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. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
La1
United Kingdom659 Posts
just wondering.. if 0 percent of gun crimes are permitted then people with gun licences then can you really blame people who own guns? id be interested in seeing the stats  as for the debate.. i am nither for nor against, its your country run it your way <3 | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
To protect yourself from criminals? The amount of people who shoot school shooters or people running amok in the head is surprisingly low. Because criminals get them anyway? I'd say it will be harder if they're not everywhere. Besides that I doubt an arms race is really what people want to see. | ||
|
Gatored
United States679 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:36 CaptainCrush wrote: Did you read any of that aurora thread? The guy was bat-shit insane. He made bombs as well, this has NOTHING to do with guns laws. If he didnt have a gun, he would have gotten a knife, machete, axe, whatever. Might have even thrown those homemade bombs around in that theater. You can't stop crazy people and I still cringe every time I hear an uneducated (and usually foreign) person speak out about guns laws that they know nothing of. The problem is our society, not the gun laws. Just as another counter argument, this elderly man stopped an armed robbery a couple days ago. http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/crime/2012/07/17/dnt-internet-cafe-robbery-foiled.wkmg I fully support the right to own and carry a firearm. Even if you make it more difficult or even fully illegal to have a gun, the bad guys will still gets their hands on them pretty easily. I want to be able to legally defend myself like this guy in the bank robbery if I happen to be in the wrong place and the right time one day. Nice to see someone that makes sense in a post about guns. A question for all of you people who are against the right to own guns.. do you really think that if guns were banned that these psychotic, crazy people who go on mass killing sprees wouldn't find a way to get a gun regardless of whether they were banned or not? Where there's a will, there's a way. | ||
|
Infernal_dream
United States2359 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:52 r.Evo wrote: If someone can prove to me that guns have a peaceful purpose I'm all for letting everyone have it. Wait. Their purpose is to kill other people quite unlike a kitchen knife or an axe. Thinking about it that way makes me wonder why there's actually a discussion about it. To protect yourself from criminals? The amount of people who shoot school shooters or people running amok in the head is surprisingly low. Because criminals get them anyway? I'd say it will be harder if they're not everywhere. Besides that I doubt an arms race is really what people want to see. Because people go out and shoot to blow off steam. People hunt with them. Both of which are peaceful. Please get your head out of your ass. If i want to kill someone I could do it with a gun, a knife or even a fuckin pencil. And no it wouldn't be harder for them to get if they "weren't everywhere." As stated earlier these people do not own legally registered guns, meaning even if there were laws against gun ownership, they'd still have them. | ||
|
Gescom
Canada3513 Posts
| ||
|
Blurry
Switzerland125 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: I own a gun and I've never gone on a mass shooting spree incidentally. Never felt inclined to either. Must be something besides the gun which is causing people to act psychotic. That is not the point. The issue is, to me, crimes of passion. People don't act rationally when they are angry or scared, and if they own a gun, this becomes a far more dangerous situation. There will always be people going on psychotic rampages, gun control or no. The issue to me is the people that lose their composure and go kill somebody because they are angry. This, by the way, is the most common murder, which is why I think handguns should be outlawed. You can protect your home just as easily with a shotgun, but you can't hide it in your hoodie. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14081 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:55 Infernal_dream wrote: Because people go out and shoot to blow off steam. People hunt with them. Both of which are peaceful. Please get your head out of your ass. If i want to kill someone I could do it with a gun, a knife or even a fuckin pencil. And no it wouldn't be harder for them to get if they "weren't everywhere." As stated earlier these people do not own legally registered guns, meaning even if there were laws against gun ownership, they'd still have them. Killing animals and destroying things to blow off steam doesn't strike me as peaceful. Since apparently my head looks rather funny in my ass I'll assume you're right and your gun laws are completely fine: What's your take on why the US seems to have a much bigger problem with people shooting each other compared to e.g. European countries or Canada? | ||
|
TriZen
England219 Posts
Take, for example, the United Kingdom. No, we are not perfect, and shootings do happen (See: Raoul Moat), but the argument is that if there was the same "access" to guns here; would it happen more often? The majority of the times that it occurs here, it is farmers, people who are legally allowed to carry guns once they pass their licenses (See the UK Licenses for firearms) which have to be renewed. With or without being allowed to have guns, its going to happen.. people can get their hands on anything they want to illegally with the given effort - but that effort isn't easy, by making it harder for the firearms to get in the hands of the potential "shooter", shootings become less and less.. Sure, not everyone owning a gun in America will do that, in fact maybe 99% won't.. But the question is, is it worth it for the 1% risk of a shooting? Personally, in my opinion, I don't believe that it is.. There is no need to own a gun unless you need it for farm work or your occupation. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:55 Infernal_dream wrote: Because people go out and shoot to blow off steam. People hunt with them. Both of which are peaceful. Please get your head out of your ass. If i want to kill someone I could do it with a gun, a knife or even a fuckin pencil. And no it wouldn't be harder for them to get if they "weren't everywhere." As stated earlier these people do not own legally registered guns, meaning even if there were laws against gun ownership, they'd still have them. Many/most people who go on killing sprees actually do have legally registered guns. In countries with legal guns, it is much easier to get an illegal gun aswell, since there are many legal guns to steal. I could probably kill someone with a pencil, probably 2 with a knife, it would be damn hard to kill more than 10 without a gun though. I think the position that widespread gunownership does not increase murder rates and accidental deaths is untennable. The right to reasonable means of self-defense is a much better argument for legal firearms. | ||
|
Arkless
Canada1547 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:02 TriZen wrote: I think the problem with "owning" guns is the potential, the opportunity is there.. it can be done if the person suddenly feels like it, that shouldn't be there. Take, for example, the United Kingdom. No, we are not perfect, and shootings do happen (See: Raoul Moat), but the argument is that if there was the same "access" to guns here; would it happen more often? The majority of the times that it occurs here, it is farmers, people who are legally allowed to carry guns once they pass their licenses (See the UK Licenses for firearms) which have to be renewed. With or without being allowed to have guns, its going to happen.. people can get their hands on anything they want to illegally with the given effort - but that effort isn't easy, by making it harder for the firearms to get in the hands of the potential "shooter", shootings become less and less.. Sure, not everyone owning a gun in America will do that, in fact maybe 99% won't.. But the question is, is it worth it for the 1% risk of a shooting? Personally, in my opinion, I don't believe that it is.. There is no need to own a gun unless you need it for farm work or your occupation. Guns don't kill people, people kill people I know it's cliche, but it's true. The wrong person behind the wheel of car is just as dangerous then the wrong person with a gun. With that said, yes people should be able to own guns to hunt, or protect themselves with. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:05 Arkless wrote: Guns don't kill people, people kill people I know it's cliche, but it's true. The wrong person behind the wheel of car is just as dangerous then the wrong person with a gun. With that said, yes people should be able to own guns to hunt, or protect themselves with. Actually i would say someone with a gun is much more dangerous than someone with a car. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:07 Crushinator wrote: Actually i would say someone with a gun is much more dangerous than someone with a car. ^ Guns just allow depraved individuals a greater potential of mayhem, it lowers the bar to what is possible to them. But it will never stop them. Someone who took the time to learn and make explosives probably would be capable with or without guns. On July 21 2012 03:02 TriZen wrote: I think the problem with "owning" guns is the potential, the opportunity is there.. it can be done if the person suddenly feels like it, that shouldn't be there. Take, for example, the United Kingdom. No, we are not perfect, and shootings do happen (See: Raoul Moat), but the argument is that if there was the same "access" to guns here; would it happen more often? The majority of the times that it occurs here, it is farmers, people who are legally allowed to carry guns once they pass their licenses (See the UK Licenses for firearms) which have to be renewed. With or without being allowed to have guns, its going to happen.. people can get their hands on anything they want to illegally with the given effort - but that effort isn't easy, by making it harder for the firearms to get in the hands of the potential "shooter", shootings become less and less.. Sure, not everyone owning a gun in America will do that, in fact maybe 99% won't.. But the question is, is it worth it for the 1% risk of a shooting? Personally, in my opinion, I don't believe that it is.. There is no need to own a gun unless you need it for farm work or your occupation. I'd say for sport is a valid reason hunting and things like skeet shotting so people can keep hunting rifles and shotguns. I'd even be lenient to allowing handguns and assault rifles to be legal, but only allowed to be kept on the premises of a gun club/range. Again personal opinion about guns. | ||
|
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:57 Blurry wrote: That is not the point. The issue is, to me, crimes of passion. People don't act rationally when they are angry or scared, and if they own a gun, this becomes a far more dangerous situation. There will always be people going on psychotic rampages, gun control or no. The issue to me is the people that lose their composure and go kill somebody because they are angry. This, by the way, is the most common murder, which is why I think handguns should be outlawed. You can protect your home just as easily with a shotgun, but you can't hide it in your hoodie. And the said person would most likely calm down by the time he gets hold of a gun illegally (if it wasn't possible to buy a gun legally, that is). I sure as hell didn't see any of the people in the theatre (Canada, Aurora) pull out a gun to "defend" themselves against the shooter. The cases where people get saved by the legality of gun purchases seem very rare. Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. This is very true, but at the same time, people with guns are way more capable of taking someones life than people who don't have guns. Especially higher amounts of people, I don't think a person who only had a car and no weapons would be able to massacre a whole movie theatre, while a person with guns could, and in this case, did. EDIT: I mean, how do you explain the fact that your amount of school shootings outnumber the rest of the countries in the world put together? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting | ||
|
TriZen
England219 Posts
On July 21 2012 03:08 semantics wrote: ^ Guns just allow depraved individuals a greater potential of mayhem, it lowers the bar to what is possible to them. But it will never stop them. Someone who took the time to learn and make explosives probably would be capable with or without guns. I'd say for sport is a valid reason hunting and things like skeet shotting so people can keep hunting rifles and shotguns. I'd even be lenient to allowing handguns and assault rifles to be legal, but only allowed to be kept on the premises of a gun club/range. Again personal opinion about guns. I get where you are coming from, sure for sporting, legal hunting etc guns should be allowed! But I think TOUGHER regulations are needed, in the UK they are pretty damn tough already. My friends who work with firearms (police, transport police, marines) are not allowed to take any firearm outside of the barrack/station.. Even taser or pepper spray.. they can only ever have them when on shift. I think that the comparison between guns and cars has a valid point; but still, vehicles are now integrated into society; remove them and everything will collapse, they are needed.. guns however, are not so much.. They aren't that vital, and it's whether the risk is worth it. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: I own a gun and I've never gone on a mass shooting spree incidentally. Never felt inclined to either. Must be something besides the gun which is causing people to act psychotic. That is very true, it's a very small minority of gun-owners who actually go on a shooting spree. Still, lunatics or even very depressed people can be found everywhere in the world. But nowhere can they get a gun so easily. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:54 Gatored wrote: A question for all of you people who are against the right to own guns.. do you really think that if guns were banned that these psychotic, crazy people who go on mass killing sprees wouldn't find a way to get a gun regardless of whether they were banned or not? Where there's a will, there's a way. It seems so yes, if you look at the school shootings list as an example. We have these psychotic, crazy people too and yes occasionally it can go wrong, like in Norway. But it happens more in the USA than in all other countries together. And I don't see any other reason for that than the ease of getting a weapon. | ||
|
socommaster123
United States578 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:52 r.Evo wrote: If someone can prove to me that guns have a peaceful purpose I'm all for letting everyone have it. Wait. Their purpose is to kill other people quite unlike a kitchen knife or an axe. Thinking about it that way makes me wonder why there's actually a discussion about it. To protect yourself from criminals? The amount of people who shoot school shooters or people running amok in the head is surprisingly low. Because criminals get them anyway? I'd say it will be harder if they're not everywhere. Besides that I doubt an arms race is really what people want to see. Actually knifes were first created to kill/skin animals just like spears and axes. There is a specific reason why all of these things are called WEAPONS because they kill faster than your hands. | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
On July 21 2012 02:52 r.Evo wrote: If someone can prove to me that guns have a peaceful purpose I'm all for letting everyone have it. Wait. Their purpose is to kill other people quite unlike a kitchen knife or an axe. Thinking about it that way makes me wonder why there's actually a discussion about it. To protect yourself from criminals? The amount of people who shoot school shooters or people running amok in the head is surprisingly low. Because criminals get them anyway? I'd say it will be harder if they're not everywhere. Besides that I doubt an arms race is really what people want to see. The purpose of a gun for me is to shoot paper targets at various distances. Pretty peaceful if you ask me. | ||
|
SoLaR[i.C]
United States2969 Posts
Tomorrow, I will go out and buy 3 semi-auto handguns, a pump action shotgun, 2 rifles of various capabilities, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Perhaps more because I would sell the others for a huge profit on a black market. If a law gets passed that I don't philosophically agree with, I will break it. Period. And this is coming from a guy who currently has no firearms. Criminals would continue getting their guns as they always have; smuggled in from other countries or through the countless illegal avenues available to them. | ||
| ||
