|
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 06:43 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Aren't there also countries with lots of guns but much much lower gun crime rates though? This seems like a societal problem more than anything. Choosing to just tell people they can't own guns rather than trying to fix the broader issues causing the violence seems like a bad idea, almost like you are telling people they aren't responsible enough, or capable of making their own decisions.
|
On July 21 2012 06:49 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +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?
I'm tired of idiotic demagogue's who always come out in force whenever something awful happens to push a political agenda, when if they were consistent (ie. not a demagogue), they'd focus their attention on the people who actually mass-murder millions, but then again, most advocates of disarming the people are Statists, so they have no problem with the State having a standing army, etc.
Where are all the people calling for the abolition for Standing Armies? It seems to me, the only ones who care are libertarians, who understand the State, and not the buffoonish socialist-fascists who jump on any crisis to make us even more of serfs.
|
On July 21 2012 06:50 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:45 m4inbrain wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
So you think that a GROUP of people coming into your house with guns is gunna save you if you have a gun? Lets me just get that straight before I run into a wall because I've lost faith in humanity.
|
On July 21 2012 06:44 tonning wrote:
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.
I'm pretty sure that's the idea. Defending your self against someone who has the intent of hurting or killing you.
|
On July 21 2012 06:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:43 semantics wrote: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_nitrateThe average farmer is capable of wielding this dangerous substance responsibly.
How is this a counter argument hat the government when it's not too inconvenient trys to ban or limit the availability of explosives and explosive compounds. All you're doing is reaffirming that yes when something has good business use it's quite available esp to the business community.
|
On July 21 2012 06:50 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:43 sereniity wrote: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. Aren't there also countries with lots of guns but much much lower gun crime rates though? This seems like a societal problem more than anything. Choosing to just tell people they can't own guns rather than trying to fix the broader issues causing the violence seems like a bad idea, almost like you are telling people they aren't responsible enough to make their own decisions.
Well said! You tackle crime by looking at psychology and sociology, not by banning objects. Equating gun ownership with crime is the most blatant and oft-repeated correlation-causation fallacy around.
|
On July 21 2012 06:44 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +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
White Americans commit murder at a rate about the same as White Swedish, White Canadians, White French, etc.
The comparably high murder rate in America is because the USA is a diverse nation with drastically different demographics than most of Europe.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1Ak82.png)
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm[/QUOTE]
|
didnt read the whole thread so apologize if this came up already but i find the issue is pretty simple. i personally dont own a gun at the moment but i defend the right to own one for two reasons:
1. to defend ourselves from the government if god forbid it ever became necessary
2. to protect ourselves from the people who will obtain a gun regardless of their legality. in my experience all humans have evil tendencies and more than we think endulge these tendencies, so why should the good suffer.
if you wanna argue with that feel free, but then i feel bad for you on a whole other level
|
On July 21 2012 06:45 prochobo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Having a gun does not make you any safer in this case. You just took a robbery and escalated it to a gun fight. sane people don't go around killing for no reason. Insane people will find ways to kill without using guns if they have to. the "people coming to get you in the night" argument is pure paranoia.
|
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.
Nice strawman you got there. Grow a brain. If someone breaks into my house when I'm home, I have to assume he can endanger me and my family.
|
On July 21 2012 06:50 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:45 m4inbrain wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Don't shoot anyone unless you are actually in danger. Call the fucking police. Do not confront anyone.
Don't put on your cowboy hat and shoot a bunch of unarmed teenagers carrying a television. It isn't difficult.
|
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.
Wrong yet again. You can buy DD's (destructive devices) which included explosives as long as you get a tax stamp for each round. DD's include mortars, hand grenades, 40mm HE rounds, etc. . . All you need to do is find a dealer, and plop down $200 per round for the tax stamp, wait 6 months, then go get your stuff.
What's even more amazing to me is that you can buy Raufoss rounds legally without any paperwork. That stuff has RDX in it :O
|
On July 21 2012 06:52 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:50 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:45 m4inbrain wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So you think that a GROUP of people coming into your house with guns is gunna save you if you have a gun? Lets me just get that straight before I run into a wall because I've lost faith in humanity.
You can't even read, what makes you think you know what they have?
I said 'unknown amount of people carrying god knows what".
The point is you don't waste time hoping that they are just there for a fucking tv because your families life is LITERALLY in danger. It's all too obvious that you don't have a family because you're more worried about arguing then making sense.
|
On July 21 2012 06:50 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:45 m4inbrain wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
As i already said. As far as i can think back (and im 30 years old), there was no murder involved in a break in, because someone woke up or something.
But i tell you what i DO know now. If i were a intruder with the intention to actually just steal your TV, just by knowing how you (and seemingly most other us-citizens) tick, i would actually attack you just in case. Maybe theres the problem: i cant even fathom how deep this john wayne complex goes.
|
On July 21 2012 06:55 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:50 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:45 m4inbrain wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Don't shoot anyone unless you are actually in danger. Call the fucking police. Do not confront anyone. Don't put on your cowboy hat and shoot a bunch of unarmed teenagers carrying a television. It isn't difficult.
You have the right to defend your property. Pretty simple.
|
What about swords?
And knives?
And spoons?
|
No one is going to tell me I can't have a gun in my home to protect myself and my family and that's the bottom line.
|
On July 21 2012 06:38 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:30 stevarius 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:On July 21 2012 05:17 prochobo wrote:
[quote]
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. This argument actually made me laugh my ass off. So, you're pretty much trying to make the statement that if the criminal party has a gun, and the victim does not in various scenarios, that there will NOT be an injured party because the criminal didn't feel the need to use it other than for committing the crime? That seems exactly what you're implying, but what you fail to understand is that MANY crimes involving a firearm also end up in injury or death for an unarmed victim. You're already on the wrong side of the barrel and are essentially playing your odds as to whether you will continue to live or not. There is more certainty in being able to TRY and defend your life rather than being hopeful that you won't be injured or even killed by someone who already has the nerve to commit a crime against you with a firearm. If i hold a gun to your head, and you try to pull your own one out, theres only one certainty. You WILL die, because you never ever will be fast enough to get me. I would rather hope that hes just interested in my money, and not in taking my life, and give it to him with as much ease i could possibly have. Then again, im not american. Im not used to the concept to take justice in my own hands. Which is the most stupid concept ever, just to be clear here.
I hope you're not equating self-defense with some sort of vigilante-style justice...because those are two completely different things. Are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves from thugs? The police aren't always going to be there. If they are, great...they can take care of things. But they're not omnipresent. For example, in Canada under certain conditions it is both legal and appropriate to defend yourself.
Yes in that one narrow situation it probably wouldn't be a good idea to take your gun out, but there are countless other situations where a group of people could come to your aid before that happened or to apprehend him/her after; and if criminals know that people have firearms and some basic training they could act as a deterrent to the crime happening in the first place.
Its just simple logic. Would your motivation to rob a bank go up or down if you knew that most people owned guns for self-defense? Would the probability of success go up or down in your mind, knowing that most people had guns?
You're never going to be able to defend against maniacs that spray a large group of people with an automatic rifle. But you can take them out earlier. You may not always be able to use your gun, but more often than not you're going to act as a deterrent.
|
On July 21 2012 06:56 Asmodeusx wrote:
What about swords?
And knives?
And spoons?
Holy shit you just blew all our minds.
|
On July 21 2012 06:43 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Other countries are not the United States. History teaches lessons. It taught us when you tell Americans they can't do/have something, they flip you the bird and do it anyways. Example: Al Capone/Drug Cartels. We have a rebellious nature bred into us banning guns will just create black markets for the shit and people will buy it anyway. Get everyone trained in combat and owning weapons and the pussies who go around shooting innocents will be to scared to fire at armed targets.
On July 21 2012 06:58 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:56 Asmodeusx wrote:
What about swords?
And knives?
And spoons? Holy shit you just blew all our minds.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
