|
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 05:56 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +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yeah the whole right to protect your home/family by shooting down fools seems so outdated and counterproductive given our modern society.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".
thievery isn't inherently a violent crime your virtue is false, you assume the person breaking in isn't a robber further more if he is a robber that he's willing to commit homicide in order to rob you, rather then he thought no one would notice or be home. I'm sorry the only one willing to kill people in every scenario seems to be you not the people breaking in.
|
On July 21 2012 05:49 Jisall wrote:Check out switzerland: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stmMy 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.
My family is Swiss. It's not like every Swiss guy is some badass John Wayne who takes the law into his own hands. What you have in Switzerland is a pretty racially and ethnically homogenous society which is affluent, well-educated and which is supported by a large social safety net. I'm confident that those factors explain the low level of gun violence in Switzerland far more so than the ease of access to firearms, and that, by extension, makes Switzerland a very poor basis for comparison with the United States.
That being said, I personally favor more stringent restrictions on the purchase of firearms, but it's not difficult to feel that way when you see armed robbery and shooting victims every day, like I do.
|
On July 21 2012 05:57 jdsowa wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There are people who are actually this blind and ignorant.
If Japan had the same gun control as the U.S then there would be an increase in gun-related crime, do people actually doubt this?
On July 21 2012 05:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes it's a tv show but the point remains that there is far more gun related crime in the U.S than in every other first world country.
|
On July 21 2012 05:58 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There are legitimate arguments against gun ownership. I'm afraid this isn't one of them. The reasons people commit crimes are far more complicated than a simplistic "because they owned this object."
|
On July 21 2012 05:56 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +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".
It's so arbitrary and silly, the only reason you find this okay is because you've grown up in an environement where this was always considered as normal. Just as a guy who has grown up in a a radical islamic country might think than cutting someone hand for thievery is fking standard. Still doesn't make it right.
|
On July 21 2012 06:00 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:56 Leth0 wrote: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". thievery isn't inherently a violent crime your virtue is false, you assume the person breaking in isn't a robber further more if he is a robber that he's willing to commit homicide in order to rob you, rather then he thought no one would notice or be home. I'm sorry the only one willing to kill people in every scenario seems to be you not the people breaking in.
You are assuming they are there to just steal. Problem is , you don't KNOW wtf they are there to do. Why on earth would you risk the lives of your family on some stupid assumption that "he's just here to steal the TV".
|
Youre like those dumbass republicans that believe this Obama "you didnt build that" shit. Read the rest of my post please. Dont just quote a snipet. I said that it does occur, only with an EXTREMELY small incedence rate. Man people like you are just ridiculous.
|
On July 21 2012 05:56 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +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".
I'm pretty sure that most break-ins are due to a robbery. If they were there to kill you they could of done it many other ways.
|
On July 21 2012 05:55 Focuspants wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:46 Leth0 wrote: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? 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.
I hate to break this to you, but you are being woefully naive.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/residents-fend-off-group-trying-to-break-into-townhouse-161757955.html
Groups of men do try to break into houses for rape, robbery, etc. This incident happened in Canada; 11 days ago?
|
There are some dumb fucking people in this thread.
Three guys. IN YOUR HOUSE, at night. What, they're taking your TV, your family is sleeping in the other room, what, you're gonna run? You're gonna pour them a beer? Cook up some steaks? Even in a society where guns aren't allowed, there's still a very real life and death struggle that is about to occur.
As for Mr. West Wing. That statement is just completely false. Look up the real homicide rate, not the pretend one you saw on some ficticious TV show.
In terms of standing, Finland, France, and the Swiss, Canada, and Northern Ireland are all less than 10 ranks behind the US in terms of gun-related death rate.
|
Yeah people also win lotteries ''all the time''
|
My brother used to love guns. He was from California (where I'm at) originally, and had moved to Texas, and in the county he is in, it is legal to shoot your gun in your front lawn as long as the bullet doesn't leave your property. He had a few rifles and a few handguns, was real into it, even hunted some deer from time to time.
Then, one day one of his dogs got out (wasn't even a violent dog) and went down the street and was barking at some guy's house, the guy had a chain link fence around his whole house so the dog couldn't even get onto his property really. The guy took his rifle and killed the dog, put it in a shopping cart and then put it in the woods behind their house (past the backyard in his area is just a large woodland). My brother had to search in the woods for the dog, which he eventually found.
In the next few weeks, he sold all the guns he owned. He always used to tell me he WANTED someone to break into his house so he could shoot them. But then he saw something he loved die because of a gun. Changed his entire mind.
edit: and nothing happned to the guy who shot the dog, my brother called the cops and they said they couldn't help. that's texas for you.
|
On July 21 2012 06:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:58 Kahlgar wrote: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. There are legitimate arguments against gun ownership. I'm afraid this isn't one of them. The reasons people commit crimes are far more complicated than a simplistic "because they owned this object."
Go look up gun crime stats in the U.S compared to any other first world country.
|
On July 21 2012 06:00 Ryalnos wrote:
While we're at it, let's make the speed limit a mandatory 25mph everywhere with $5k fines for going more than 5mph above it. It will reduce traffic deaths, so it's clearly worth it, right?
you are avoiding the discussion. you need cars/busses to get places, guns are just for killing people.
Your point completely misses this subject. sigh...
|
On July 21 2012 06:02 Felnarion wrote:
There are some dumb fucking people in this thread.
Three guys. IN YOUR HOUSE, at night. What, they're taking your TV, your family is sleeping in the other room, what, you're gonna run? You're gonna pour them a beer? Cook up some steaks? Even in a society where guns aren't allowed, there's still a very real life and death struggle that is about to occur.
As for Mr. West Wing. That statement is just completely false. Look up the real homicide rate, not the pretend one you saw on some ficticious TV show.
In terms of standing, Finland, France, and the Swiss, Canada, and Northern Ireland are all less than 10 ranks behind the US in terms of gun-related death rate.
Please give me a link suggesting gun crime rates in any other first world country come close to that of the U.S.
It's hilarious that people still cling to laws made 200 years ago where it took a minute to load a gun between shots.
|
On July 21 2012 06:03 redFF wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 05:58 Kahlgar wrote: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. There are legitimate arguments against gun ownership. I'm afraid this isn't one of them. The reasons people commit crimes are far more complicated than a simplistic "because they owned this object." Go look up gun crime stats in the U.S compared to any other first world country.
Go look up crime stats in general in the US compared to any other first world country.
|
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.
It's called the Castle Doctrine. Doesn't matter what the bad guys' intentions are, if they step foot in your dwelling without permission (or even property in some states), you have the right to use deadly force.
It is very situational, but if someone was in my home in the middle of the night that didn't belong, my first assumption would be that he's there to do something bad. Whether it be to steal my TV or kill my family, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
|
On July 21 2012 05:49 Jisall wrote:Check out switzerland: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1566715.stmMy 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.
The Switzerland argument AGAIN! This and your other reasoning is bullshit. Did your friend also tell you that it's like the richest country on earth? Nearly no poverty or crime compared to the US? It's even in the arcticle you linked. Read the thread it will enlighten you. And don't believe everything the NRA tells you.
|
On July 21 2012 06:03 Crushinator wrote:Yeah people also win lotteries ''all the time''
Oh I'm sorry, how many innocent familys need to be brutally murdered before you lose the naive attitude?
|
I am always hesitant to post in these threads, but I am curious about this one.
I would like to pose a question - I always hear people claim that they should have the right to own guns to keep their family safe from the bad guys. I never understood this logic; if someone is threatening me with a gun, I personally would feel no less safe whether or not I had a gun myself. I have fired handguns and rifles before, so I know how to use them. What I mean is that if someone pulls a gun on me, then in most cases me pulling a gun back on them is going to make them MORE likely to shoot me. How does having your own gun and adding more guns to the mix make anyone safer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
