|
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 05:37 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff.
Indeed, if people are breaking into your house they are trying to steal your shit, not kill you. Don't kill people to save your television.
|
The only good reason to have a gun in the USA is to defend yourself versus people that carry guns, but if the guns were restricted you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself from others. It seems to me that the mentality of americans is just wrong, they fear everyone and everything.
|
On July 21 2012 05:26 Tarias wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:22 danl9rm wrote:On July 21 2012 05:14 Tarias wrote:On July 21 2012 05:07 danl9rm wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have 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. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I mean, I can see where you're going, and it makes sense. Thing is, though, a gun is only a tool. Like karate, that knowledge is just a tool. You don't go into situations wanting to test your techniques on everyone, but it sure is nice to have them there. I personally don't own anything more powerful than a BB gun at the moment, but if I were to use one, it wouldn't be to kill someone, not that hastily anyway.. no way. The best use of a fire arm is to show the perpetrator you have it, at which point he decides enough is enough. Personally, I don't want the fight to be "fair" when there are 3 guys trying to break into my house and I am responsible for protecting my family. I fire a shot into the air and I bet they take off. If not, they all get one in the legs. Unless all 3 of them also happen to have guns, which are so easily acquired, and decide it would be more profitable to just shoot you and your entire family before they rob your home, just because you pissed them of by firing into the air. The point is that the world would be a safer place if noone, including criminals, had guns. And in alot of countries this is actually the case. It would never work in the US because there are already way to many guns going around. This is one of the reasons gun control debates are so pointless, gun control is only effective if it has been in place for a very long time. What's the difference between all 3 of them shooting me and my family because they didn't like me firing in the air, or all 3 of them shooting me and my family because they didn't like me going down (3 to 1) swinging like a gorilla? I don't think you can answer that. Your argument appears to be, "the world would be safer if guns didn't exist." Well, we can't turn back the clock, man. Guns exist, nuclear bombs exist. Going forward, please. I completely agree with you here though. Which is why I said the debate is pointless. Gun control will never work in the US, and will continue to work wonders in countries like the Netherlands.
Ok, I don't know we disagree then. Having no long-term experience in another country with no-gun policies, I don't know that I'm qualified to speak from the other perspective. So, maybe it can work. Maybe it didn't start out that way, but maybe now it is a regional solution.
|
I don't have an opinion on the issue generally, but I do find the sight of someone open-carrying a gun to be pretty offensive. To have that constant reminder of a deadly weapon in view is a very undesirable thing for a society to adopt.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
Also, pretty sure the theatre in the shooting was a "gun-free zone", every madman and criminal's dream. A place where you know the law-abiding will be defenceless.
|
On July 21 2012 05:32 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:19 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 05:17 Focuspants wrote:On July 21 2012 05:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 05:03 HardlyNever wrote:On July 21 2012 05:00 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 04:59 ZeGzoR wrote:On July 21 2012 04:55 danl9rm wrote:
Next time someone get strangled I'll just bump the "Should people be allowed to have 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. The difference is that with hands you can do all sort of stuff, An AK-47 is only for killing.. I can list another use: Shooting targets at a designated shooting range. You can do this with non-lethal weapons (or much less lethal). Correct. You can shoot at targets with other devices, even designated non-lethal devices, but not at all in the same way that you can with lethal firearms. I don't really see that as a strong argument. Cars are potentially lethal if misused. You can move from point A to B without a car -- but not in the same fashion, obviously. Congratulations, you just posted the most common (and also the WORST) argument in "defense" of your statement. You can kill someone with ANYTHING. You cant ban everything. The other sides point is that an assualt rifle is designed to KILL. It is its number 1 purpose. A cars, a knifes, a spoons, a cabbage patch dolls, etc... main purpose is not to kill someone/something with. If youre going to argue, at least use arguments that make sense. Cite your sources that semi-automatic, non-military, civilian AK-47 and other rifle models' primary use is to kill other people. I think you made that up, but correct me if I am wrong. As far as I know, they are intended to be used for hunting and target shooting, given the nature of the stores in which they are sold -- sporting goods stores. My reference to a car is a sound reference with regard to the post to which I was responding. No need to get emotional and congratulate me in a condescending fashion when you aren't even getting the brunt of what I said. Military weapons are intended to kill people. Civilian weapons are not, unless they are expressly advertised as "self defense" weapons. "Self defense" weapons typically include handguns, not long rifles. Are you serious? Who do you think designs these weapons, and where do you think they first see use? If you said the military and in war, you are correct! Weapons are made for killing, or else they wouldnt be called weapons. They are made to destroy things. That is all. You are clearly not capable of realizing this.
This is faulty reasoning. Moreover, you're uninformed. You're correct when you say "weapons are made to destroy things". You're positing a bald statement when you add specificity: "[civilian] weapons(re: long rifles in general, not hand guns) are made for killing [people]". You made that up based on how you see things. It's simply not an established fact that civilian rifle models -- even those modeled after and trimmed down from their original military counterparts -- are primarily sold as tools with which to kill other people. They are sold for sport target shooting & hunting. Perhaps you can reasonably argue that most if not all hand guns are sold as self defense weapons, implying that they are primarily sold as tools with which to kill other people.
The simple point I'm making is that it's impossible for you to prove that civilian rifles are intended to kill other human beings. They may be used in that fashion, but that is not their expressed primary purpose upon sale.
Finally, to cap it off, you venture out and judge what my "capability" is in order to justify your own reasoning. This is called ad hominem. There is no point continuing the discussion with you after that tactic.
|
On July 21 2012 05:39 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff. Are you insinuating that you've heard it all? Are you willing to risk your familys life on that? What it comes down to is the right for people to protect themselves and their family.
If people weren't allowed to own guns, intruders wouldn't have guns and robberies and murders would be less likely to happen. Also criminals generally don't march into houses with knives because knives aren't all that effective. Seriously, guns are much more effective for robbing places. If you are a fairly strong man, and a guy comes int your house with a knife, all it takes is for you to pick up a chair and smash it over his face.
|
On July 21 2012 05:39 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff. Are you insinuating that you've heard it all? Are you willing to risk your familys life on that? What it comes down to is the right for people to protect themselves and their family.
This is what the whole thread comes down to. US citizens not wanting to give up their rights to carry guns not whether they should.
|
On July 21 2012 05:23 prochobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:19 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 05:17 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 04:52 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 03:03 Crushinator wrote: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? What I was trying to say is that if guns are illegal, criminals will have a harder time obtaining a gun illegally. This has been argued to death already and the evidence is heavily against you. See Chicago or New York, or the other countries where guns are illegal. I am interested in looking at this evidence, because it would be in conflict with my common sense. See the OP. This is why people carry, because you never know what's going to happen. I had to LOL about the guy getting shot in the ass. It also looked like the old man shot at the perp after he exited the premises and almost literally in the back. Good to know Florida justifies that (not being sarcastic).
Holy shit, he should be in jail or something, some serious punishment
He risked the lives of everyone in that room, and the lives of people outside, not only his own life.
What if the guy he was shooting at turned around and started shooting back instead?
Everyone in that place was just incredibly lucky that the guy reacted by running away, instead of trying to defend himself by either turning around and shooting, or shooting at anything behind him while running..
Not only did the old man start firing, he ran after them and kept shooting, even when they were outside, almost forcing him to shoot back to get him to stop running after them.. what the hell?
he is not a hero, he's a fucking idiot, he was lucky that they reacted by running and ONLY running for that matter, nothing else.
That video is not a reason for allowing guns, it's a reason NOT to.
They were stealing cash, they had no reason to shoot until they got shot at.
|
On July 21 2012 05:39 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff. Are you insinuating that you've heard it all? Are you willing to risk your familys life on that? What it comes down to is the right for people to protect themselves and their family.
Pretty sure the most responsible thing would to gather your family in one place and wait to see if the people breaking in come into that area, shooting them if they try rather then to go out and try to kill them; all ofc after informing the police. Is all he's implying.
Also you should really stop throwing around the word right as if it's an end all.
Rights are given out by the state, things that aren't rights can become rights and thus things that are rights can be repealed although that would be rarer. An ethical discussion on guns is about gun laws in general meaning worldwide you only seem to be focused on saying the words american and rights
|
On July 21 2012 05:40 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff. Indeed, if people are breaking into your house they are trying to steal your shit, not kill you. Don't kill people to save your television.
I don't have a television, but I would still kill people to save it. If they are in my residence then they are a clear danger to my life. They may not want to kill me now. They do, however, know where I live and they may try to kill me when I try to press charges and such. Also, property rights are the most important thing to me for several reasons and I don't plan on letting someone spit on them as long as I have the power to stop them from doing so.
|
On July 21 2012 05:29 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:23 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:19 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 05:17 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:08 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 04:52 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 03:03 Crushinator wrote: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? What I was trying to say is that if guns are illegal, criminals will have a harder time obtaining a gun illegally. This has been argued to death already and the evidence is heavily against you. See Chicago or New York, or the other countries where guns are illegal. I am interested in looking at this evidence, because it would be in conflict with my common sense. See the OP. On July 21 2012 05:17 leo23 wrote:my hero This is why people carry, because you never know what's going to happen. I had to LOL about the guy getting shot in the ass. It also looked like the old man shot at the perp after he exited the premises and almost literally in the back. Good to know Florida justifies that (not being sarcastic). There isnt any relevant evidence in the OP.
I took "if guns are illegal, criminals will have a harder time obtaining a gun illegally" and assumed the conclusion to be that criminals would ultimately have a harder time committing crimes involving firearms. But yes, in the literal sense I agree, if guns were illegal in America, they'd be slightly harder to get, but by no means impossible.
|
The West Wing said it best
"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"
To answer the OP obviously not
Anyone arguing otherwise is completely deluded.
/thread you can lock now mods thank me later
|
On July 21 2012 05:40 Carapas wrote:
The only good reason to have a gun in the USA is to defend yourself versus people that carry guns, but if the guns were restricted you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself from others. It seems to me that the mentality of americans is just wrong, they fear everyone and everything.
Since you decided to make a statement so insulting about nationalities explain to this simple 'American' with your 'Canadian logic' how your family is safer in a world without guns when a group of men break into your home to rape your wife steal whatever they can and leave no witnesses?
|
On July 21 2012 05:45 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:39 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff. Are you insinuating that you've heard it all? Are you willing to risk your familys life on that? What it comes down to is the right for people to protect themselves and their family. Pretty sure the most responsible thing would to gather your family in one place and wait to see if the people breaking in come into that area, shooting them if they try rather then to go out and try to kill them; all ofc after informing the police. Is all he's implying. Also you should really stop throwing around the word right as if it's an end all. Rights are given out by the state, things that aren't rights can become rights and thus things that are rights can be repealed although that would be rarer. An ethical discussion on guns is about gun laws in general meaning worldwide you only seem to be focused on saying the words american and rights
It is a constitutional right. I should stop using the word "right"?!?!?!!?
It's writtin the Bill or Rights....
It's called the Right to keep and bear arms....
|
On July 21 2012 05:45 Frozenhelfire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:40 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff. Indeed, if people are breaking into your house they are trying to steal your shit, not kill you. Don't kill people to save your television. I don't have a television, but I would still kill people to save it. If they are in my residence then they are a clear danger to my life. They may not want to kill me now. They do, however, know where I live and they may try to kill me when I try to press charges and such. Also, property rights are the most important thing to me for several reasons and I don't plan on letting someone spit on them as long as I have the power to stop them from doing so.
So what you're saying is that we should kill all criminals becuase after all they may kill the people who put them behind bars. It's funny you don't say subdue but rather kill.
|
On July 21 2012 05:46 redFF wrote:
The West Wing said it best
"If you combine the populations of Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia, you'll get a population roughly the size of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year. They had 112. Do you think it's because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because those guys have gun control laws?"
To answer the OP obviously not
Anyone arguing otherwise is completely deluded.
/thread you can lock now mods thank me later
Foolish post, given that you're so sure of its soundness -- and exacerbated by the fact that you plucked it from a pop-TV show. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.
|
All these people are making arguments on public safety and self defense, which are valid arguments and all, but for me the best argument for allowing people to own guns is that according to gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx
30% of Americans own guns personally. Another 14% have guns in their households but don't own them personally. I'm going to assume people under 18 can't own guns personally, which knocks out almost a quarter of the population of 300 million, which means 225 million adults. Of them 30% own guns, so 67.5 million Americans own guns.
While I do believe that overall, if we outlawed/severely restricted guns it might reduce the gun crime rate, only extreme measures found in places like England and Australia would make a dent in the crime rate, and those laws would be violating the rights of the 67.5 million Americans (probably higher number TBH, gun owners aren't the most open bunch) who haven't done anything nor have committed any crimes.
Also, never have I seen a more massive difference in opinion between Europeans and Americans on TL until this thread =P
|
the matter of fact is the world is full of hyenas, of people that while you bust your ass doing 20 to 30 years of studying only get strong physically and feed on violence.
as long as there's people who would rape your wife, steal everything you have and maim you, i'll approve of gun ownership, even if the evils it entails are much greater than the benefits it brings.
and it's ironic that the people who would use weapons for wrongdoings will get hold of them despite the strict laws, while the guy who would use one only in the most extreme of extreme situations for defensive purposes wouldn't even buy one or it would be extremely hard for him to own one.
|
On July 21 2012 05:47 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:45 Frozenhelfire wrote:On July 21 2012 05:40 Crushinator wrote:On July 21 2012 05:37 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 05:36 ahswtini wrote:On July 21 2012 05:31 Abusion wrote:
No, you ring the police and don't try and kill someone. Yeah and the police will arrive in time to take statements (assuming any of the victims are still alive). I haven't, in my life time, heard of a group of people armed with knives come into a house and try and rob it. If someone's there to kill you then that's totally different than stealing your stuff. Indeed, if people are breaking into your house they are trying to steal your shit, not kill you. Don't kill people to save your television. I don't have a television, but I would still kill people to save it. If they are in my residence then they are a clear danger to my life. They may not want to kill me now. They do, however, know where I live and they may try to kill me when I try to press charges and such. Also, property rights are the most important thing to me for several reasons and I don't plan on letting someone spit on them as long as I have the power to stop them from doing so. So what you're saying is that we should kill all criminals becuase after all they may kill the people who put them behind bars. It's funny you don't say subdue but rather kill.
Should we just assume that people breaking into our house don't want to hurt anybody?
Some of us are not so naive as to make such a stupid assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
