| 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. | ||
|
Krowser
Canada788 Posts
Hence why it's in the American Constitution. Every man should be allowed to defend himself. Nowadays it's an enabler for senseless murder. The latest example being the Ohio shooting. And over here they are trying to get rid of the Gun registry.. why!? | ||
|
Ronski
Finland266 Posts
Even if this would mean that the only guns around are in the possession of whatever gangsters or burglars who get theirs illegally. I think it is much more likely to be shot by a gun when are also holding a gun yourself, it creates a situation where both sides are extremely afraid because they both can die if the other decides to pull the trigger. On the other hand if you are being gunpoint and you dont have a gun yourself, the attacker doesnt really have a reason to actually shoot you because he is in controll of the situation. Even if this means that a burglar might take your whatever 200€ television it is still way better than being shot. I dont say that police shouldnt be allowed to carry guns on duty but owning a gun and keeping it at your home shouldnt be allowed for anyone. Polices can store their guns at the station where they are 10x more safe from getting in the wrong hands. Same goes for people who excercise hunting, they can store their guns at a safe location and get them before they go hunting and return them there when they are done. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On February 28 2012 14:00 TanTzoR wrote:Having done my 17 years of judo, taekwondo and muay thai I can stop someone with a knife. But I can't stop bullets. I'm pretty sure there would have been less victims if he went there with scissors u_u So what? The victims probably don't have the same amount of training, or alternatively, they could be trained in avoiding gunfire. You're also an idiot if you think that (non-combat) martial arts training will protect you from someone who really wants to kill you, as a fight is off to a bad start if you're hanging out with your friends when a knife slips into your back from the guy walking by. Still, that's not the point. The point is that if you want to kill someone, you'll find a way, regardless of what weapons are available. On February 28 2012 14:00 TanTzoR wrote:Though guns are not the central point in this case, it's the lack of moral support and education. That would be the point I'm making, yes. On February 28 2012 17:29 Abort Retry Fail wrote:What we are talking about here is guns. To simplify for you, imagine if there were no guns, the kid would or would not have done this, but we would be speculating now, won't we? In short, on an argument on guns, we talk about guns. Moreover. the scale and speed of damage done by guns are exponentially more massive that could be done by any other thing. Let me spell it out for you, since you seem to be having trouble understanding: the kid was mentally disturbed and wanted to kill those bullies, and he would have attempted to do so with or without access to guns. Gun control or lack thereof has nothing to do with this case. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
Let me spell it out for you, since you seem to be having trouble understanding: the kid was mentally disturbed and wanted to kill those bullies, and he would have attempted to do so with or without access to guns. Gun control or lack thereof has nothing to do with this case. When you establish a guns-free zone by dint of policy or law, you have created an environment in which a single armed individual now has unlimited life-or-death power over his peers. We saw this most clearly in the Va Tech massacre a few years ago, and it's an evident truth of gun control that none of the advocates of paternalism seem to understand or accept: disarming the many creates easy prey for the few. Not that the state possesses the ethical right or power to seize firearms in the first place, though Natural Rights don't seem to be a priority for many people on this forum. | ||
|
nodnod
New Zealand172 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:51 Voros wrote: When you establish a guns-free zone by dint of policy or law, you have created an environment in which a single armed individual now has unlimited life-or-death power over his peers. We saw this most clearly in the Va Tech massacre a few years ago, and it's an evident truth of gun control that none of the advocates of paternalism seem to understand or accept: disarming the many creates easy prey for the few. Not that the state possesses the ethical right or power to seize firearms in the first place, though Natural Rights don't seem to be a priority for many people on this forum. That's a pretty twisted reason in light of recent events (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=316163). | ||
|
Tarias
Netherlands480 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:51 Voros wrote: When you establish a guns-free zone by dint of policy or law, you have created an environment in which a single armed individual now has unlimited life-or-death power over his peers. We saw this most clearly in the Va Tech massacre a few years ago, and it's an evident truth of gun control that none of the advocates of paternalism seem to understand or accept: disarming the many creates easy prey for the few. Not that the state possesses the ethical right or power to seize firearms in the first place, though Natural Rights don't seem to be a priority for many people on this forum. In a region where guns aren't available the fact that one person with a gun would be able to do damage doesn't matter. This is the reason why gun control works in Europe. Instead of people getting shot at schools, stuff like the Casey Heynes accident may occur, but that isn't nearly as bad I would say. Sure gun control will be bad when you don't execute it properly, but that fact of the matter is that it's working in alot of countries. | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On February 29 2012 06:51 Voros wrote: When you establish a guns-free zone by dint of policy or law, you have created an environment in which a single armed individual now has unlimited life-or-death power over his peers. We saw this most clearly in the Va Tech massacre a few years ago, and it's an evident truth of gun control that none of the advocates of paternalism seem to understand or accept: disarming the many creates easy prey for the few. Not that the state possesses the ethical right or power to seize firearms in the first place, though Natural Rights don't seem to be a priority for many people on this forum. Ya VA Tech would have gone so much better if everyone had a gun on them and started firing at the gunman through a crowd of scrambling students. I could see that going really smoothly. To say that a minor stealing a gun from his uncle and using it to shoot up a school has nothing to do with gun control is being extremely ignorant. If the gun wasnt there and easily accessible, he likely would not have done it. Its the same reason suicide rates are higher in homes that have guns than those without. The ease of accessibility saves that all important (often dangerous) step of having to get one yourself. | ||
|
xmaine
United States30 Posts
Automatic weapons are illegal in most places, yet people still own them. Just because theres a law prohibiting ownership does not mean that people will listen to these laws. All this does is prevent a law abiding citizen one less way to protect his family and property. A minor being able to steal the gun argument? Its the uncle's fault for not childproofing and securing his weapon in the first place. The minor has no idea of the consequences of his actions so its up to the parents and guardians to watch over their child, not the government. If people want to kill themselves, they'd find other means if a gun was not available. What's next? Putting a ban on sleeping pills because people can overdose on them? | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
As for suicides being higher in gun owning households, thats a fact. Not speculation. So clearly there is some correlation. Furthermore, over 90% of firearm suicide attempts are successful, while less than 3% of drug related ones are successful. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html "In 2005, the most recent year for which mortality data are available, suicide was the second-leading cause of death among Americans 40 years of age or younger. Among Americans of all ages, more than half of all suicides are gun suicides. In 2005, an average of 46 Americans per day committed suicide with a firearm, accounting for 53% of all completed suicides. Gun suicide during this period accounted for 40% more deaths than gun homicide." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923 "Ready availability of firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide in the home. Owners of firearms should weigh their reasons for keeping a gun in the home against the possibility that it might someday be used in a suicide." http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199208133270705 The list goes on... | ||
|
xmaine
United States30 Posts
If given the choice of slow and painful vs quick and painless, most people would choose quick and painless. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
| ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On February 29 2012 11:36 xmaine wrote: Your claim makes it seem like guns shouldn't even exist in the first place. But they do. If given the choice of slow and painful vs quick and painless, most people would choose quick and painless. I never made that claim. I believe law enforcement should have firearms, as should the military, and thats it. Regardless, the point is that a gun in a home can cause more problems than it can do good. It is a present force in pushing people toward suicide. Not only that, but the survival rate is so low, that any sort of "second chance" is really unlikely. Of the over 97% of people that choose suicide by way of drugs or medication but survive, you gotta figure a few of those have the chance to get the help they need after. In most cases of depression, people are not aware of the severity of it, or not even aware at all. A firearm can put an end to it before you have a chance to be helped. Its precisely the fact that its quick and painless that causes people to consider suicide more of an option. Doing something that will be painful, long or arduous will make you less likely to do it. Youre supporting my argument by saying it is quick and painless and thats why people do it. and On February 29 2012 11:45 liberal wrote: "You shouldn't be allowed to own a gun because you might decide to kill yourself" is an incredibly stupid argument. Seriously, it's very stupid. Its not necessarily you the gun owner who will kill yourself. Your wife, your kids, etc... can all use it. If my right to gun ownership makes it easier and more likely for my child or loved one to kill themself, I would reconsider owning one. Its not a stupid argument at all. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On February 29 2012 11:45 Focuspants wrote: Its not necessarily you the gun owner who will kill yourself. Your wife, your kids, etc... can all use it. If my right to gun ownership makes it easier and more likely for my child or loved one to kill themself, I would reconsider owning one. Its not a stupid argument at all. Not if you lock the gun up. Anymore straw men? And let's not assume that every gun owner will have those people in their home. And we aren't arguing whether or not YOU WANT to own one. It's whether or not people have the right at all. | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On February 29 2012 11:54 liberal wrote: Not if you lock the gun up. Anymore straw men? And let's not assume that every gun owner will have those people in their home. And we aren't arguing whether or not YOU WANT to own one. It's whether or not people have the right at all. When it is statistically more likely that someone will kill themself with your gun, than you will need to defend a home invader with deadly force and succeed, statistically speaking, isnt it a better bet to not allow guns in a home? Logically, it makes sense that if youre on average causing more harm then doing good with one of your actions, you should change that action, no? | ||
|
xmaine
United States30 Posts
People will have weapons regardless if it is legal or not. So then law abiding citizens will not be able to defend themselves while the criminals will have open season on these people. Law enforcement does not protect people. They only come in after something happens. They don't prevent these things from happening. And yes, you have a choice to not own a gun. But you shouldn't punish law abiders just because others misuse their weapons. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On February 29 2012 12:15 Focuspants wrote: When it is statistically more likely that someone will kill themself with your gun, than you will need to defend a home invader with deadly force and succeed, statistically speaking, isnt it a better bet to not allow guns in a home? Logically, it makes sense that if youre on average causing more harm then doing good with one of your actions, you should change that action, no? An issue such as protecting your family is not an issue that evaluate in terms of statistics. When I start a family, I WILL own a gun (in fact, I already inherited a gun, yet keep it at my parent's house) and keep it locked/hidden because I don't want to be helpless if I'm ever in the situation where I will need to use the gun. I will never commit suicide so the gun is in no danger of doing harm except by accident. | ||
|
relyt
United States1073 Posts
On February 29 2012 01:42 Krowser wrote: Carrying a gun was a sensible option 150 years ago when your farm could be attacked by bandits and no one was there to help you. Hence why it's in the American Constitution. Every man should be allowed to defend himself. Nowadays it's an enabler for senseless murder. The latest example being the Ohio shooting. And over here they are trying to get rid of the Gun registry.. why!? You don't live in rural areas do you? Where I grew up, we were in the middle of nowhere. The only defense against wolves, bears, humans, and anything really was self-defense. There are about 2 cops working at a time. In detroit I hear reports of police taking hours to show up to a call. People still don't help even these days. | ||
|
TheStonerer
Canada278 Posts
On February 29 2012 13:14 xmaine wrote: So because statistics show that you wont ever need a weapon to defend a home invader means that you shouldn't own a weapon? People will have weapons regardless if it is legal or not. So then law abiding citizens will not be able to defend themselves while the criminals will have open season on these people. Law enforcement does not protect people. They only come in after something happens. They don't prevent these things from happening. And yes, you have a choice to not own a gun. But you shouldn't punish law abiders just because others misuse their weapons. And having that gun locked away in your house helps you prevents an intruder to shoot you how? You'll just get shot in the back while you scramble to unlock your firearm. You won't even have a chance to get to it probably. Funnily, a lot of people from the USA are really emotional and kneejerk reaction replaces logical thought, most often than not. The accessibility than the US provides regarding guns is clearly a factor in the number of crimes committed. And like I said earlier, even if you were allowed to carry a gun in public anywhere, chances are you still wouldn't be able to use it. As someone also said, you have to consider the fact that if everyone could carry a gun in public, one lone crazy gunman would create much more chaos as everyone could get their gun out and start shooting like an idiot. How do you know who is the real shooter when there are 10 people with guns pointing them at each other. If weapons didn't exist the world would be a better place. Sadly that'll never happen  | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On February 29 2012 13:42 TheStonerer wrote: And having that gun locked away in your house helps you prevents an intruder to shoot you how? You'll just get shot in the back while you scramble to unlock your firearm. You won't even have a chance to get to it probably. Funnily, a lot of people from the USA are really emotional and kneejerk reaction replaces logical thought, most often than not. The accessibility than the US provides regarding guns is clearly a factor in the number of crimes committed. And like I said earlier, even if you were allowed to carry a gun in public anywhere, chances are you still wouldn't be able to use it. As someone also said, you have to consider the fact that if everyone could carry a gun in public, one lone crazy gunman would create much more chaos as everyone could get their gun out and start shooting like an idiot. How do you know who is the real shooter when there are 10 people with guns pointing them at each other. If weapons didn't exist the world would be a better place. Sadly that'll never happen You can carry a gun in public without any sort of license as long as it's completely visible. It's just that not many do it. Most people who carry have a concealed weapon permit and you will never see the weapon. | ||
|
TheStonerer
Canada278 Posts
On February 29 2012 13:33 relyt wrote: You don't live in rural areas do you? Where I grew up, we were in the middle of nowhere. The only defense against wolves, bears, humans, and anything really was self-defense. There are about 2 cops working at a time. In detroit I hear reports of police taking hours to show up to a call. People still don't help even these days. A good defense is making a lot of noise to scare the animal. Just so you know. Animals are not that bloodthirsty and guns are not the only defense against animals. In Detroit, the problem is the poverty, which lead to higher crime rates, just like poor areas make people "stupid" because they have no adequate education. It is not only the people, it is the environment in which they grow up that shapes them. In my opinion, the gun factor regarding Detroit does not apply to this discussion, since there are much more issues to consider regarding that city's situation. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
CranKy Ducklings
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
|
|
|
EPT
