe that the potential to be used in harm is a good justification for banning them. that (imo) would be akin to punishing someone for the possibility of driving drunk, even if they haven't actually engaged in the behavior. once again, the comment about being very fun to use was only about me. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On February 24 2012 10:52 leperphilliac wrote: I guess it's mostly a city vs country thing, in the country there are millions of people who own guns and don't kill each other (1/3rd of American households own guns). There are many people who own guns in the city as well, but nobody likes to hear "Mr. X took his AR-15 to the range today, fired 200 rounds of .223 with no incidence, and came back home" and instead everybody hears when guns are used to kill people. I just want people to recognize us gun owners as ordinary people really. I'm tired of people assuming just because I own guns I'm some right wing nutjob. I'd have voted for Obama if I were a citizen at the time/very pro gay-rights/abortion/taxation for rich/etc.etc. and people just assume that I'm the opposite of all that. What people? This hasn't even been brought up in this thread as far as I am aware. | ||
|
Zealotdriver
United States1557 Posts
Hunting anything other than fish or wild boars should be done with a gun since arrows cause the animal a slow and painful death. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1187 Posts
On February 24 2012 08:09 Krikkitone wrote: The other issue is that two people that both have guns are roughly evenly matched however two people without guns are potentially Much more unevenly matched... the majority of crime is commited by young males.. who are likely to be the winner in a contest with a random victim. So I would rather be in a society where criminals and citizens had guns, than one in which neither did. (because the criminals will not be unarmed, just not armed with guns) The counter point is that if both sides have guns, then there is more likely going to be death/injury if the criminal does Not intend it. (however, that assumes you are dealing with a nonviolent criminal) To be fair the first person to have their gun pointed at another also has a massive advantage, and criminals are more likely to be the ones who draw a weapon first. You can never have people truely evenly matched because the criminal will, at the very least, have the element of suprise unless you have a gun aimed at everyone you meet just in case. I mean if a mugger walked behind you and put a gun to your back, you having a firearm is not much of a deterrent, because you would be insane to try draw it when they already have a gun pointed at you. The point of gun control is to reduce the overall lethality of confrontations between people who are not intent on hurting each other (eg the vast majority of crime), eg petty criminals whose primary goal is not imparting violence, where it is merely a sometimes convenient means to an end. As a side effect this shifts responsibility for the prevention of crime from the citizen to law enforcement(well it shifts it further, it's supposed to be their job anyway). It offsets the fact that the reach of the law is finite by: a) Having better law enforcement per cost, since cops where we are don't have to deal with shit like every random drug addict or wifebeater potentially having a gun, and therefore police don't generally have to be as well equipt. Even a poorly equipt cop is going to heavily outfirepower almost any criminal, violent or otherwise. b) Being able to punish violent crimes harder, since violence is generally less prevalent (violent crime without a gun is alot more effort) and therefore less socially acceptable. Which in turn acts as a deterrent in itself against commiting those crimes, and more importantly petty crimes escalating into violence. c) When crimes are commited in public, bystanders are more willing to step in, since they are not at any significant risk of being shot or stabbed(knives are also regulated heavily where I am, this obviously might not be the case everywhere). When your armed with only your body, a few other bodies trying to stop you is going to generally be very successful no matter how strong you are. Of course it's still possible to arm yourself in other ways, but it's generally more difficult to cause the same level of damage via blunt force trauma than firearms or knives. The prevailing attitude in the US seems to be that you'd rather have the option of taking the law into your own hands, or deterr violence against you via having that option at hand, and as such effective gun control may be infeasible. The prevailing attitude in most other western countries is that we'd prefer to have law enforcement actually do it's job, and lessen the overall risk of death or severe injury that comes with the proliferation of firearms. Again it comes down to a matter of preference. My point was that saying gun control doesn't work is too sweeping of a statement. Gun control does not (and for all we know could not) work in the US, that doesn't mean gun control doesn't work. It's working fine in the vast majority of the western world. | ||
|
Asol
Sweden109 Posts
On February 24 2012 13:12 Zealotdriver wrote: Gun ownership should be allowed and in some cases mandatory. Hunting anything other than fish or wild boars should be done with a gun since arrows cause the animal a slow and painful death. Sick arguments dude, seriously though? | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
On February 23 2012 20:36 nihlon wrote: When you accuse someone else of theorycrafting maybe you should refrain from doing it yourself in your reply... What part of that is theory crafting? It's all documented. | ||
| ||
