| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:41 Dfgj wrote: If you all have guns and are willing to shoot, why are home invasions common? Likely economic issues. Doesn't change the fact people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm. Grasping at straws? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:38 heliusx wrote: I can only guess you've never been to the states. And if you have you must live in a really nice place. Because where I'm at atm home invasions are really common and even more common is the police taking 30+ minutes to arrive. Of course we can always pretend that the police can instantly teleport and save you but obviously that's not the case. I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:45 farvacola wrote: I've lived in some of the most dangerous places in the US; this does not somehow equate itself with an anti-gun control viewpoint. I've seen a great deal of violent crime, specifically gunshot homicide, via growing up around my father's work as a forensic pathologist, and if you think the populations right to bear arms acts as some sort of "barrier" to widespread gun violence, you are clearly inexperienced with criminality. nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next? | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:44 heliusx wrote: Likely economic issues. Doesn't change the fact people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm. Grasping at straws? No, I'm wondering why if guns are the solution, they don't appear to actually be solving anything per your description except making invasions more likely to be lethal to one party. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:50 Dfgj wrote: No, I'm wondering why if guns are the solution, they don't appear to actually be solving anything per your description except making invasions more likely to be lethal to one party. Please read my above post then quote me where I said guns are the solution to violent crime. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:47 heliusx wrote: nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next? Now now, we know that learning the basics of debate and logical fallacy is an exciting time in a young boys life, but that does not excuse you from committing the very mistakes you so garishly point out in others. No one has suggested the removal of the right to bear arms; most are merely pointing out the utility in removing guns from circulation and making them, overall, more difficult to obtain. It took your childish exaggeration to stretch that into some constitutional referendum on basic rights, and now we are back at square one, with the definition of a "strawman" argument and an apparently self-righteous poster. Where shall we go from here? | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:59 farvacola wrote: Now now, we know that learning the basics of debate and logical fallacy is an exciting time in a young boys life, but that does not excuse you from committing the very mistakes you so garishly point out in others. No one has suggested the removal of the right to bear arms; most are merely pointing out the utility in removing guns from circulation and making them, overall, more difficult to obtain. It took your childish exaggeration to stretch that into some constitutional referendum on basic rights, and now we are back at square one, with the definition of a "strawman" argument and an apparently self-righteous poster. Where shall we go from here? strawman didnt work? moved on to the ad hominem? thats a common trend i noticed with your posting. If you took 5minutes to read the last page before you posted you would realize we actually were debating removal of guns from society as a whole. But of course that wouldn't support your random attack on me so why would you pay attention to that, it's easier to attack a post without context. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
| ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On October 14 2012 02:50 Dfgj wrote: No, I'm wondering why if guns are the solution, they don't appear to actually be solving anything per your description except making invasions more likely to be lethal to one party. Hence the DETERRENCE. Same way Singapore DETERS internal drug smuggling by having smugglers swing (executed). That's why we don't have pushers openly selling on our streets. To the nerds who think violent gangs like La eMe or Bloods will disarm. Come on, guys. Our laws mean nothing to those who already have done hard fu*king time in some of the worst prisons in the world and have no problem to just walk in anyone's home to slit open their throats, including children, they just need their leader's orders. Think these guys will surrender their gun stash after the laws are passed? Do you think police men will even ask after there is precedence of policemen having their relatives murdered/kidnapped/raped as retaliation for multimillion dollar drug seizures already. Do you think they are willing to risk their lives and their innocent relatives and family over $500.00 guns? Come on. Go to the bad places in London or Madrid, where gangs openly carry with no intervention from equally armed cops. Why? Most policemen fear for their families. Please go see the world more. You guys want safety, migrate to Singapore. Just prepare to leave your freedoms at our door. Freedoms like right to free speech, right to gather freely, right to self-defense, etc. | ||
|
Dontkillme
Korea (South)806 Posts
| ||
|
tokicheese
Canada739 Posts
As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot. The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit. | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On October 14 2012 14:24 tokicheese wrote: So I was heavily on the gun control side of the debate until my Dad and my brother went and got their fire arm licenses. I was skeptical of the whole thing but when they invited me to go shooting one weekend a few months ago I said sure no harm. As soon as we started I realized how much I actually loved shooting. It was actually so much fun to go out into the bush and target shoot. Hell the first time we went shooting we had a shotgun and a cheap SKS and that was crazy fun. I made some calls and got myself an appointment for getting my license the next week. We went out and bought a .30-06 Savage Arms 111 and that thing is such a treat to shoot. I think our next purchase will be a 10-22 for a cheap gun thats super cheap to shoot. The fact of the matter is guns are just a tool. If you are a responsible gun owner you are at little risk considering your car statistically is a death trap. They have a valid place for hunting, recreation and for personal defence the system we have in Canada is pretty much perfect imo. You need to have a license and certain weapons you can only shoot at the range and if your caught with a restricted weapon or pistol and your not heading to a range (and you sign in at ranges) you will get in deep deep shit. Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it. The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS! AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT! | ||
|
Sinensis
United States2513 Posts
EDIT The article said the same thing happened to a teacher last month so I guess it's not too uncommon a thing to do. Just weird in my opinion. | ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
On October 14 2012 14:45 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Yes, guns are basically pieces of metal that eject smaller pieces of metal at high velocity. That's it. The idea that a piece of metal turns you into some irresponsible manic is just... projection and fear of the unknown. I used to be anti-guns too, until I realized the above. Nothing reinforced this to me more than when I saw 1900s sermons demonizing... automobiles and telephones with the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS! AHMERGERD THEY'LL DESTROY SOCIETY AND PEOPLE WILL DIE AND IT'LL BE THE END OF HUMANITY AS WE KNOW IT! How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today. | ||
|
shizzz
Australia127 Posts
On October 14 2012 01:48 heliusx wrote: But how do we get rid of the guns in criminal hands? You've got to realize here in america guns aren't registered in most states because they don't have to be. They can be sold privately with no documentation therefore the government has not a clue who has what guns. Plenty of criminals get guns through straw purchases. And if the gun is recovered in a crime the guy who bought it pretty much only has to say he sold it. There are likely around 350 million known guns in the us. I can see where you are coming from in this post/others and can somewhat reason with you although I am happy living under strict gun control. The main point I understand you are (inadvertently?) making here is the right for all to bare arms with such ease will lead to a necessity for all to bare arms (yes i'm generalising somewhat there but you get the point). Perhaps this constitutional right could have been handled better but as many Americans have stated, as it stands there are too many guns and baddies with guns for the innocent to feel safe without their own for protection. In my opinion this doesn't make relaxed gun ownership right.. just possibly a viable solution as a result. Having said that, guns for everyone just in case the event arises civilians need to defend from the US govt/foreign invasion in this day and age just seems silly, i'm sure many wouldn't disagree with this though. Other countries with different laws and histories regarding gun ownership will find themselves in a different position when posed with the question of gun control, no question there at all. Does this mean either side is necessarily wrong? Maybe not, but in the views of those where gun violence isn't a major concern, where it hasn't been ingrained into the average citizen that gun control is a violation of their basic freedoms, it seems easy enough to see which option is favourable. On October 14 2012 02:47 heliusx wrote: nice strawman. You are cleary inexperienced in debating people based on their stance and statements. I never said guns reduce gun crime. I simply stated people should have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. Violence will happen even if people drive around M1 Abrams. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to defend themselves with a firearm. next? I'm genuinely curious, if there was a very very minimal chance of anyone with any ill intention towards you possessing or having access to a firearm, would you still feel compelled to own one for the purpose of self defense? I gather we can agree civilians driving a tank around for defense is excessive, though is there a situation everyday civilians with firearms stored in their homes for defense could be excessive? | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On October 14 2012 15:26 BreakfastBurrito wrote: How can you compare a method of communication and a method of transport to a device designed specifically to murder other humans, I'm not really seeing the comparison. Imagine if the father had used a bat instead of a gun, his son would probably be alive today. How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better. The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year. Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun. Feel better now? Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages. | ||
|
shizzz
Australia127 Posts
On October 14 2012 15:55 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: How does that change anything? By your logic, if guns were originally designed to shoot pests would make it better. Here, let me help you feel better. The first known use for gun powder was by the Chinese tracing back to 7th century as Amusement for the Emperor as fireworks and to scare away demons. Still in use today by Chinese to celebrate Chinese New Year. Along the way, the Chinese discovered that with enough mixture, could project a heavy object with enough force to injure or damage structure. See Medieval section. Resulting in the first cannon. Then the desire to shrink the technology eventually, after 1500 years (since 492AD), results in present day's handgun, smallest being mousegun. Feel better now? Something similar to the CIA discovering you could brainwash people with TV via subliminal messages. Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me... | ||
|
Hattori_Hanzo
Singapore1229 Posts
On October 14 2012 16:13 shizzz wrote: Post after post and still no kind of point I can really decipher.. The guy said the gun was designed to murder humans. You try to refute this by explaining the history of gunpowder up to the point it was weaponised and used in the first firearms.. which were used as a weapon against people. If i'm missing something here correct me... Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal. Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and its first main-stream use for gun powder was as fireworks. A harmless display of bright lights. Hope that helps. | ||
|
shizzz
Australia127 Posts
On October 14 2012 16:18 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: Sorry I'm flying over your head. Breakfast Burrito had an issue with the demonization of guns having the same arguments that cars and telephones faced as their designed purpose was non-lethal even though one could run over someone and call the police (who may or may not kill the perp). Thus, to make him feel better, I brought up the point that the invention of gun powder and main stream use for it was initially non-lethal. Hope that helps. If we were talking about gunpowder then yes, you would be correct. Breakfast Burrito, as well as the rest of the thread are talking about guns however.. the first recognised gun being the Chinese Fire lance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_lance (not initially designed to kill pests btw). | ||
|
CortoMontez
Australia608 Posts
Note: This is mostly intended as a rebuttal to the 'guns are tools' argument, since other 'tools' like cars are NOT designed to kill, but are designed for a constructive purpose. Also, a model for the regulation of guns is that which was adopted in Australia after the Port Arthur Massacre. Prior to PA guns were quite readily available, many without registration. When guns were essentially outlawed in Australia there was a buy-back scheme where the government would pay people for their guns during the amnesty period before the legislation took effect. This took a large amount of guns out of the hands of the population, which deals with one of the key arguments against gun regulation. Another common argument raised is that if you take guns off the civilians then only the criminals will have guns. Technically, that is true, however in Australia since PA, the vast majority of gun crime (and there is still very little of it) is between criminals, not between criminals and civilians. There are many reasons as to why this could be, including the harsh penalties for using guns in a crime, the fact that there is no need to use a gun against unarmed civilians, or criminals (thieves in this case) generally fleeing when they are caught by an unarmed homeowner, rather than attacking them. I feel that with households being unarmed, criminals will swap-out a gun for a balaclava since their primary concern will switch from being shot to being caught, which is much safer for both parties. (I would much rather be robbed than have loss of life, and I am sure most people would agree with me on that point). In relation to the actual case, although it seems to be unusual one in that being a retired police officer, he had significant experience and training with guns, it is actually far more ordinary. This is because shooting at someone you can't see clearly, and that you don't even know what they are doing, is quite obviously the wrong thing to do, and I think anybody with gun training would agree with me on that. So rather than it being a person without gun training, it was a person who disregarded their gun training, which is the same thing essentially. | ||
| ||
|
|
Stellar Fest
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
FEL
AI Arena Tournament
BSL: Ladder Tournament
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
herO vs Classic
Percival vs Rogue
BSL Open Qualifier
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
