| 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. | ||
|
Jisall
United States2054 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stm My buddy is from there. When everyone is trained by the military and carry assault weapons there tends to be a propensity not to fuck with people. Banning guns is like prohibition of alcohol and weed. Al Copone and the Drug Cartels were/are sponsored by the bans on their respective drug of choice. Banning guns is going to cause more problems then it solves. | ||
|
MaestroSC
United States2073 Posts
People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects. People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars. People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns. 2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns. 3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families. 4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it. 5th. Imagine this scenario: Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead. Same scenario: every single student is armed. Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many. In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted. By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk. People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws. You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:43 Abusion wrote: 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. That's how most rights work. Westboro Baptist Church doesn't want to lose their right to picket funerals, whether or not they should. Arguing whether people should engage in something is different than arguing whether they should have the right to. So long as individuals are capable of owning guns responsibly then their right to should be maintained imo. Rights are independent of a strict cost/benefit analysis. People recognize that certain freedoms will entail less safety, and they are comfortable with that risk because they value liberty so much. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:45 Frozenhelfire wrote: 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. You have almost convinced me guns should be illegal now. The part about killing them just incase they try to kill you some time in the future, you can't possibly be serious. | ||
|
Tsutchie
Australia951 Posts
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. correct me if im wrong but i don't think americans mentality are wrong for their social situation. if you lived near a project, bad neighbourhood etc etc, you'd want to arm yourself too because the likelihood of you getting assulted or your house getting broken in to are higher then where you or i live currently. and no guns being available does not create crime, just because you have a gun doesn't mean that you will harm people with it. the availability of guns aids crime, poverty and poor social health are the real creators of crimes along with many other issues. the problem is very deep seeded and complex. when the citizens feel that the likelihood of them getting assulted is lower then getting bombed by religious extremist then they will also grow to hold our views on guns. | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:36 darthfoley wrote: after the batman shooting... makes me believe even more that gun control should be more strictly regulated. Ok. What the fuck is this logic. This is also the logic of every uninformed person who supports guncontrol. He was using an automatic weapon with a drum barrel. He attained it ILLEGALLY. OUTSIDE of the fucking law. This is not a handgun or a hunting rifle. If you don't get it - civilian gun regulations do NOTHING to stop this sort of shit. And I would have wanted to have a handgun there when that wackjob pulled out his illegally attained automatic and started shooting people! The premise of people who support guncontrol is that they want all civilians to remain entirely defenseless and at the mercy of those who illegally attain military weapons for the sole purpose of killing people. No thank you. Fuck that, and god bless America. | ||
|
prochobo
United States232 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:44 Mephtral wrote: 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. Comission of a felony. Check. Life in danger. Check. Shoot the bastard. You know that in order to carry legally, you have to undergo training? And how was this guy risking the lives of the people inside any more than the two bad guys? What if, what if, what if. What if the bad guys just came in and shot everyone in the face? Is that better than a man preventing the potential deaths of others by lawfully reacting with deadly force? The only thing I see questionable is him continuing to fire after the threat was over. But the DA has no argument because people get caught up in the heat of the moment and to the defender, as long as they were in sight, they were probably a threat to his life. | ||
|
Kahlgar
411 Posts
Not to mention that having the right to fire at will on some guy trying to steal your TV is really fked up. | ||
|
Jisall
United States2054 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote: Guns dont kill people. People kill people. People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects. People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars. People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns. 2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns. 3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families. 4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it. 5th. Imagine this scenario: Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead. Same scenario: every single student is armed. Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many. In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted. By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk. People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws. You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. Agreed. With point 4, thats what switzerland does. Everyone is a part of the "National Guard" (U.S equivalent). | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:49 Leth0 wrote: 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. I'm saying seeking a confrontation rather then waiting in a safe place only increases the chances of someone ending up dead and turning what is probably a robbery into a homicide/manslaugher. It's funny to say it's self defense when you looking for a fight. You can assume someone is dangerous but you don't actually have to go confirm that they are. | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:46 Leth0 wrote: 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? Groups of men dont break into peoples houses to rape and steal peoples wives. That is the point. The incidence rate of this scenario occuring, is infinitely lower than the scenario where a firearm is "misused" and kills someone. You trade the 0.00001% possibility of this happening to you, for a gun free society. Obviously you cant fully rid society of firearms, and criminals do get their hands on them, but it is more difficult to do so, if they do obtain them, it is almost always gang related or targeted at a specific person for a specific reason, and we dont have a slew of accidental murders, school shootings, assault rifle shoot outs, etc... that do occur when everyone has access to them. Its a trade off. However, the odds are on our side. | ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote: Guns dont kill people. People kill people. People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects. People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars. People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns. 2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns. 3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families. 4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it. 5th. Imagine this scenario: Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead. Same scenario: every single student is armed. Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many. In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted. By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk. People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws. You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. What about a scenario where a guy decides its time to go kill the classmates with a gun, but because guns are illegal he cant. 4 hours later he has planned how to get a gun, he understands hes plan was stupid and will not go shoot anyone instead. nobody dies. I think that is the best scenario. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:30 Leth0 wrote: That is just flat out wrong and ignorant. Group of people breaking into my house where my kid sleeps and my family lives. I'm shooting them, I'm not asking myself, "What are they armed with, let me asses this situation". One person with a knife threatens in any way my family, I will without hesitation shoot them. There doesn't need to be a gun for there to be a threat. Yeah....what you're saying has nothing at all to do with my point.....I feel pretty sad for you for being so far off tbh. Let's go through it a bit. I never said you'd consider anything before shooting. I said, in the previous poster's hypotheical situation, what would happened if they were armed or unarmed and he tried to shoot them in the legs. That has nothing at all to do with judging a situation, as he had made it clear he planned to shoot their legs regardless of if they were armed or not. I was showing that this wasn't a viable solution, and that he would have to shoot to kill in order to defend himself, thus re-enforcing a gun as a tool for death. Apparently in a hypothetical world without guns, you still have a gun. | ||
|
Leth0
856 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:53 Kahlgar wrote: yeah the whole right to protect your home/family by shooting down fools seems so outdated and counterproductive given our modern society. Not to mention that having the right to fire at will on some guy trying to steal your TV is really fked up. What is with this assumption that everyone who's breaking into homes is there to just steal your TV. I'm sorry (thankfully) I live in a place where you give up your right to live as soon as you become stupid enough to break into someones property and by VIRTUE of that , threaten their very lives. Nobody is stupid enough to think that person is there just to steal a tv. Nobody should be stupid enough to take that risk and just "let em do what he's there to do". | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
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 Not a fair comparison as every country has a different culture. Culture is the most significant factor in a country's behavior. For example, the US spends 50% more than Japan on education per capita, but performs significantly worse on tests. The difference is cultural. You could let the Japanese carry concealed hand guns, and Japan would still be Japan because it's not in their culture. A child can buy an alcoholic beverage from a vending machine in Japan. But they don't. Because of their culture. | ||
|
Bajsgrodan
Afghanistan408 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote: Guns dont kill people. People kill people. People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects. People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars. People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns. 2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns. 3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families. 4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it. 5th. Imagine this scenario: Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead. Same scenario: every single student is armed. Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many. In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted. By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk. People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws. You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. You are wrong, and your points are flawed. And I feel more safe in a country with no guns then in a country everyone is able to carry a gun. If your only point is that criminals will get their guns anyway then you are also wrong. They don't in fact by making it hard to obtain a firearm you most probably force the criminal to use some other tool, ie knife. If I was a troubbled teenager with angst in America, all it takes is me getting my fathers gun and going to the school/theater and start shooting. Where I live that would be impossible, and I would probably have to solve my problem some other way or consider doing my deeds with a knife/sword (not very effective). Ergo: More guns = More people dead. If you deny this you are using age old arguments that have been proven wrong a thousand times. Step up America and be the country the rest of the world once looked up to! Get rid of your guns. | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:47 semantics wrote: 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. Essentially yes. In an ideal world subduction might work, but in an ideal world they wouldn't be breaking into my place of residence. In the real world trying to subdue them is probably the most risky thing you could do. I find it funny that you think people who willingly put someone else's life in danger deserve not to have their life on the line as well. | ||
|
Kahlgar
411 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote: Guns dont kill people. People kill people. People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects. People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars. People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns. 2nd. If you ban guns, criminals will still have guns. People who use their firearms illegally do not buy or register their guns anyways, so the law will not affect them. Nobody who uses their gun illegally will be affected by any bans or new gun control laws. Only the people who legally are registered and own guns. 3rd. If you take away the guns from the responsible citizens/legal owners all it does is put them at an even larger risk to those with guns. Because now every criminal in the country knows that you dont have a gun to defend yourself or your property/families. 4th. Dont disarm your citizens, arm them all and force them to take training. If every single person/home owns a gun, criminals will have to think twice about brandishing a gun anywhere, because every single person around them has one and knows how to use it. 5th. Imagine this scenario: Dude breaks into a lecture hall full of students with an uzi in each hand. He opens fire and starts mowing down rows of unarmed people. Everyone is panic'ing running screaming. hundred+ are dead. Same scenario: every single student is armed. Same guy breaks in, pulls out his uzi and begins shooting into the classroom. Suddenly he has 200 people shooting at him. Ya people will get shot in the crossfire, or people will still die... but not nearly as many. In the 2nd scenario, the chances of it ever happening are sooooo incredibly minimal because no single man will decide to go 1v200 armed citizens. No criminal would ever debate pulling out a weapon in a large crowd, because he has too many risks that will eliminate his chances of doing whatever he wanted. By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk. People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws. You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. Right, you can keep blindly defending the ideology behind gun laws, it won't change the fact that the US has more criminality that just about every single developed country where guns are banned. | ||
|
Leth0
856 Posts
On July 21 2012 05:55 Focuspants wrote: Groups of men dont break into peoples houses to rape and steal peoples wives. http://abcnews.go.com/US/dr-william-petit-testifies-trial-familys-alleged-murderer/story?id=11633236 http://sandrarose.com/2012/04/man-held-in-brutal-rape-and-murder-of-las-vegas-mom-daughter/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144204/Las-Vegas-family-murders-Arturo-Martinez-I-forgive-man-raped-killed-daughter-10-killed-wife-left-brain-damage-March-home-invasion-beating.html You are really ignorant if you don't think things like these happen all the time. | ||
|
Ryalnos
United States1946 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs TriGGeR
Cure vs SHIN
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Bunny
Solar vs Zoun
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
