EPTIf 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. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
| ||
|
Kerm
France467 Posts
So how can anyone go for the "taking away gun won't reduce violence" point ? This is just mind-boggling. Come on ! | ||
|
Kaethis
Netherlands112 Posts
Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv? And that in my opinion is why this whole discussion often goes nowhere. Firearms do not actually do something on their own, but they escalate any situation that they are in. As soon as someone even suspects there's a gun involved in a situation that situation immediatly becomes life-or-death on some level, so any responses have to be much more extreme. That or you are actually scared people are coming to kill you in the middle of the night. Guess that makes you a special case because how many enemies does a normal person have nowadays? | ||
|
always_winter
United States195 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:12 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Sure. But if you ban something to prevent people from getting killed/hurt, and people get killed/hurt anyway, can you still say it was worthwhile to ban it? How about a depressed man murdering hundreds of people in the space of seconds using a plane? ^You've just raised a field of strawmen. No one is arguing you can't kill someone with a knife. See Indiana Jones for gun versus knife comparison. Similarly no one is arguing you can't kill someone with a plane. I'd venture it'd be slightly more difficult to get your hands on a plane than a gun, particularly post-9/11. The argument here is accessibility versus quantifiable kill capacity. A knife is highly accessible, but it's unlikely you're going to kill more than one person, especially in public, before being subdued. Conversely a plane is highly inaccessible with an inversely high kill capacity. Guns have both. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8613 Posts
On October 06 2015 21:49 SpeaKEaSY wrote: You're missing the point entirely. All of these deaths were due to somebody being irrationally angry enough to want to cause harm to someone else. That is the problem, the method of harm is just ancillary. You're better off solving the root issue rather than being lazy by banning guns and ending up with people who still respond to petty disputes with violence, be it with illegally obtained guns (oh, did you think banning guns would make all guns disappear instantly?), knives or fists. More guns = more shootings, yes. But in the case of UK/Aus, taking the guns away didn't reduce violence, it just caused people to find other tools for violence (which is my point above). I mean, you had a guy behead someone in the street in broad daylight in the UK. And then you get to the point where you start banning knives, and when that doesn't work, they increase restrictions and you have to show ID to buy teaspoons at the store. are you honestly looking at UK and australia and saying our policies are no better because violence still exists? this is the most pathetic argument ive ever seen in regards to pro gun laws of course theres gonna be violence. it is part of being human. but in australia at the very least, we dont have a monthly school shooting and the daily gun fatality. it happens so often in america someone could literally publish the news on a magazine and people with a monthly subscription will have something new to read every volume. getting rid of guns gets rid of the EASIEST way for someone to kill another. please dont try and argue that knives are just as easy to kill people with, because it really isnt. and for every mentally retarded person who tries to murder masses through other means than guns in australia, theres probably tens to hundreds of them who choose not to murder someone because they just cant find a suitable weapon to kill someone easily with. besides, as someone noted above, its not just about the weapon, its about the intent. guns are supposed to be about self defense according to all the americans who advocate gun usage, but in the majority of cases it actually leads to death. you could use other weapons for self defense too, but they are far less likely to fatally injure someone than a bullet in the chest. perhaps an easier way to solve americans' outlook on guns is to change the laws surrounding self defense in america. in australia it is still manslaughter if you kill someone out of self defense, which really makes you think twice about using a weapon which could be potentially fatal. actually its considered assault too, if you are deemed by the court to have used unnecessary force to disarm your attacker (eg. you crush a burglar's skull with a baseball bat because he pulls out a knife) | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1870 Posts
According to your line of thought, having weapons laying around does not increase the chance of killings because people can always use inferior weapons with lower effectivity, so to speak. Well yeah, then why are you not selling landmines to your concerned citizens. They would be extremely effective against people that try to get into your house. Of course with the intent of murdering you in your sleep. Get 3 claymores for the price of 2 only this weekend at walmart! More easy and efficient weapons empower people! A person who is able to buy 4 kilogram of plastic explosvies can just collapse the whole school. A person with a G3 rifle can shoot several hundres rounds into the classrooms before the first cop arrives. A person with a hunting rifle can shoot a few dozen. A person with a knife can stab several people while the rest can just run away. A person with just his fists can be stopped by unarmed bystanders. Germany had one mass killing in a school as well. The guy got hunting weapons from his parents and used them. It's completely right that you can't stop sociopath from commiting horrible crimes, but you can make it harder for them. And you can stop a lot of non planned murders by not giving an easy murder weapon laying around the house, you can stop incidents and defensive uses of gun deaths that would not ended fatal without a weapon. You can drop the number of people the police shoots because they suspect every single person they meet has a concealed weapon. Or, by your pro-gun logic, just give anyone military weapons so they can protect themselves from the persons using normals guns. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10628 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:26 Kaethis wrote: .... Most criminals are not planning on killing someone when they commit whatever crime makes them one, but they are desperate for something. This is why the standard response to getting robbed here is to just give them what they want, because your money isn't worth getting beat up over. A gun in this scenario on either side doesn't actually do anything usefull because they're not after your life. Or are you planning on killing someone over your tv? ... Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote: Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... That gets into a weird place where the facts and specific details of the shooting matter a lot. Like if you pull the gun and the robber says "don't shoot" and then puts their hands up, shooting them isn't ok. If they run yelling, "oh god, please don't shoot" or "Forget it man, I'm out" shooting them in the back isn't ok. How the person responds to being told you have a gun matters a lot. If you shoot them without warning is questionable. Also not advisable because if there is someone that is armed in the house the entire situation is totally screwed. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:35 Velr wrote: Some time ago, in this very tread. after bringing up your argument I actually was told that killing someone for robbing your TV is completly legitimate and "not defending your home" is cowardly because the burglar could also be a serial, pyscho, rapist, killer (that for some reason rather breaks into a house than just kindap someone on the street)... Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
We did it again America. We were stupid with guns. | ||
|
duckk
United States622 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote: Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:54 OuchyDathurts wrote: Absolutely, TONS of people, including people on TL, have argued its worth it to kill someone if they steal your TV or mug you. Insurance will replace it, your bank will cancel your cards. But people think shooting the person dead is somehow justified. The last thing the guy stealing your wallet or blender wants is to get slapped with a murder charge. There's a reason they didn't just shoot you and take your wallet, they have zero intention of killing you, let alone hurting you. But shoot to kill! Generally speaking its the same people that justify police killing people needlessly. "If he didn't run he wouldn't get shot in the back", "Yeah he was unarmed and the cops shot him....but if he didn't steal that thing...", "If he didn't resist the cops wouldn't have choked him to death". In their minds any infraction, no matter how completely trivial, warrants murder. They will bend over backwards to absolve people of ending lives. Unarmed, vaguely resisted under only the weakest definition of the word, got upset at some bullshit, doesn't matter. Fuck the justice system, why bother when you can be judge jury and executioner with some 9mm justice? The standard for justifies lethal force is “reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death” and an inability to flee(with exceptions of states that removed that last part). Also the same standards apply with a knife, bat or golf club. The reasonable fear is harder to prove than you think and the majority of people do not want to gun someone down over a TV. Don’t buy into the internet bluster, it’s a lot harder to pull that trigger than they claim. On October 06 2015 23:01 ticklishmusic wrote: 11-year-old charged with murdering 8-year-old after argument about puppies We did it again America. We were stupid with guns. I bet we are going to find awesome things out about those parents. They should be charged as well. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On October 06 2015 22:29 always_winter wrote: ^You've just raised a field of strawmen. No one is arguing you can't kill someone with a knife. See Indiana Jones for gun versus knife comparison. Similarly no one is arguing you can't kill someone with a plane. I'd venture it'd be slightly more difficult to get your hands on a plane than a gun, particularly post-9/11. The argument here is accessibility versus quantifiable kill capacity. A knife is highly accessible, but it's unlikely you're going to kill more than one person, especially in public, before being subdued. Conversely a plane is highly inaccessible with an inversely high kill capacity. Guns have both. I don't think you know what the word strawman means. Cars into crowds. Ryder trucks with fertilizer. Keep making this argument. Keep ignoring the root cause of the issue which is disturbed/irrational people. | ||
|
Furikawari
France2522 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote: You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote: Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? So if someone broke into your house, you'd be more worried about making sure he got out alive in case he just wanted to make a cup of coffee, instead of making sure he doesn't hurt your wife and kids? Going back to my point on raising people with proper values... | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:02 duckk wrote: You can't know the intentions of somebody who breaks into someone's house. Maybe 95% of the time they just want to rob the place, but what about the other 5%? The person has already shown a lack of care for the law, are people supposed to risk waiting and getting shot themselves? You're not James Bond, you don't have a bunch of enemies out to get you. People break in to steal shit and leave, ideally in the middle of the day when people are most likely not home. It's not a horror movie where some masked demon possessed crazy person is just looking to kill virgins. The guy stealing your laptop has no intention of going to prison for murder, he wants to get in and get the fuck out. I'm pretty sure you show a lack of care for the law quite frequently. That doesn't mean you're willing to kill a person. I'm willing to break X law, therefore I'm willing to KILL. That's a pretty big fucking jump lol. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:09 heliusx wrote: And here we are, someone considering having a conversation with a home invader. Good idea. Meanwhile back in the real world... I'm going to shoot first ask questions later and could give a fuck what you sheltered people think. Won't someone think of the home invaders!?!?! If you open fire without warning on someone invading your home, you are an idiot. You are not going to know how many people are there and if they are armed. Once they know you are going to kill them, they are going to kill you back. And they could just start shooting, killing anyone that might be in the house with stray fire. And this isn’t coming from just me. My brother served two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, saw combat in both. And even he would try to get to person to surrender before going full action movie in his own house. Also, most break ins happen during the day because breaking in at night carries more jail time(for just this reason). People breaking in at night to steal things are just idiots who have no idea what they are doing. | ||
|
duckk
United States622 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:08 Furikawari wrote: Yeah, so shoot and kill in 100% of the case, like this u r right 5% of the time. You're just stupid here, you know? Every single person who lives in my neighborhood has a major beneficial impact on society, and life is worth far more than any thug who wants to break in and do whatever. In my opinion they assume the risk of lethal confrontation when they forcefully break into my house. The fact you defend such lowlifes is pathetic, maybe if you spent some time in baltimore or detroit USA you would understand. If you are willing to risk the lives of everyone in your house on the guy just wanting to rob you, then I would say you are the idiot. The person does not deserve to live plain and simple. | ||
|
Dizmaul
United States831 Posts
On October 06 2015 23:14 OuchyDathurts wrote: You're not James Bond, you don't have a bunch of enemies out to get you. People break in to steal shit and leave, ideally in the middle of the day when people are most likely not home. It's not a horror movie where some masked demon possessed crazy person is just looking to kill virgins. The guy stealing your laptop has no intention of going to prison for murder, he wants to get in and get the fuck out. I'm pretty sure you show a lack of care for the law quite frequently. That doesn't mean you're willing to kill a person. I'm willing to break X law, therefore I'm willing to KILL. That's a pretty big fucking jump lol. Maybe they might fear death though? Which might make them think twice about invading someones home who might have the ability and "right" to take it from them. Where I live people have signs at the end of there driveway that say "Turn around at your own risk" lol. | ||
| ||
