|
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 06:14 hoby2000 wrote:
Should people be allowed to own forks? knives? cars? anything with sharp edges? ovens? curling irons? matches? microwaves?
This discussion is similar to those. Should we trust people to do the right thing? Probably not, because there are the few that will ruin it for everyone. But with a gun, the only way to make sure you don't die to a gun is to be able to protect yourself. So if someone can get a gun regardless of regulations, shouldn't it make sense just to let everyone have guns?
If we had a machine that allowed us to make sure that guns would be prevented from being used or made, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, we live in our current reality and do not possess the technology to do so.
Guns are only made to threaten/kill people while a fork, a car or even a knife are not, fairly easy distinction to make.
|
Gun Control will never work in the US. There are way too many guns already circulating and a stronger control would indeed only hurt the law abiding citizens. Enforcing the gun control in germany went hand in hand with executions for gun posession and rebellions.. so I doubt that path is available in the US.
|
On July 21 2012 06:18 Dagan159 wrote:
US's 2nd admendment right not only lets you defend yourself and your family from intruders, but also from their own government. Is a government oppression likely? no probably not, but is just one more safeguard defending people from government oppression.
If it does happen, there is absolutely no way that any legal civilian weapon has any chance in hell against a serious military.
|
On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:44 Mephtral wrote: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:
[quote]
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). 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. Sorry, you dont know if their lives was in danger, he had a gun, maybe it wasn't loaded, maybe it's a fake gun, Maybe the kid running in with the gun is way to scared to actually use it to kill someone? i get it, it's logical to assume your life is in danger, but you actually dont have a clue. If they run in and start shooting people, people will die, even if everyone in that room had guns, a shit ton of people would've been hurt, possibly killed. no matter how many guns, that will not change! You have to undergo training yes, however you say it yourself later, People get caught in the heat of the moment, so they shouldn't be carrying guns.. Put everyones life in danger to protect some money. Check.. that's all he did. And you know very well that the scenario you're talking about is much less likely then someone robbing someone, please, tell me you realise that.. i'll make it very simple: in a normal situation, where guns are not allowed this is most likely to happen: Someone with a gun threatens people, and take their money, then he runs away. That's it. in a normal situation, when guns are allowed and someone decies to use it, this is likely to happen: Someone panics, take out their gun, and start shooting at the robber, if they hit, fine, it's over, they KILLED someone to protect money, if they miss, then everyone in that room is in danger, either he runs, or he starts shooting at anyone he can see or a combination of both.. The idiot that starts shooting somehow got the authority to put everyones life in danger, how the hell is that right? If someone is going into a crowd of people and want to kill people, they will kill people, it's actually very rare that people try to do shit like that, but it's not rare that someone tries to steal stuff. I seriously cannot understand how anyone can think that way.. "Well if i have a gun, i can shoot the guy that tries to shoot people, so that has to be good", it's not a fucking video game, so stop trying to be a "hero"... you're risking peoples lives,perhaps for no real reason at all, not only your own life.
and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent".
How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are.
People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont.
Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard?
or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it?
now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant.
People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing.
Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed?
ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun.
he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you"
|
On July 21 2012 06:18 Dagan159 wrote:
US's 2nd admendment right not only lets you defend yourself and your family from intruders, but also from their own government. Is a government oppression likely? no probably not, but is just one more safeguard defending people from government oppression.
You'd have more of a shot at overthrowing a governement by going on strike than by running around with guns. That safeguard made sense at the time but nowadays, not so much.
|
On July 21 2012 06:11 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
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? also so much uninformed liberal bull shit in here regarding gun ownership. obviously people posting about current gun control laws have never purchased or owned a firearm. Every single gun purchased in America IS registered and licensed.every single person who owns a gun has to pass a background check
I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. You obviously know a great deal about firearms, so you must know that in most states you can go to a gun show and buy firearms without submitting to a background check.
|
On July 21 2012 06:18 Kahlgar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:14 hoby2000 wrote:
Should people be allowed to own forks? knives? cars? anything with sharp edges? ovens? curling irons? matches? microwaves?
This discussion is similar to those. Should we trust people to do the right thing? Probably not, because there are the few that will ruin it for everyone. But with a gun, the only way to make sure you don't die to a gun is to be able to protect yourself. So if someone can get a gun regardless of regulations, shouldn't it make sense just to let everyone have guns?
If we had a machine that allowed us to make sure that guns would be prevented from being used or made, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, we live in our current reality and do not possess the technology to do so. Guns are only made to threaten/kill people while a fork, a car or even a knife are not, fairly easy distinction to make.
Guns arent only made to kill people. They make guns in .22 caliber... do you know how small a .22 is? Its a little bit larger than a bb, if guns are only made to kill people, why dont we make everything a .45 and larger?
|
On July 21 2012 06:14 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:11 iAmiAnC wrote:On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. I don't see why a random guy needs/has the right to own a gun. Outside of someone like a store owner who as at a high risk of armed robbery, why is a random dude allowed to buy 2 pistols, a shotgun, an assault rifle and extended magazines for these weapons, all without a background check? There will still be criminals with guns, but we'd stop hearing about some "weird kid" with no criminal record going on a rampage with a gun somewhere in the great ol' US of A every damn week. Apparantly this happened 19 miles away from Columbine? We're hardly talking about drive-by gangland shootings between the Crips and the Bloods here, its random nutters (often with no criminal background) who have a screw loose and legal access to tons of lethal hardware for no good reason. he did have a background check done. again another liberal uninformed about current gun safety laws, and argues for them. saying guns kill people is the same thing as saying your pencil is a dumbass and thats why u got a bad test score.
So if the dude passed the background check and killed 15 people with it, it means that the system is obviously perfect right? IMO it just proves that background checks are not enough and yes people kill people, but they kill people with a weapon and this weapon shouldn't be easy to access. It is impossible to go into a theater with a fork, blade, knife or w/e and kill 10+ people without getting knocked down by somebody. Guns are like the ultimate coward weapon which often gives a power to people that they cannot handle and shouldn't have.
|
On July 21 2012 06:14 MaestroSC wrote:
saying guns kill people is the same thing as saying your pencil is a dumbass and thats why u got a bad test score.
Guns (2 pistols, an assault rifle, a shotgun, extended magazines) allow people to rapidly kill dozens of people with a single magazine, they allow 1 nutjob to take on and kill hundreds of people. The hardware used by people like this cinema shooter goes far beyond self defense. Why do people need hundreds of rounds and multiple weapons?
Outside of bombs I can't think of anything comperable to guns in terms of their ability to allow an individual to kill lots of people, especially when it goes beyond pistols and standard magazine sizes.
|
Living in the only state in the US that does not allow concealed carry, I do not believe people should be allowed to freely carry a gun, even if hidden from plain sight. I can't tell you how much senseless violence happens in the city of Chicago. Innocent people die from gang shootings every day.
I never even understood the logic of wanting to carry a gun. Honestly, I think people want to carry them just so they can. People have told me before that its because "I want to shoot the guy thats trying to rob/kill me!" to which I respond by saying he will probably kill you before you even aim up the shot at him. I know that if I was a gunman, if they made a sudden movement, I would put one right in them.
Of course, the shooting in Colorado is a point people can make.
|
On July 21 2012 06:11 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
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? because your scenario is so extreme and illogical, your took the reasoning for owning a gun out of the question. obviously if there is a man staring at you with a gun pointed at ur face, grabbing for your gun is meaningless. however hearing a window shatter and door open on the opposite side of your house, with your children asleep on that side of the house, will having a gun make you more able to defend your family than not having one? what are you going to do if you dont and he does? call 911 and pray that he doesnt find you or ANYONE in your family for the next 15 mins u wait for cops to get there. maybe you should try reasoning with him, people who break into peoples houses to steal/whatever are usually completely logical individuals. also so much uninformed liberal bull shit in here regarding gun ownership. obviously people posting about current gun control laws have never purchased or owned a firearm. Every single gun purchased in America IS registered and licensed.every single person who owns a gun has to pass a background check
I'm sorry, but you are very misinformed as are many who claim to be gun owners. There is no such thing as federal gun registration. The BAFTE does not have a national database of gun owners and what they have. They only keep track of certain categories, many of which do not apply to lawful gun owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
And no, there's something called private party transactions, which does not require a background check.
|
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people?
|
On July 21 2012 06:22 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:11 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
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? also so much uninformed liberal bull shit in here regarding gun ownership. obviously people posting about current gun control laws have never purchased or owned a firearm. Every single gun purchased in America IS registered and licensed.every single person who owns a gun has to pass a background check I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. You obviously know a great deal about firearms, so you must know that in most states you can go to a gun show and buy firearms without submitting to a background check.
even then the gun is still licensed/registered to whoever bought it.
there is no such thing as buying unmarked, unregistered guns at gun shows.
and even then I am pretty sure they do the background check on the spot as it is illegal to sell a firearm to people with certain backgrounds
|
On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:16 Mephtral wrote:On July 21 2012 05:52 prochobo wrote:On July 21 2012 05:44 Mephtral wrote: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:
[quote]
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). 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. Sorry, you dont know if their lives was in danger, he had a gun, maybe it wasn't loaded, maybe it's a fake gun, Maybe the kid running in with the gun is way to scared to actually use it to kill someone? i get it, it's logical to assume your life is in danger, but you actually dont have a clue. If they run in and start shooting people, people will die, even if everyone in that room had guns, a shit ton of people would've been hurt, possibly killed. no matter how many guns, that will not change! You have to undergo training yes, however you say it yourself later, People get caught in the heat of the moment, so they shouldn't be carrying guns.. Put everyones life in danger to protect some money. Check.. that's all he did. And you know very well that the scenario you're talking about is much less likely then someone robbing someone, please, tell me you realise that.. i'll make it very simple: in a normal situation, where guns are not allowed this is most likely to happen: Someone with a gun threatens people, and take their money, then he runs away. That's it. in a normal situation, when guns are allowed and someone decies to use it, this is likely to happen: Someone panics, take out their gun, and start shooting at the robber, if they hit, fine, it's over, they KILLED someone to protect money, if they miss, then everyone in that room is in danger, either he runs, or he starts shooting at anyone he can see or a combination of both.. The idiot that starts shooting somehow got the authority to put everyones life in danger, how the hell is that right? If someone is going into a crowd of people and want to kill people, they will kill people, it's actually very rare that people try to do shit like that, but it's not rare that someone tries to steal stuff. I seriously cannot understand how anyone can think that way.. "Well if i have a gun, i can shoot the guy that tries to shoot people, so that has to be good", it's not a fucking video game, so stop trying to be a "hero"... you're risking peoples lives,perhaps for no real reason at all, not only your own life. and YOU dont understand the idea of a "deterrent". How many people do you think are going to be committing armed robbery, when every single citizen around them is on the same playing field they are. People commit ARMED robbery, because they know THEY have a gun and are at an advantage over the masses of people/storeowners who dont. Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is an armed security guard? or where he knows there is a store clerk with a gun behind the counter, and no hesitation to use it? now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens? NO. Because when everyone has a gun, having a gun as your only advantage is futile and no longer existant. People like you are so fucking ignorant its mind blowing. Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed? ofcourse he does or he wouldnt bring a gun. he would show up to the counter with his fists raised yelling "give me your money or ill punch you"
They have a gun that they won't need to use if someone else doesn't have a gun. That's what it's all about. If he robs somewhere where everyone has a gun the robbers will die. If he robs somewhere where no-one else has a gun no-one dies. Its about people's lives here not the material things that aren't worth a human life.
|
On July 21 2012 06:23 prochobo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:11 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
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? because your scenario is so extreme and illogical, your took the reasoning for owning a gun out of the question. obviously if there is a man staring at you with a gun pointed at ur face, grabbing for your gun is meaningless. however hearing a window shatter and door open on the opposite side of your house, with your children asleep on that side of the house, will having a gun make you more able to defend your family than not having one? what are you going to do if you dont and he does? call 911 and pray that he doesnt find you or ANYONE in your family for the next 15 mins u wait for cops to get there. maybe you should try reasoning with him, people who break into peoples houses to steal/whatever are usually completely logical individuals. also so much uninformed liberal bull shit in here regarding gun ownership. obviously people posting about current gun control laws have never purchased or owned a firearm. Every single gun purchased in America IS registered and licensed.every single person who owns a gun has to pass a background check I'm sorry, but you are very misinformed as are many who claim to be gun owners. There is no such thing as federal gun registration. The BAFTE does not have a national database of gun owners and what they have. They only keep track of certain categories, many of which do not apply to lawful gun owners. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_ActShow nested quote +No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. And no, there's something called private party transactions, which does not require a background check.
go to any gun shop, in any state, and ask about purchasing a firearm.
ask about what you have to fill out, ask what gets registered.
|
People still seem to subscribe to the idea of M.A.D. and arms-race as if all crime is so thought out.
|
On July 21 2012 06:22 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:11 MaestroSC wrote:On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
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? also so much uninformed liberal bull shit in here regarding gun ownership. obviously people posting about current gun control laws have never purchased or owned a firearm. Every single gun purchased in America IS registered and licensed.every single person who owns a gun has to pass a background check I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. You obviously know a great deal about firearms, so you must know that in most states you can go to a gun show and buy firearms without submitting to a background check.
WRONG. There might be that .001% of crooked FFL's, but every single firearm I and my friends have purchased required a background check. The exception is concealed carry licensees; FFLs can use that to circumvent calling the feds.
|
On July 21 2012 06:11 MaestroSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:07 TheFish7 wrote:
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? because your scenario is so extreme and illogical, your took the reasoning for owning a gun out of the question. obviously if there is a man staring at you with a gun pointed at ur face, grabbing for your gun is meaningless. however hearing a window shatter and door open on the opposite side of your house, with your children asleep on that side of the house, will having a gun make you more able to defend your family than not having one? what are you going to do if you dont and he does? call 911 and pray that he doesnt find you or ANYONE in your family for the next 15 mins u wait for cops to get there. maybe you should try reasoning with him, people who break into peoples houses to steal/whatever are usually completely logical individuals. also so much uninformed liberal bull shit in here regarding gun ownership. obviously people posting about current gun control laws have never purchased or owned a firearm. Every single gun purchased in America IS registered and licensed.every single person who owns a gun has to pass a background check
So you let them steal you stuff then report it to the police, at least you aren't dead. Unless you are saying that people are going to break into my house with the sole intent of killing me or my family for no good reason, in which case your scenario is just as extreme and illogical as mine. Rational people don't go around killing people for no reason. And we have police to take care of the irrational people. I live in the Bronx, where almost ALL of the deaths caused by guns are caused by weapons brought in from out of state. If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way to do it, but don't act like there are people trying to kill you at all times for no good reason and you need a gun to defend yourself - that is just paranoia.
|
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.
And you can keep telling yourself that correlation = causation. As for me, I'm getting pretty sick of hearing this fallacy.
|
On July 21 2012 06:14 hoby2000 wrote:
Should people be allowed to own forks? knives? cars? anything with sharp edges? ovens? curling irons? matches? microwaves?
This discussion is similar to those. Should we trust people to do the right thing? Probably not, because there are the few that will ruin it for everyone. But with a gun, the only way to make sure you don't die to a gun is to be able to protect yourself. So if someone can get a gun regardless of regulations, shouldn't it make sense just to let everyone have guns?
If we had a machine that allowed us to make sure that guns would be prevented from being used or made, I would be all for it. Unfortunately, we live in our current reality and do not possess the technology to do so.
No. It's the same discussion as saying people shouldn't be allowed to own swords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
