|
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 06:35 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it.
Faulty logic.
|
It's amazing how indoctrinated people are in thinking that our rampant manufacturing and sale of firearms is going to make us safer. Colorado has had conceal-carry and didn't pass the assault rifle ban. Basically, the most relaxed gun control you could just about ask for. Where were these everyday heroes during Columbine, or at the movie theater? Where were these gun advocates the day Gabby Giffords and so many others were shot down in open public?
On July 21 2012 05:50 MaestroSC wrote:
Guns dont kill people. People kill people.
I love this common slang. Let's simplify things as much as possible, erase all nuance, so as to ignore the fact that guns, in fact, do make killing people, especially en masse, a lot more fucking simpler.
People kill eachother with knives... i dont see a ban on all sharp metal objects.
Nuances aren't your fortè, I can tell. I don't eat dinner with a gun, but I do use a knife. Knives exist in every home for the purpose of cutting things that need to be cut, every day.
People kill eachother with cars... yet we still have cars.
Brilliant.
People kill eachother with any fucking thing they can find, not just guns.
But not everything a person can find is as lethal or as purposefully deadly as a gun. A gun is a tool meant only for injury and death. It is amazingly hypocritical how people so seemingly invested in gun rights are so keen on ignoring their basic purpose.
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.
Okay. We import lots of guns, because of our relaxed gun laws. Illegal arms trade is not common in countries with strict gun control. Most "illegal" guns in America weren't illegal to begin with, but were bought from a fucking K-Mart. That, and a lot of criminals buy their guns legally. The "Dark Knight" murderer wasn't a criminal at all until he decided to mass murder people.
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. Criminals risk their lives all the time, with or without the immediate threat of death. Someone removes themselves from society, becomes a criminal, has a lot more to do with other societal factors than gun laws. All I have to do is point to many European countries to show your logic's fallacy. They have less guns, and yet, amazingly, they have less crime, less jails and prisons, and less violence.
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.
I'd give this "ideal scenario" argument a lot more credit if it ever actually worked in real life. Colorado has relaxed gun laws. People can carry concealed guns. Didn't help those people in the movie theater any, though. It never does.
We import, manufacture, sell and distribute PLENTY, PLENTY, PLENTY of guns. Has it made us safer? Keep your hypotheticals if you like, but try also taking a look at reality some time.
By taking away guns from all your responsible citizens, all you are doing is putting them at greater risk.
By supporting the wholesale distribution of guns, you are making everyone less safe.
People who act irresponsibly with firearms are not purchasing them legally anyways and they will NOT be influenced by tougher gun control laws.
I think you actually believe this. And it's so narrow-sighted. It is much easier to buy a gun, legally or illegally, in America because we've made a market for them thanks to our gun laws. The gun industry and gun lobbyists sure love for you to believe what you're saying and they've paid good money to put that message out there. But, regardless, it's completely devoid of common sense.
You are incredibly ignorant, if you think gun control laws will affect situations like this at all. It's not ignorant to think curbing the sale of guns in this country would lead to fewer deaths. The Brady Bill alone has been immeasurably positive in preserving innocent life -- and the NRA protested it every step of the way.
I am sick of this country's priorities. Owning a gun is a freedom, sure. And it's a freedom that I do think people should have, in very regulated fashion. We don't need assault weapons being sold, we don't need "gun shows" that allow people to legally circumvent the Brady Bill, we don't need to be carrying concealed guns. The "freedom" of owning a fucking lethal weapon ranks very low on my list of priorities, compared to stopping the out of control gun distribution and violence we have going on in this country. But for some people, this is a freedom they cherish almost above all others. It truly disgusts me.
|
This has such a simple answer for me. Q: Who follows the laws? A: Ordinary citizens, not criminals. So a gun ban law would take guns out of the hands of people who would use it for defense while doing nothing to criminals because they already BREAK THE LAW. They will get guns if they want to anyway.. If most people you are going to rob don't have guns don't you think that having a gun would make you more persuasive? There are statistics that show that since DC passed a gun ban crime has actually INCREASED. "Hey look DC has a gun ban, now when I rob someone I have a much smaller chance of getting killed or shot when I take someones stuff!"
|
On July 21 2012 06:41 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:38 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 Portlandian wrote:On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Great idea. Let's just rely on the kindheartedness of criminals. The most frigtening thing I find about leftist ideology is it is apparent leftists put themselves in the shoes of the criminal when imagining these scenarios, not the innocent victim. The problem I have with most people's ''pro gun'' arguments is they feel like they have a RIGHT to own a gun AND who should die and who shouldn't. 1. We do...have the RIGHT, to keep and bear arms, As I've said already it's in this handy document called the bill of rights. 2. A person gives up their right to live when they threaten the lives of my family, IDK bout you but I have a spine and i'm certainly not just gonna lie down when the lives of my family at risk. I don't give a shit what the criminals "intentions" are, and I don't need to. The only thing I need to do is protect me and my own.
I know you do. That's why I emphasized the "AND" sorry about making that less clear. See I don't get your second point about "when does it become the point of threatening your family". When they step into your home or pull out a gun?
|
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.
Are you people fucking locked inside a bubble? There are plenty of countries where guns ARE banned and appearently it works out fine, contrary to the fact that US has more school shootings than every other country put together on the planet.
|
On July 21 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:35 semantics wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it. People already are allowed to own explosives, and are allowed to own all the materials necessary to make explosives or napalm. So yes?
That's not at all right... Outside of business purposes the US government trys a lot to limit the availability of explosives and materials needed to create explosives, when it's not too inconvenient. Perhaps you should go and try to buy some c4 and come back to me when you got some legally.
On July 21 2012 06:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:35 semantics wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it. Faulty logic.
That's the point i was being fallacious, it's just an extrapolation of his logic, that we shouldn't punish the capacity for harm just the act of harm. Thus a natural progression is into high explosives.
|
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"
Not everyone citizen will carry guns.. alot of people do, and they still get robbed, hi, welcome to the real world 
Yes, people commit armed robbery so they have a advantage, ofcourse, it makes it easy for them to be in control.
"Do you think a criminal would break into a convenience store where he knows there is a armed security guard" no i do not, and i agree with having security guards.
Store clerk with a gun behind the counter, less likely for sure, i dont agree on a store clerk having the right to kill people to protect money tho, there is no death penelty for robbery and even if it was, he has no right to give punishments for someone commiting a crime, you have a justice system for that.
"Now do you think a single man with a gun would try to rob a collective of 20+ armed citizens?"
He got no fucking idea to know if there is 1 armed citizen or 20, obviously those 2 kids went in there thinking they had the situation under control, even tho people there COULD be armed, what the hell are you even talking about? it's quite OBVIOUS that people rob other people even tho it's a possibility that they can carry guns.
"Do you really think people who commit armed robbery arent banking on the fact that he will be the only one armed?"
I do.
you're the one not realising that the moment he sees he isn't the only one, he can panic and start shoot people, and you call me the ignorant one? what the hell... He has a gun so he can be in control, and so that people will do what he says, if he wanted to kill people, he would jsut go in there and shoot, if he is there to rob people he wont shoot anyone unless someone gives him a reason. if another person there pulls out a gun, he just gets a reason to shoot.
Your whole post made no sense, i never said the robber doesn't have a reason to carry a gun.. i said people shouldnt' be allowed to carry guns legally, because people panic and do stupid shit when they are in danger sometimes, and if you want to panic, do that without a gun, you dont fucking start shooting at someone when there is people nearby.
The robber will get a gun if he wants one, legally or not, i get that, i'm saying, who gives a fuck about the money, let him take them, you dont risk everyones life to save your own money, and you cant make the decision for people if they want their lives risked for their money or not.
The only way your post would make sense, is if you want 300+ million (?) people to learn how to use guns, then arm them all, and have them carry guns all the time, just to make sure no dumb kid gets a gun and tries to rob people?
|
No, not at all. Unless you're a hunter.
There is no point at ALL to carry a gun. It's made to KILL people, and if you need to defend yourself you will either kill or hurt somone else.
|
On July 21 2012 06:43 Yergidy wrote:
This has such a simple answer for me. Q: Who follows the laws? A: Ordinary citizens, not criminals. So a gun ban law would take guns out of the hands of people who would use it for defense while doing nothing to criminals because they already BREAK THE LAW. They will get guns if they want to anyway.. If most people you are going to rob don't have guns don't you think that having a gun would make you more persuasive? There are statistics that show that since DC passed a gun ban crime has actually INCREASED. "Hey look DC has a gun ban, now when I rob someone I have a much smaller chance of getting killed or shot when I take someones stuff!"
How do you explain all the murders in the U.S compared to other ""civilized" countries. Are americans just people who like to murder, or is it actually linked to the number of weapons available to the people?
Q: Who can carry a gun? A: Anyone
Q: Who can be a murderer? A: Anyone
|
On July 21 2012 06:41 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:38 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 Portlandian wrote:On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Great idea. Let's just rely on the kindheartedness of criminals. The most frigtening thing I find about leftist ideology is it is apparent leftists put themselves in the shoes of the criminal when imagining these scenarios, not the innocent victim. The problem I have with most people's ''pro gun'' arguments is they feel like they have a RIGHT to own a gun AND who should die and who shouldn't. . 2. A person gives up their right to live when they threaten the lives of my family, IDK bout you but I have a spine and i'm certainly not just gonna lie down when the lives of my family at risk. I don't give a shit what the criminals "intentions" are, and I don't need to. The only thing I need to do is protect me and my own.
I may even agree to you, if you were not an american who actually thinks that stealing a dvd player (or even being on your property) is a threat to your family.
Funny thing is, i kinda feel threatend by you and i fear that my childs are in danger by your triggerhappiness. Should i come over and kill you, just in case?
And btw, having a WEAPON in your house has nothing to do with spine. On the contrary, its spineless.
|
On July 21 2012 06:39 r00ty wrote:I'll make a last post in this thread. I did some posting the last time this was up and read most of it, but the last pages. If you search a bit there are some really good posts amongst all the bullshit from both sides. (I don't mean mine, i'm a little ranter sometimes). I even kind of respect your right to a have a firearm in your house. I don't like it, i don't agree on it, but i'm too far away to really judge. The things that are really bugging me though are: Some states allow people carry automatic weapons + Show Spoiler +If i'm wrong here, i would be very happy! . An AR-15? For what? Another good example are .50 Cal Rifles. Did you know there are no Ultralisks in the US? I often also read about this fear of intruders. Anyone willing to kill a burgler to protect some money/dvd player/tv is batshit insane to me. If you roll that way, you need professional help IMHO. Also just ask yourselves: If you want to kill someone, what would you do? Break into his house at night? Of someone who might be a gun owner? Then you must be the most retarded killer to walk the earth. Comparing the US to Switzerland and other countries is just stupid. "Everybody has an AR there, that's why there's no crime herp derp". One question to this kind of argumentation: What about the crimerate and guncontrol in Japan? Well you can't really compare Japan and the US huh? Oh waaaiiit a second...
Most all modern guns are automatic weapons. You mean fully automatic? That's a different story, but if you have the tax stamp and a concealed carry permit, then you may. And I don't know any lawful owner who would be stupid enough to carry around an AR-15 or 30lb .50cal rifle for self defense. This isn't a warzone; most shootings happen within 7-10 yards or less so people carry handguns.
And on the intruder part, you'd be pretty stupid to sit there and think "hmmmmm... is this guy going to steal [insert item here] or rape my wife and kill my kids". Point is, you don't know what the intruder's intentions are to begin with and it's better to be on the safe side. Would you rather be "aww shit, my wife got raped and my kids murdered because I thought he was only going to steal my TV" or "thank God I shot the bastard to protect my family". Better safe than sorry.
|
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?
So not having a gun would make your daily life alot less easy? I assume you use your car to get to your job, the shopping mall, relatives, the cinema, travelling etc... Do you use your gun for anything other than... uhm, yes what do you use your gun for now again?
The counter-arguments are nearly as laughable as the people who are against gay marriage...
|
|
|
Government's killed over 200 million people in the 20th Century alone...where is the outcry to ban the Government from owning weapons? The US Government killed more than a million Iraqi's just in the last decade, and the outcry is over this? Disarm the people, arm the State! Brilliant.
|
On July 21 2012 06:48 Wegandi wrote:
Government's killed over 200 million people in the 20th Century alone...where is the outcry to ban the Government from owning weapons? The US Government killed more than a million Iraqi's just in the last decade, and the outcry is over this? Disarm the people, arm the State! Brilliant.
What?
|
On July 21 2012 06:43 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:35 semantics wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it. People already are allowed to own explosives, and are allowed to own all the materials necessary to make explosives or napalm. So yes? That's not at all right... Outside of business purposes the US government trys a lot to limit the availability of explosives and materials needed to create explosives, when it's not too inconvenient. Perhaps you should go and try to buy some c4 and come back to me when you got some legally. Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 21 2012 06:35 semantics wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it. Faulty logic. That's the point i was being fallacious, it's just an extrapolation of his logic, that we shouldn't punish the capacity for harm just the act of harm. Thus a natural progression is into high explosives.
No. Your logical extension is flawed due to a gross oversimplification.
|
On July 21 2012 06:48 Wegandi wrote:
Government's killed over 200 million people in the 20th Century alone...where is the outcry to ban the Government from owning weapons? The US Government killed more than a million Iraqi's just in the last decade, and the outcry is over this? Disarm the people, arm the State! Brilliant.
I don't think international politics is the question here... Taking away guns from the people won't change anything regarding how many people your military kills.
|
On July 21 2012 06:43 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:35 semantics wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 21 2012 06:24 Portlandian wrote:
If the problem with guns is that they are used to kill people why don't we just ban killing people? This is the most sensible post I've seen in days. I was saying the exact same thing in the foie gras thread. Foie gras should not be illegal, force-overfeeding animals with a tube should be illegal. It is the harm we must punish, not the capacity for harm. So People should be allowed to own napalm and high explosives after all they aren't guaranteed to kill people/blow up places with it. People already are allowed to own explosives, and are allowed to own all the materials necessary to make explosives or napalm. So yes? That's not at all right... Outside of business purposes the US government trys a lot to limit the availability of explosives and materials needed to create explosives, when it's not too inconvenient. Perhaps you should go and try to buy some c4 and come back to me when you got some legally.
I couldn't buy c4, but I would not have too much trouble getting my hands on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate
The average farmer is capable of wielding this dangerous substance responsibly.
|
On July 21 2012 06:45 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:41 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:38 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:34 Portlandian wrote:On July 21 2012 06:25 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:21 MaestroSC wrote: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:
[quote]
See the OP.
[quote]
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. Great idea. Let's just rely on the kindheartedness of criminals. The most frigtening thing I find about leftist ideology is it is apparent leftists put themselves in the shoes of the criminal when imagining these scenarios, not the innocent victim. The problem I have with most people's ''pro gun'' arguments is they feel like they have a RIGHT to own a gun AND who should die and who shouldn't. . 2. A person gives up their right to live when they threaten the lives of my family, IDK bout you but I have a spine and i'm certainly not just gonna lie down when the lives of my family at risk. I don't give a shit what the criminals "intentions" are, and I don't need to. The only thing I need to do is protect me and my own. I may even agree to you, if you were not an american who actually thinks that stealing a dvd player (or even being on your property) is a threat to your family. Funny thing is, i kinda feel threatend by you and i fear that my childs are in danger by your triggerhappiness. Should i come over and kill you, just in case? And btw, having a WEAPON in your house has nothing to do with spine. On the contrary, its spineless.
WTF are you even talking about. What does a dvd player have to do with anything?
Are you actually stupid enough to think that you know what a criminals intentions are? So let me get this straight.
Your house gets broken into, by and unknown amount of people carrying god knows what, and you say to yourself....
"well, most of all criminal break in's are theft related, let me just crunch some numbers here and come up with....oh yea, 13.6% chance of these guys actually having a murderous intent, those are good odds I think i'll just go back to sleep and hope for the best"
Some of you are so goddamn stupid it's actually baffling. I feel sorry for anyone that gets put into a situation like that and only has someone like you to go to for protection.
|
On July 21 2012 06:39 r00ty wrote:I'll make a last post in this thread. I did some posting the last time this was up and read most of it, but the last pages. If you search a bit there are some really good posts amongst all the bullshit from both sides. (I don't mean mine, i'm a little ranter sometimes). I even kind of respect your right to a have a firearm in your house. I don't like it, i don't agree on it, but i'm too far away to really judge. The things that are really bugging me though are: Some states allow people carry automatic weapons + Show Spoiler +If i'm wrong here, i would be very happy! . An AR-15? For what? Another good example are .50 Cal Rifles. Did you know there are no Ultralisks in the US? I often also read about this fear of intruders. Anyone willing to kill a burgler to protect some money/dvd player/tv is batshit insane to me. If you roll that way, you need professional help IMHO. Also just ask yourselves: If you want to kill someone, what would you do? Break into his house at night? Of someone who might be a gun owner? Then you must be the most retarded killer to walk the earth. Comparing the US to Switzerland and other countries is just stupid. "Everybody has an AR there, that's why there's no crime herp derp". One question to this kind of argumentation: What about the crimerate and guncontrol in Japan? Well you can't really compare Japan and the US huh? Oh waaaiiit a second...
Well said, I especially liked the part about the Ultralisks. This is one of those times where the European and American mentalities really diverge. In my opinion, the European mentality makes a lot more sense in this case. You don't use a gun to defend yourself, you use it to shoot something. Arguing about what lunatics do with guns and saying that is why we need them is foolish. If there are lunatics about, arming more people only escalates things - leave the shooting people to law enforcement. Why make it easier for the lunatics to get the guns in the first place? I reiterate what I said before - in the Bronx, where I live, most gun deaths are caused by guns brought from out of state, guns which were often bought legally and then sold to someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1511
324
281
281
EPT
