|
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 06:55 Leth0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:52 Abusion wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Just for reference I do have a family. So do most people. If someone broke into my house I would phone the police not go down with a lethal weapon.
If you have a gun the best case scenario is they don't have a gun and GREAT pro gun wins you've protected your family because they walk out because you've got a gun and they don't. Second case they call your bluff and jump you in your panic you shoot them and injure/kill them. If not, they beat you and take your gun. OR the most, most likely option in the US where anyone who robs anywhere has a gun. You come down with a gun there's a stand-off. ONE of you is going to die. I'd rather not everyone had guns to rob people with and rather not put someone's life in my hands. If you can't see the logic in that you never will.
|
On July 21 2012 06:57 xrapture wrote:
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.
And that's the problem  You can't debate whether its a good idea or not, you blindly accept your RIGHT and defend it at all costs.
|
Step 1. Call police
Step 2. Get out gun
Step 3. Make sure family is safe.
Step 4. Wait for police unless you or family are not safe. If you or family isn't, confront intruder.
*Gun could be replaced with baseball bat or knife, but I think a shotgun would be more effective.
Are there any people who would argue I should do something differently? I'm not a cowboy just waiting, gun in hand, for an excuse to blow away an intruder.
|
That doesn't make it OK that some random guy is allowed to own at least 4 guns (2 pistols, a shotgun, an assault rifle, with extended magazines). What need do most of these law abiding citizens who go on a murderous rampage with their legally owned guns have for them? Do they own a Jewellery store in Harlem or something? Has an attempt ever been made to only license guns to "at risk" people? such as store owners who are presumably at higher risk of armed robbery and so on? I'd be curious to know about something like that.
I can understand an individual's need to defend themselves and so on, but the kind of gear this cinema shooter is reported to have legally owned is beyond absurd. Surely it goes beyond the line of owning *a* weapon for self defence and is heading towards having an arsenal of lethal weapons capable of empowering one coward to be able to efficiently kill vasts swathes of people.
I probably shouldn't have put my 2 cents into this discussion, but the USA seems like a very scary place  I see people here with their ultra gung-ho attitudes, arguing passiontately, insulting each other and likening the lethality of guns to a fork or a sword. Much of these people probably have guns, some of them are even boasting about their arsenal - its pretty worrying. When you consider this is only Team Liquid, I'm sure there are other legal gun owning americans out there which have far more dangerous attitudes towards guns.
Obviously America is a massive place, and bad things happen everywhere all the time - but I'm personally sick of hearing about the latest murderous gun rampage from the US every few weeks. Its just depressing to read about how these "seemingly normal" individuals with no criminal record owned an arsenal of weapons capable of killing 100s of people. Its depressing to read about an individual killing dozens of people, something only a gun (or something comparable - like a bomb) would allow them to pull off with such ease. Then I read TL (where I'd expect a more open minded attitude than say a cross section of the US public) and we have gung-ho have a go heroes in waiting likening guns to pencils and busting out that awful phrase about guns not killing people, people killing people.
Scary, scary place...
|
On July 21 2012 06:53 Portlandian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:44 nkr wrote: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
Lol this is so racist, black people are not murderer, but because in the USA they come from poor ghettos they are more at risk of commiting murder simply because of they're environnement, you put the same black family in a rich suburb and they will be less likely to commit murder and vice-versa with whites in ghettos. So the problem the remains why do these ghetto kids get access to guns so easily?
|
It's actually getting humorous how many anti gun fanatics fall back on the "criminals only steal tv.s nobody ever gets hurt" as if that even make's sense in our world with all the crazy fucked up shit that psychopaths are doing to people every day.
|
On July 21 2012 07:02 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:57 xrapture wrote:
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. And that's the problem You can't debate whether its a good idea or not, you blindly accept your RIGHT and defend it at all costs.
Yep, and I'll damn well guarantee you it's while we'll never be invaded. 
|
On July 21 2012 06:55 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:45 prochobo wrote: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.
Not really. How did you know it was a robbery in the first place? Also, robbery usually involves physical force, so you just screwed yourself there. A robbery commencing in my home, where physical force is used will be met with hot lead. If you meant burglary, then the argument is the same, how did you know it was just going to be a robbery?
There's a reason the Castle Doctrine exists. One of them is to protect people who otherwise would've been prosecuted for rightfully defending themselves. And we're not talking about paranoid people. It's anecdotal, sure, but every gun owner I know is not insane. They are trained and know never to confront and when it is right to even draw your weapon. If it were up to me, I wouldn't ban guns, but make a training class similar to the ones they give in concealed carry classes mandatory for all gun owners.
|
On July 21 2012 06:57 xrapture wrote:
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.
No one is telling you that.
I would tell you that you can't own an automatic assault rifle.
I'd tell you you have to abide the Brady Bill and undergo a background check before obtaining a weapon.
I'd tell you you can't carry your weapon around in public, concealed on your person.
This is gun control. No politician has ever tried to take basic firearms out of people's homes. It's about instituting some level of responsibility and, dare I say it, control. And yet with the Brady Bill and assault-weapon-bans, very reasonable forms of regulation, we've had to fight this kind of rhetoric where the nutters declare that the government is "coming to take our guns away!!!"
Why? Because the gun industry is large, healthy, and wants to stay that way. It's their business to sell as many guns as possible, large and small. And they have great grass-roots advertising via the NRA and right-wing mouthpieces. So any time you want to talk about gun control, you find yourself dealing with absolutes instead of practical thinking. "Guns don't kill people, people do." Brilliant garbage like that.
|
On July 21 2012 07:03 Le BucheRON wrote:
Step 1. Call police
Step 2. Get out gun
Step 3. Make sure family is safe.
Step 4. Wait for police unless you or family are not safe. If you or family isn't, confront intruder.
*Gun could be replaced with baseball bat or knife, but I think a shotgun would be more effective.
Are there any people who would argue I should do something differently? I'm not a cowboy just waiting, gun in hand, for an excuse to blow away an intruder.
This EXACTLY... and anyone who wants to tell you that you don't have the right, is fucking stupid, and most likely has never had anyone rely on them for their safety.
|
On July 21 2012 07:01 Abusion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:55 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:52 Abusion wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Just for reference I do have a family. So do most people. If someone broke into my house I would phone the police not go down with a lethal weapon. If you have a gun the best case scenario is they don't have a gun and GREAT pro gun wins you've protected your family because they walk out because you've got a gun and they don't. Second case they call your bluff and jump you in your panic you shoot them and injure/kill them. If not, they beat you and take your gun. OR the most, most likely option in the US where anyone who robs anywhere has a gun. You come down with a gun there's a stand-off. ONE of you is going to die. I'd rather not everyone had guns to rob people with and rather not put someone's life in my hands. If you can't see the logic in that you never will.
You clearly don't know anything about self defense with a firearm. Number 1 rule is that you will only confront wih a firearm in the event you plan on shooting them to death. There's no stand off. There's no hand to hand combat. There's you shooting them the second you see him until he stops moving. Real life isn't some video game or movie.
|
The reason the US has the most murders is because of our culture... generally, countries that have a more 'independen't attitude, have more crime, while countries where people care much more about being like everyone else instead of standing out, and shame is a much bigger factor, there is less crime.
In Japan, no one would dare become a thief, because the guilt from your family and friends, even your best friend, would be too much. Imagine if your best friend just went around saying bad shit about you and hated you, simply because you stole a twix bar or smoked up. In a lot of muslim countries, you can't even tell your best friend you aren't muslim, or else you'll be shunned by the entire community, and families and EVERYONE is muslim.
I've been to Asia, and I've been to third world countries, and I've been to islamic countries, and I can tell you, crime is much lower in places like East Asia and islamic countries because of this shame factor. There is a huge respect for authority, and you certainly won't find anything like a flash mob, performance art, street artists, et cetera.
It's just a trade-off. Many people in America tell their parents to fuck off, they don't believe in the religion their parents are anymore, and go do their own thing, be an actor, an artist, whatever. In Japan or Islamic countries, you'd NEVER see that. In America, someone walking down the street singing lady gaga at the top of his lungs wouldn't be too uncommon (sort of), but you'd never see something like that in Morocco.
As a result of this, in America, you have a lot more crime and drug use. There are no heroin addicts, and crack cocaine does not exist, in Japan - it's not because they are immune to addiction, it's because there is no demand for it, because japanese people would never touch drugs like that. In fact, hardcore IV methamphetamine usage is much more common in Japan than marijunana (less than 1% of people in Tokyo have tried it, even in Japan you have a couple crazies, just those crazies are the really crazy ones that you hear doing things like meth), and marijuana is so rare in Japan that people don't even know what a marijuana leaf symbolizes (i recall meeting some 20+ guy in Japan who had the whole rasta look, weed leaves, weed shirt, all that stuff, and when I asked him if he smokes, he was genuinely confused, and when I told him what that leaf meant, he was shocked and horrified lol).
In Japan, you have a lot less crime, but the crime is way more fucked up - murder suicides, teachers killing students, a man running a truck through Shinjuku's crowded streets to kill 20+ people and then running out with a knife and shanking everyone. They get unhinged in the 'bee hive' society. But on a whole, more people stay in line, and stay in order. In America, people are more inclined to be 'thugs', or go commit armed robbery, or do drugs (which tends to lead to violence).
In Japan, yes, handguns are illegal, but you can still own hunting rifles. Gun crime is very rare in Japan, still. In America, the overwhelming majority of crimes are committed with handguns, and despite it being possible to own sub-machine guns, fully automatic assault rifles (omg, seriously, nothing is more fun than shooting a mac-10 on full auto on that milk jug giving you the dirty eye, or an m-16 or ak-47...seriously), et cetera, they are very, very rarely responsible for crime.
In a lot of south american countries, guns are illegal, yet have much more gun crime than in the US.
Guns, like rocketry, is fun too, it's an enjoyable hobby. Please, before you bash guns, go to a local gun range and try them out.
Anways, here's one of many articles explaining this, but basically societies that value the group over the individual will have less crime. Sociologists have also done a lot of studies on this as well. Also, Japan will lock you away for a long fucking time if you commit crime, something that has been proven to be mildly effective at reducing crime. And some economists proved a correlation between allowing birth control and abortion, and lower crime rates (children born out of wedlock are more likely to commit crimes, and if birth control/abortion is not available, you will a lot more children born unwated, something that happens a lot more in the US than Japan and islamic countries - sexual culture has a lot to do with crime as well).
http://amblerangel.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/why-is-there-no-crime-in-japan-insider-vs-outsider-culture-lesson-12/
|
On July 21 2012 07:03 Carapas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:53 Portlandian wrote:On July 21 2012 06:44 nkr wrote: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. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm Lol this is so racist, black people are not murderer, but because in the USA they come from poor ghettos they are more at risk of commiting murder simply because of they're environnement, you put the same black family in a rich suburb and they will be less likely to commit murder and vice-versa with whites in ghettos. So the problem the remains why do these ghetto kids get access to guns so easily?
because poorer areas are more likely to have higher crime rates= more criminals= more illegal arms dealing.
if you think poor black kids are getting guns from bass pro shop and not their ghetto friend down the street you are on more drugs then they are.
I agree saying black people are inherently more likely to kill is insane, but people in poorer areas are more likely to commit crime. people who commit crime with firearms dont get them from BPS.
usually when you buy a gun for the purpose of committing crimes with it you dont want to give them your ssd, name, address, phone number, and a record of your past life.
|
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, or capable of making their own decisions.
Yea man, in safe places like Somalia, almost everyone carries guns, it makes for a much safer environment.
|
On July 21 2012 07:04 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 07:02 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:57 xrapture wrote:
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. And that's the problem You can't debate whether its a good idea or not, you blindly accept your RIGHT and defend it at all costs. Yep, and I'll damn well guarantee you it's while we'll never be invaded.
huh?
|
On July 21 2012 06:58 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 06:38 m4inbrain wrote: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:
[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. 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.
Of course, defend yourself as long as you want. But dont complain if thugs or mugger or whatever its called actually think they need to use their guns/weapons just to get away with it. Get it? As stupid as it may sound, you can actually make a mugger into a murderer. Im not saying hes a victim, but i know from own experience, that a gun gives you power (or at least the feeling) - even if you never intend to use it. Tell someone that you will shoot him as soon as he let go of you, what do you think he will do? You tell me. And no, you dont need to actually tell him, it just needs to become "standard" to have arms, so you can safely assume.
About your question, no, i would not rob a bank with alot of armed people there. On the other hand, i actually would come with explosives. Or even better, i would take a hostage BEFORE i show my gun to you, maybe put some explosives on his back (which, as i got here, are also legal? not sure there, but as a criminal i guess it doesnt matter). What now, put your gun down or i will kill that person, maybe blow us all up. Are you willing to take that chance? To kill a innocent person?
Its not just black and white, you know. And i cant even say, that in some way, everyone should be able to defend himself. But, not with guns, explosives, or other things that can actually turn a lunatic into a mass murderer (or a john wayne retard into a sheriff for 5 minutes, until he killed a teenager).
|
To prevent those shootings it doesnt matter what gun laws you have. Guns are out there, if a imbecile gone mad, he will find a way to get a weapon. Only a few weeks ago we had 5 killed by illegal obtained weapons in germany and there are more than enough killing sprees over the last years. Nobody should think that banning weapons will change anything about those rare incidents.
But what statistics show us is that crime/murder rates are higher in the usa, to stay on topic, then in other comparable countries in europe. As i believe numbers more than statements like 'everybody should carry a gun so nobody would take a risk and do a crime', i think banning guns would be a good thing for every country. But i dont think this would be possible to apply in the us - to many weapons are circulating.
to show some stats, http://chartsbin.com/view/1454
|
On July 21 2012 07:05 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 07:01 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:55 Leth0 wrote:On July 21 2012 06:52 Abusion wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Just for reference I do have a family. So do most people. If someone broke into my house I would phone the police not go down with a lethal weapon. If you have a gun the best case scenario is they don't have a gun and GREAT pro gun wins you've protected your family because they walk out because you've got a gun and they don't. Second case they call your bluff and jump you in your panic you shoot them and injure/kill them. If not, they beat you and take your gun. OR the most, most likely option in the US where anyone who robs anywhere has a gun. You come down with a gun there's a stand-off. ONE of you is going to die. I'd rather not everyone had guns to rob people with and rather not put someone's life in my hands. If you can't see the logic in that you never will. You clearly don't know anything about self defense with a firearm. Number 1 rule is that you will only confront wih a firearm in the event you plan on shooting them to death. There's no stand off. There's no hand to hand combat. There's you shooting them the second you see him until he stops moving. Real life isn't some video game or movie.
Ok. So why do you have the right to chose whether he should die or not?
|
On July 21 2012 07:04 xrapture wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2012 07:02 Abusion wrote:On July 21 2012 06:57 xrapture wrote:
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. And that's the problem You can't debate whether its a good idea or not, you blindly accept your RIGHT and defend it at all costs. Yep, and I'll damn well guarantee you it's while we'll never be invaded.
I'll give more credit to our Air Force. Just a little. I'm sure your militia is a sight to behold, though.
|
This debate all boils down to whether or not you value safety or you value freedom. Anytime you have more than one you have less of the other. Do you like a nany state, or do you like a minimalist government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
