EPTIf you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
| ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On February 20 2012 04:56 Konaa wrote: The rate of murder by other means is also much higher than those countries.The guns aren't the problem, the people are. The guns are not the ONLY problem, but they are certainly part of the problem. You can't draw a clear line between murder rate and guns, because there are way too much other factors, but they are still linked together one way or another. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
All I know about regular citizens holding guns is that accidents happen, a lot. Being a med student I see it all the time, gun accidents are some of the worst possible, and they still don't save people from getting robbed at their homes. I feel that gun ownership takes a lot more lives than the typical armed robberies do. Jealous husbands shoot their wives, kids shoot themselves while playing around, wild bullet hits girl after a gang funeral. It's best not to have them imo, they're just dangerous. | ||
|
Khrey
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:01 mordk wrote: I don't see any point in having a gun. I know criminals have them, I know a criminal can come inside my house and threaten/kill me with them, but I still don't see the point. All I know about regular citizens holding guns is that accidents happen, a lot. Being a med student I see it all the time, gun accidents are some of the worst possible, and they still don't save people from getting robbed at their homes. I feel that gun ownership takes a lot more lives than the typical armed robberies do. Jealous husbands shoot their wives, kids shoot themselves while playing around, wild bullet hits girl after a gang funeral. It's best not to have them imo, they're just dangerous. in all those causes besides the kids getting hold of them and accidentally shooting themselves or another are cases where those people would still get guns... | ||
|
DOUDOU
Wales2940 Posts
On February 20 2012 04:49 DeepElemBlues wrote: as can be seen in a large number of countries around the world, no one but the government having guns is an open invitation to lethal government repression. are you scared of a dictator take over too? you guys really are sick in fear what are you implying with that statement? | ||
|
R3DT1D3
285 Posts
Other than that, gun control DOES NOT hinder criminals. | ||
|
Dizmaul
United States831 Posts
On February 20 2012 04:57 teddyoojo wrote: how does it happen your crime rates are higher in the first place? and its not like there are other reasons for a decline in crime rates. How is irrelevant to the debate, you can teach yourself about our history on your own time. The point is that if your assuming we have a higher crime rate directly because of guns, then how does crime decline with loosened laws? Like I said there are many factors to how and why our society operates. If the US wants to reach the same crime rates as the rest of the world we are never going to get there by just banning guns. The problem is much deeper. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:03 NotSorry wrote: in all those causes besides the kids getting hold of them and accidentally shooting themselves or another are cases where those people would still get guns... No they don't, we don't have a culture of getting guns, so apart from gang dudes, jealous husbands mostly don't have guns really. In my country, almost nobody has a gun, it's probably <1% of the populace. Not even most criminals have guns. Nobody likes them, and people just don't give a fuck about them. | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:05 mordk wrote: No they don't, we don't have a culture of getting guns, so apart from gang dudes, jealous husbands mostly don't have guns really. You know...jealous husbands can also stab their wives... | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
are you scared of a dictator take over too? you guys really are sick in fear Are you naive enough to think It Can't Happen Here ? what are you implying with that statement? That you're naive, and probably a fool, if you think that just because your government doesn't oppress you now that that government will never change or won't be replaced. In my country, almost nobody has a gun, it's probably <1% of the populace. Not even most criminals have guns. Nobody likes them, and people just don't give a fuck about them. So how, then, do you, as a med student, see gun accidents all the time? Inconsistent much? | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
On February 20 2012 04:53 Talin wrote: I don't doubt your ability to construct scenarios that were ideal for the point you're trying to make. Even in your scenario, however, nobody having a gun gives both me and the kids greater chances for survival and in my opinion gives me a better fighting chance as well (with a club-like object, for example). I, however, am talking about probabilities. Over a sum of ALL possible scenarios (yours being one of the least likely ones), I'm way better off if nobody has a firearm. This is not difficult to prove - the necessity for close range, the greater difficulty of causing lethal wounds, and basic psychology all make the scenario a lot more difficult for the attacker compared to him having an instant-kill-trigger he can activate in a fraction of a second. It's obvious really. Sure, in the scenarios where you can run away, running away is the best option. However, when you have to stand and fight, such as a serial killer standing between your children and safety, you're almost always better off holding and instant-kill trigger than taking on the intruder in a close range fight. The basic psychology, for instance, would favor the rougher character. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:06 allecto wrote: You know...jealous husbands can also stab their wives... Sure, or bang them in the head with an object, but it's less lethal most of the time. | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:04 R3DT1D3 wrote: I'm in favor of being able to own and carry again but only after a certain age with obvious procedure for that right. Other than age, the only time I'm not in favor of the right to own a gun is at schools/college campuses. I know too many crazy people in college to think that letting them also have a gun available is playing with fire. Other than that, gun control DOES NOT hinder criminals. Of cause gun control hinders criminals. Gun related homicide is 12 times lower in my country despite having comparable demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence). It is very hard, however, to control guns when every mom, dad, child and dog owns 5 assault rifles and a 50 cal magnum. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
I acknowledge the fact that the world would be safer without guns. But the world would also be safer without alot of other things, alcohol, drugs, cigarettes etc; hell campaign against those as I'm sure they have a larger impact on society. Forget the gunslinger, "I'mma protect ma home" mentality, what if I just want them? What's the problem? The only problem's I can see are that you want to: 1) Protect me from myself- Thank you. I appreciate that, but I'm fine. 2) Protect others/yourself from me- Hey man, if I wanted you dead there are a BUNCH of other ways to get you dead if you took guns out of the equation. You gotta ask yourself, "Are most of the people I know homicidal maniacs?" I'm going to venture a guess and say no. Well, that's a pretty consistent thing with people. I'm guessing you never want to kill anyone. Good. Me neither. I just like owning guns. You might like Poke'mon cards; personally I find them dumb but go ahead and keep buying for all I care. As for accidents, as you'll note above, I acknowledge that the world probably would be "safer" without guns at all, but the same is true for a lot of things. Speaking of accidents.... 3) Protect any prospective children in my house- On this note, yes, you are right in being concerned. That being said people who have Rottweilers and children concern me a bit more. I can put a trigger lock on my gun, and put it in a safe. Barring that I can even disassemble my weapon. This isn't REALLY an issue unless the parent is irresponsible, in which case they probably do something else stupid with their kids. I mean fuck, if you're dumb enough to keep a gun in the house with children and not have it well tucked away.... 4) You don't have a reason.- Any other explanation is a blatant imposition of your own image of the world on mine. Tough bro. I live here too and quite frankly I'm not planning on ever shooting anyone ever. Some targets or game? Sure, but that, once again, doesn't really concern you. It seems to me that Anti-gun people are more afraid of others than people who don't mind guns. Unless I missed a reason. In which case I'm open to changing my stance. If you want to own a gun, fine, if you don't, fine, I'm not out to push my view of the world onto anyone else. | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:08 Kimaker wrote: 3) Protect any prospective children in my house- On this note, yes, you are right in being concerned. That being said people who have Rottweilers and children concern me a bit more. I can put a trigger lock on my gun, and put it in a safe. Barring that I can even disassemble my weapon. This isn't REALLY an issue unless the parent is irresponsible, in which case they probably do something else stupid with their kids. I mean fuck, if you're dumb enough to keep a gun in the house with children and not have it well tucked away.... Doesn't happen to anyone until it actually happens. Dangerous stuff is still dangerous. | ||
|
DOUDOU
Wales2940 Posts
On February 20 2012 04:59 DeepElemBlues wrote: So why should members of the government, the one organization proven time and again historically to have the capacity and the will to carry out murder on an organized, systematic and systemic scale, be the only ones allowed to have guns? members of the government != police officers it's called the separation of powers (political, juridical, and executive) then again, most UK police officers don't carry firearms the government in big developed democratic countries doesn't have the power to organize mass murder, nor does it have any interest in it | ||
|
allecto
328 Posts
On February 20 2012 05:07 mordk wrote: Sure, or bang them in the head with an object, but it's less lethal most of the time. I'm sure OJ Simpson's dead wife would agree. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
| ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
| ||
