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.
On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote: Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life?
What if he has a GUN on top of that?
That would certainly make things a lot more scary than his intentions alone.
What if he does? What if he has a knife? What if he has a hand grenade? It doesn't matter what he is using, what matters is the scenario.
What? It absolutely does matter.
I'd certainly prefer it if he had a knife instead (grenades should be covered by the same laws that guns are anyway).
The scenario is different depending on how easy it is for him to hurt or kill you. And I would personally prefer the kind of scenario where he doesn't only have to move his finger by an inch at long range to do so.
On February 20 2012 03:11 isleyofthenorth wrote: i think the liberal stance the US and switzerland have for example are terrible
What are you talking about? Its illegal to carry any gun in switzerland. You can own them, but you cant carry them outside of shooting areas (and im not even sure you are able to have ammunitions at home). Beside, I know very few people that actually own some guns, usually its for some kind of collections.
On February 20 2012 03:32 Yongwang wrote: I'm just going to leave this here.
THIS is one of the most disgusting, nazi-like propaganda videos I have ever seen in my life. Do the makers of this movie seriously believe the slaughter of jews wouldnt have happened with guns allowed/granted to everybody? the slaughters in africa? ololol. DISGUSTING
Imo give US more guns to shoot each other = profit for the rest of the world no but honestly guns are the reason US has a high crime rate and high muder rate....... captain obvious to the rescue! nananananan
I dont think guns should be allowed for anyone beside hunters. Sure, people always killed each others and they wont stop if you take guns away, but i think it increases the inhibitions.In a dispute its far more easily to raise your gun and shoot than beating someone to death. As well the huge amount of people which are killed accidentally would be reduced by a lot.
Sigh lol... any discussion about sources, trends and correlations seems to be ignored. Just another terrible opinion related political discussion about guns/religion with back and fort of herp guns r bad, derp guns r good.
On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote: Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life?
What if he has a GUN on top of that?
That would certainly make things a lot more scary than his intentions alone.
What if he does? What if he has a knife? What if he has a hand grenade? It doesn't matter what he is using, what matters is the scenario.
What? It absolutely does matter.
I'd certainly prefer it if he had a knife instead (grenades should be covered by the same laws that guns are anyway).
The scenario is different depending on how easy it is for him to hurt or kill you. And I would personally prefer the kind of scenario where he doesn't only have to move his finger by an inch at long range to do so.
With a knife, you'd have to get up close and personal with them, preferably with a knife of your own, and hope to hell they aren't bigger, stronger, or more experienced in a fight. With a gun, you just have to hope you get a shot off first, and you are the one with the home field advantage.
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.
Guns are tools, just like anything else, they have several purposes and there's nothing wrong with having a gun-related hobby. So you want to force people who you feel are "morally corrupt," to live their lives how you want them to? Sounds a lot like those religious nutjobs who hates homosexuality and even Hitler.
No I want people to not have stupid hobbies. If someone's hobby was to drive through kindergartens at 150km /hour I'd have a problem with that, or if their hobby was making dynamite. Gun related hobbies, to me, are literally "in the case that I had to kill another living being, let's try and measure how good I'd be at it".
So because you fail to understand something, it should be banned? As another member said, what about bows? What about swords? What about knives? All of these were invented to kill as well. What about cars? Cars were invented as machines of war as well, should we ban all cars?
On February 20 2012 04:01 BlackPaladin wrote: 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.
Belgium - Orginated after being oppresed by consequently Spain, France, Netherlands. Had to go to war against the last to become independant. No law to stand up against a government. Netherlands-Orginated after being oppresed by Spain. Had to fight 80 years (not really but its being called like that) to become independent. No law that allows guns to stand up against the government. Poland-Was often being opprosed by Germany and Russia during their entire history (not just WW2). No law that explicitly allows gunusage as the US. All the countries that have been colonizated by Europe, TWICE, for a very long time with a lot cruelty, a lot of oppression, no explicit gun laws to guarantee your freedom. Greece - Became a democratic state at the end of 2nd half of the 20th century after a long time of dictatorship and oppression. No explicit gun laws for freedom. Spain - Franco. Latin America - All those dictators. No explicit gun law to uphold your freedom.
Do you really want to me to list every country their bloody history and how they became a sovereign democratic state? Really which country did you have in mind that reached that goal with songs & dances?
Should people be allowed to carry guns? In a perfect world no, but in the current world, i wont judge somebody because they feel they need the protection. (excluding hunters, police officers etc..)
On February 20 2012 04:12 Yongwang wrote: Okay so what if it's a rapist or a serial killer? What if he wants more than just your wallet? What if he wants your life?
What if he has a GUN on top of that?
That would certainly make things a lot more scary than his intentions alone.
What if he does? What if he has a knife? What if he has a hand grenade? It doesn't matter what he is using, what matters is the scenario.
What? It absolutely does matter.
I'd certainly prefer it if he had a knife instead (grenades should be covered by the same laws that guns are anyway).
The scenario is different depending on how easy it is for him to hurt or kill you. And I would personally prefer the kind of scenario where he doesn't only have to move his finger by an inch at long range to do so.
With a knife, you'd have to get up close and personal with them, preferably with a knife of your own, and hope to hell they aren't bigger, stronger, or more experienced in a fight. With a gun, you just have to hope you get a shot off first, and you are the one with the home field advantage.
Are you serious?
I'm a programmer. He's a serial killer. Who shoots first?
There are only a few similar ways that scenario would end and none of them looks like something out of an episode of Chuck.
Guns being legal means they are also abundant, cheap and readily available on the black market. I hope you don't need help with understanding this. Giving thugs, gangbangers, retards, children, psychos and angsty losers easy access to firearms so they can kill people with the press of a button is the dumbest idea ever. Why is this even a debate? Just look up murder rates in countries with strict gun control and compare them to those in the US... no comment.
On February 20 2012 04:20 saMas wrote: Imo give US more guns to shoot each other = profit for the rest of the world no but honestly guns are the reason US has a high crime rate and high muder rate....... captain obvious to the rescue! nananananan
There are countries with equal or higher arms per capita rates, with nowhere near the crime-rates of USA. There isn't a proven causality even if there might be some correlation.
The liberal guns laws of the USA and the high crime rates are two seperate subjects.
On February 20 2012 04:24 Trollk wrote: All the countries that have been colonizated by Europe, TWICE, for a very long time with a lot cruelty, a lot of oppression, no explicit gun laws to guarantee your freedom.
Actually quite a few former colonies constitutions do or did protect gun rights and many (if not most) Constitutions in the world are based on the US Constitution.
On February 20 2012 04:23 forgottendreams wrote: Sigh lol... any discussion about sources, trends and correlations seems to be ignored. Just another terrible opinion related political discussion about guns/religion with back and fort of herp guns r bad, derp guns r good.
There more or less haven't been any sources or trends posted. A questionable website is about it. In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do. If this discussion could be ended by showing a pretty graph it would be a non-issue to have the second amendment abolished, but alas it's not.
On February 20 2012 04:16 sirachman wrote: If you don't have weapons and the government does, you have a problem.
Also, police do not prevent crime, they deal with the aftermath.
The only thing that prevents crime is you. The only way you can prevent violent crime is being able to defend yourself. The only way you can protect yourself and others against assailants with guns is having your own. You cannot prevent criminals from obtaining guns, only law abiding citizens.
no
you don't prevent crime by defending yourself
you prevent crime by avoiding to create the conditions in which more criminals appears
On February 20 2012 04:24 Trollk wrote: All the countries that have been colonizated by Europe, TWICE, for a very long time with a lot cruelty, a lot of oppression, no explicit gun laws to guarantee your freedom.
Actually quite a few former colonies constitutions do or did protect gun rights and many (if not most) Constitutions in the world are based on the US Constitution.
I think people in the US are stuck in a "loop" that us europeans probably really cannot understand. In Norway nobody I know owns a gun, maybe one or 2 have hunting weapons, but I cant think of anyone I know who has a gun. The knowledge that (almost) nobody owns a gun here, makes it alot easier for us. I think that in the US, safety is tied up to owning a gun, and also the knowledge that "everyone" has a gun making it harder to be that person who says, oh lets try and change this, I dont need a gun, only to get gunned down or shot in his home by a criminal.
What I see as problematic is the lack of will towards making a change that is undoubtably for the better. ITS BETTER WHEN EVERYONE DOESNT HAVE A GUN. I understand why it wont happen over night, I just dont understand how Americans cant understand that statement.
On February 20 2012 04:16 sirachman wrote: If you don't have weapons and the government does, you have a problem.
Also, police do not prevent crime, they deal with the aftermath.
The only thing that prevents crime is you. The only way you can prevent violent crime is being able to defend yourself. The only way you can protect yourself and others against assailants with guns is having your own. You cannot prevent criminals from obtaining guns, only law abiding citizens.
no
you don't prevent crime by defending yourself
you prevent crime by avoiding to create the conditions in which more criminals appears
That can't always happen, and yes the only thing that can prevent crime is YOU the individual, I agree with him. The police are NOT there to stop a crime in progress, they are there to INVESTIGATE afterwards.
On February 20 2012 04:27 OrchidThief wrote:In the end guns or no guns is a matter of how much people basically value a human life. You can't quantify it through graphs. Either life is sacred and taking one in self defense is the worst crime you can commit, or taking one in self defense is alright because it was the right thing to do.
I don't see how that has anything to do with gun controll at all.
On February 20 2012 04:29 Chanted wrote: I think people in the US are stuck in a "loop" that us europeans probably really cannot understand. In Norway nobody I know owns a gun, maybe one or 2 have hunting weapons, but I cant think of anyone I know who has a gun. The knowledge that (almost) nobody owns a gun here, makes it alot easier for us. I think that in the US, safety is tied up to owning a gun, and also the knowledge that "everyone" has a gun making it harder to be that person who says, oh lets try and change this, I dont need a gun, only to get gunned down or shot in his home by a criminal.
What I see as problematic is the lack of will towards making a change that is undoubtably for the better. ITS BETTER WHEN EVERYONE DOESNT HAVE A GUN. I understand why it wont happen over night, I just dont understand how Americans cant understand that statement.
thank you for the best, most reasonable post of the thread!
EPT
