|
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 July 21 2012 03:55 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Hypothetically, let us say that the government sends out a decree stating that as of August 1st, 2012 it is illegal for an individual to purchase guns.
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.
Considering you're still out there to post I doubt you have done so in the past. =P
|
Responsible gun owners (of which I am one) will always greatly outnumber the crazies who buy guns legally then do terrible things. Infringing on the rights of many because some crazies slip through the cracks is a awful idea. Things like this will always happen and would happen weather or not gun control was tightened. Look at Chicago. 100% no guns allowed but the criminals still seems to have no problem getting there hands on them.
|
The crazy people who are hell bent on hurting other people will do it no matter what, make owning guns illegal and chances are they will still get their hands on them. In the slim chance they can't, they will find out how to make a bomb. They will use a knife, they will use their bare hands. Making guns harder to get for an average american would not stop psychotic killers from killing anyone.
This world would be a safer place if every responsible person carried in order to defend themselves and their families. It's our constitutional right (as Americans).
|
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.
Sport, i.e. target shooting.
|
This man would never have gotten his hands on a gun in the UK.
|
I don't understand though why individuals can just buy automatic weapons. They are obviously meant for warfare, not for self-protection.
|
It's about access. I don't think any reasonable person would say that giving someone a gun turns them into a killing machine automatically. It is a question of how easily someone who has killing in mind has access to the tools (guns) to do it. Especially on the multiple-victim scale we see in the news.
A certain percentage of the population is going to get homicidal for one reason or another, that is just how humans work. The question is how many of these homicidal people are going to go through the trouble of acquiring guns to commit assault/murder, if they are illegal? Some, for sure, but the evidence from countries with tighter gun control laws than the US seems to suggest it will be lower. Making guns more difficult to access seems to deter a certain amount of homicidal individuals (whether they are homicidal on a long term scale or short term) from actually killing people. If they are mentally unstable/insane, they might not even be able to obtain a gun if it were not legally accessible.
The idea that a potentially armed populace will be a deterrent for people to start shooting just isn't working. While it might sound ok in theory, that just isn't how it is playing out in practice. In almost all of these small and large scale shootings we've seen in the past decade or so, they have been stopped by traditional law enforcement, not armed citizens putting the attacker down. Arming the populace doesn't work.
In my opinion, most guns are too lethal for the average person to have access to. Even fairly "tame" weapons such as rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic pistols can quite easily kill and injury large numbers of people, with relatively little planning or effort. They are simply too deadly to give the average citizen access to.
|
The problem is that some people feel that everyones rights should be ignored because they (absurdly) believe that by doing so it makes the world a safer place.
|
On July 21 2012 04:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
This man would never have gotten his hands on a gun in the UK.
What makes you say that?
Is there no black market in the UK or something? I'm just curious how you can know this for sure.
Pretty sure that if a guy wants to get his hands on a gun, he'll find a way to do it. Regardless of the place.
I'm not extremely for or against gun control laws, but I believe it's a bit naive to think that any one place is invincible to disasters, tragedies, or maniacs.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 21 2012 04:29 Leth0 wrote:
The crazy people who are hell bent on hurting other people will do it no matter what, make owning guns illegal and chances are they will still get their hands on them. In the slim chance they can't, they will find out how to make a bomb. They will use a knife, they will use their bare hands. Making guns harder to get for an average american would not stop psychotic killers from killing anyone.
This world would be a safer place if every responsible person carried in order to defend themselves and their families. It's our constitutional right (as Americans).
That's a silly notion, people don't act properly when under fire even when trained. So say you can shoot a gun properly in an escalated situation, who's to say that you don't shoot though a guy and hit a child behind him? Who's to say with everyone there that 3 other people don't try the same thing and at-least one of you kill a person though collateral damage? As far as the constitution, the constitution is suppose to be a living document that reflects the nation, originally drafted with the idea of it being re done every couple generations to properly reflect the nations beliefs, not be a sacrosanct document, furthermore the right to own a gun is not guaranteed in the constitution in a historical content, rather it would be the right for states to have militias, and to some extent the right to a violent overthrow of the government if need be, which frankly was proven right with the civil war, armed south thus allowed to revolt. It has never been interpreted about protecting you and your family from criminals.
On July 21 2012 04:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
This man would never have gotten his hands on a gun in the UK. What makes you say that? Is there no black market in the UK or something? I'm just curious how you can know this for sure. Pretty sure that if a guy wants to get his hands on a gun, he'll find a way to do it. Regardless of the place. I'm not extremely for or against gun control laws, but I believe it's a bit naive to think that any one place is invincible to disasters, tragedies, or maniacs.
Guncontrol laws would make it harder to get guns, but never impossible. But it can be said it's easier and cheaper to get guns in the US legal or illegal. Just becuase we have an affluent gun market both legal and illegal.
|
Gun control is too lax ... I would pass a law that would sentence everyone to death who carries a gun and is not police or something like that ... I would even do this to people carrying these stupid air guns.
People who need protection or what not should get a taser, that can be deadly too, but I think its not so deadly as a gun and you cant taser a lot of people with it.
And to my standards 80% of the human population is utterly stupid 15% are more or less okay and maybe 5% are really decent, so why would I want these dumb filthy humans equipped and armed with weapons where I have to fear that those humans could snap at a whimp and start some sort of killing spree.
The only safe procedure is to controll the human population disarm it and crush carrying of firearms with harsh resistance by putting these indivuals down.
|
On July 21 2012 04:46 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:29 Leth0 wrote:
The crazy people who are hell bent on hurting other people will do it no matter what, make owning guns illegal and chances are they will still get their hands on them. In the slim chance they can't, they will find out how to make a bomb. They will use a knife, they will use their bare hands. Making guns harder to get for an average american would not stop psychotic killers from killing anyone.
This world would be a safer place if every responsible person carried in order to defend themselves and their families. It's our constitutional right (as Americans). That's a silly notion, people don't act properly when under fire even when trained. So say you can shoot a gun properly in an escalated situation, who's to say that you don't shoot though a guy and hit a child behind him? Who's to say with everyone there that 3 other people don't try the same thing and at-least one of you kill a person though collateral damage? As far as the constitution, the constitution is suppose to be a living document that reflects the nation, originally drafted with the idea of it being re done every couple generations to properly reflect the nations beliefs, not be a sacrosanct document, furthermore the right to own a gun is not guaranteed in the constitution in a historical content, rather it would be the right for states to have militias, and to some extent the right to a violent overthrow of the government if need be. It has never been interpreted about protecting you and your family from criminals.
So your first objection to my right as an American citizen to own a firearm is to play the 'what if' game? Real mature.
What if i saved the lives of thousands of innocent people by shooting a terrorist who was planning on blowing up a skyscraper?
|
When the number of deaths from a psycho with a gun approaches the number of people murdered during the 20th century that couldn't prevent their deaths because of a lack of a gun, this should actually be taken seriously. We're talking tens of millions. It's going to take a long time to reach that number.
|
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
On July 21 2012 04:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
This man would never have gotten his hands on a gun in the UK.
Don't be stupid. Handguns were banned in 1997, yet shootings are carried out with them all the time.
|
On July 21 2012 03:03 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 02:55 Infernal_dream wrote: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. 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.
In America, there's no such thing as gun registration. There is no central BAFTE database of firearms serial numbers and gun owners. It's been ruled that this is unconstitutional IIRC. Weapons which require a tax stamp are, however, registered and tracked.
I don't get what you're trying to say about "illegal" gun. . . you mean stolen gun? Almost nothing is illegal in America with the right paperwork, including cannons, artillery, mortars, grenade launchers, RPGs, miniguns, etc.
There are also people like me who have what's called a Curios and Relics FFL license which allows us to purchase firearms older than 50 years old in accordance with the GCA/NFA and have them shipped straight to our door. This is for the purpose of collection.
I don't know if you've ever fired a gun, but it is insanely fun. Blowing off steam is a viable argument. Target shooting is very fun also. And did you know that it is also an Olympic sport?
I've also read a lot of posts where people reference mass shootings and such. Most people keep or carry guns to protect their families and themselves. Many incidents happen at someone's residence where the victim may have been killed if it weren't for their gun.
I think all states should be "shall issue" and adopt the Castle Doctrine. And class 3 weapons not require a tax stamp. The bad guys get full autos, why can't we?
|
It's absurd because...well first you are linking to a wiki page that just has stats about people dieing in firearm related deaths and nothing else. The phrase "correlation does not equal causation" comes to mind.
How many of those were in self defense? How many of those were from homocidal maniacs? How many were law enforcement related? Ect.
|
On July 21 2012 04:49 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 04:46 semantics wrote:On July 21 2012 04:29 Leth0 wrote:
The crazy people who are hell bent on hurting other people will do it no matter what, make owning guns illegal and chances are they will still get their hands on them. In the slim chance they can't, they will find out how to make a bomb. They will use a knife, they will use their bare hands. Making guns harder to get for an average american would not stop psychotic killers from killing anyone.
This world would be a safer place if every responsible person carried in order to defend themselves and their families. It's our constitutional right (as Americans). That's a silly notion, people don't act properly when under fire even when trained. So say you can shoot a gun properly in an escalated situation, who's to say that you don't shoot though a guy and hit a child behind him? Who's to say with everyone there that 3 other people don't try the same thing and at-least one of you kill a person though collateral damage? As far as the constitution, the constitution is suppose to be a living document that reflects the nation, originally drafted with the idea of it being re done every couple generations to properly reflect the nations beliefs, not be a sacrosanct document, furthermore the right to own a gun is not guaranteed in the constitution in a historical content, rather it would be the right for states to have militias, and to some extent the right to a violent overthrow of the government if need be. It has never been interpreted about protecting you and your family from criminals. So your first objection to my right as an American citizen to own a firearm is to play the 'what if' game? Real mature. What if i saved the lives of thousands of innocent people by shooting a terrorist who was planning on blowing up a skyscraper?
Lol, you do know 'real mature' is a silly statement because by saying that it comes with the connotations that the speaker is himself immature and unable to respond properly so he falls back to a set phrase to hide his own ineptitude. If you're unable to converse about things properly there is no reason to converse at all.
You answer a quite possible, probability with a silly hyperbole. It does nothing to prove you point all it does is degrade and discussion.
All questions examining the real consequences to actions are 'what if's'. If you can't understand that point you are beyond lost. Even with hard examples the question is extrapolated to future possible events. Informed decisions are not made with simple, look x here happened thus all times x here must happen. Or maybe game theory is just a crock.
|
Next time someone gets strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to own and carry hands" thread.
Sorry, I guess being an American is so much a part of me the notion is just silly. I'm not saying I couldn't be convinced otherwise, but it's going to take some hard as steel logic, not a bunch of thinly veiled feelings.
If someone in that theater would have been carrying, the whole situation may have turned out differently, possibly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
