People should stop protecting guns

[Aaron Sylvester]

This is something I've been interested in recently. Being Canadian I'm not too involved or affected by the whole gun debate, but for educational reasons I've been wondering how the black market price of a gun fits in with the other statistics.

A common rebuttal against gun control is that if you take guns away from honest law abiding citizens then only criminals will have them, but while that's true no on ever looks at or considers how much a gun actually costs for a 'criminal' and how legal availability or various gun control laws effect this. Using two opposite extremes would it cost $100 to buy a gun on the street in the US, but $10,000 in Japan? I have no idea, with Japan being an example of an isolated 1st world island country with the strictest of gun control laws the difference must be something like that. The reality of this difference is that in the US every gang banger or determined hobo can get a gone on the streets, while in Japan at that price you're more limited to only mob bosses or professional hitmen having them.

I've also been wondering about this, when people play the "but then only criminals will have guns" argument they are assuming that guns will still be obtainable as cheaply & easily as sliced bread. This blows my mind. The mentality in US is basically built around assuming that millions of guns will always be in circulation around the country, and taking guns away from the civilians will "leave more" for criminals. Holy shit. It's as if guns are flour bags, or milk cartons.

Secondly, the "I need guns to defend myself & my family" argument also blows my mind. These opinions are coming from a politically stable FIRST WORLD country - not fucking Somalia, not Syria, but none other than US. I cannot fathom crime rates being so incredibly high that so many people feel the need to own guns for self defense. How often do you people keep getting attacked by burglars/thieves?? Once a week? Again, this attitude is based around the fact that there are enough guns in circulation around the country so people can use them like disposable nappies.

There has to be a way to make guns rare enough to be considered a LUXURY, not a NEED so that neither criminals nor civilians can get their hands on them. There has to be a way to severely cut-down the number of guns in circulation. Civilians will have to pass thorough background checks and testing, their guns should cost $800-1500 each. In the black market things cost 5-10x more, so even criminals will hold them in high regard. Over-the-counter sales should be an offense punishable by prison sentences to the seller/buyer, that shit is stupid.

Americans, you have a right to own firearms. Sure. But you will have to pay a price to acquire one, go through hell and back to prove yourself worthy of owning one - and that will make you value your weapon that much more so you will keep it nicely locked-up and only use it for hunting/whatever.

Over here we have police do background checks with the gun owner, family, friends, etc to make sure the person is mentally stable and they also come to the house to confirm that there is a secure gun safe (not just any safe, a proper certified gun safe) properly bolted/screwed to the wall/floor. The process can take weeks. And we had to do all that buy a .22 rifle for rabbits -_-

That's how it should be.

 

[lechat]

just found out today that since the gun law changes in autralia 16 years have passed without another massacre and gun related deaths have halved
i will admit that is not the full picture since gun related deaths have been on the decline in australia for a century but just throwing it out there

 

[WanderingFool]

People should stop protecting guns

People should stop making these threads.

Any reason why this warranted its own thread? Rather than posting it in the multitude of other threads we have floating around here?

This argument is completely pointless, since pro-guns people will continue to use slippery-slope fallacies, and anti-guns people will continue to use false equivalence fallacies.

No minds are ever changed, and no one ever gets anywhere.

/thread.

Now, as the Escapist moves in a cycle of topic, could we please move to the next topic of controversy? This is gonna go along thew lines of Women Vs. Tropes...

 

[Aaron Sylvester]

Now, as the Escapist moves in a cycle of topic, could we please move to the next topic of controversy? This is gonna go along thew lines of Women Vs. Tropes...

Oh no god please no, anything but that retarded topic. I'll take these gun discussions over those feminist "controversies" any day

 

[Fappy]

People should stop protecting guns

People should stop making these threads.

Any reason why this warranted its own thread? Rather than posting it in the multitude of other threads we have floating around here?

This argument is completely pointless, since pro-guns people will continue to use slippery-slope fallacies, and anti-guns people will continue to use false equivalence fallacies.

No minds are ever changed, and no one ever gets anywhere.

Quoted for the fucking truth.

A. There are already too many threads about this

B. All of these threads belong in R&P

I hear enough about this debate IRL and on Facebook every single day. I don't want to see it all over OT too.

EDIT: Fuck yeah on two Darker than Black avatars posting in a row!

 

[tangoprime]

Anyone who tries to defend civilians owning automatic weapons, or allowing guns in public places is such a %^&&$# &&^%$ it's beyond belief.

US gun regulations are a joke, it's not violent games, it's not violent movies or music it's the fact you let anybody who can print his own name own a weapon that can mow dozens of people down in a matter of seconds. There is no reason why anyone outside the army needs to own an automatic weapon or take a hand gun on a public bus. NONE!

Go-go-gadget anecdote:

A few months ago, a friend of mine from Pennsylvania came to the aid of a woman being mugged by a man with a knife in a public parking lot (or parking garage? can't remember which). He was armed with a legally carried Glock, and was able to detain the knife-armed mugger without violence until police arrived several minutes later. Tell me how that plays out in your scenario of no legally armed private citizens in public?

 

[Giyguy]

Is it just me, or is the TC's argument not very well thought out. I know he had to think to come up with a list, but he didn't really think all the way.

a pistol, the lesser weapon, isn't a self defense weapon, but the shotgun, which is used as an assault weapon by the fucking S.W.A.T. in raids and can take out a door in at least 2 shots is considered a self defense weapon?! the fuck, do you think that the best weapon to defend your country from in-the-country attackers is a nuke or something?

 

[Daveman]

Insert standard "not another one of these threads" response. Then continue the argument.

Another one?

Did you really need to bring up your criticisms in a new thread, instead of posting in one of the 1,232,532 other gun threads currently lurking around on this site? You really want to debate about it, why don't you got to the R&P section? Otherwise, this thread is very redundant as compared to many, many other active gun threads.

As for your points...

1. Am I really harming a paper target or clay pigeons if I go out to the range and shoot them? Recreational shooting leads no harm to anybody, as long as you follow basic gun safety and the instruction of range master.

Use a gun that's kept at the range? Though tbh with shotguns and rifles I'm actually sort of alright with people having them, so long as they're designed so they're only effective at hunting and not going into a public area and letting loose on everyone there and of course there's a rigorous licensing procedure. Double barrel shotgun, fine for clay pigeons but after two shots you've got a reasonable downtime while you need to reload. You can go on a shooting spree, but it's a lot harder.

2. Most people who get shot live to tell the tail. 80% of people who are not shot once in instantly fatal places (heart and the head) live to tell the tale. The ones who die, die because they bled out.

Though obviously 20% of people is still worse than nobody dying due to getting shot.

3. Appeal to Popular Belief.

4. Or can lead to situation where the "average joes" are disarmed, while all the crooks, who's purchases of firearms are NOT reported to anyone, wouldn't be disarmed. See spike in crime in DC after pistol ban.

5. Why not? If I shoot someone invading my home with an AR-15, a colt .45, or a 12 gauge, why is one self defense and one isn't? While shotguns, in most cases, can be better home defense weapons, but not in all cases. Shotguns are fairly heavy, and have a large amount of kick to them. Older people with health problems may not be able to lift a shotgun up to defend themselves, or the recoil my hurt them. My father just had open heart surgery, and in his present state, the recoil of a shotgun might KILL him. A pistol would not be a problem.

6. I will have to agree, although people who commit crime with shotguns and rifles are used in such a low percentage of crimes I don't see much reason to ban the practice.

7. See #5.

I agree with virtually all of this. Still anti-guns though. It all comes down to whether you believe in the death penalty without trial for lots of relatively banal crimes. If you believe it is right to use a gun on people who break into your home then you believe it's fine to kill them as you may indeed hit them in the heart, hence this person gets the death penalty for attempted burglary. Allowing any gun for the purpose of self-defense is equally bad in my eyes, pistol or assault rifle, so I wouldn't let the average joes have them and obviously I'd try to stop the crims from having them too. I mean it's just where you stand morally I suppose and regardless of my opinion ultimately it is up to the USA to decide on their own. I know a lot of the gun lobby likes to argue about america having low violent crime as a justification for their horrendous gun murder statistics.

Self-defense laws irritate and flummox me. I'm not a violent person and my natural response to a fight is to immediately surrender. Some would say that's cowardly but I'd say there's just nothing that would make me actually want to fight somebody, even them trying to fight me. I was recently in jury service here in the UK and the guy on trial had broken a guys cheek bone and knocked him unconscious for either accidentally bumping into them in a nightclub or swinging and missing at them depending on who you listen to. The guy pleaded self-defense and the definition is basically did he FEEL in danger, in which case he'd get off. People can feel in danger if they get looked at funny, I don't think that's reason enough to knock anyone out though. Clearly we have issues over here in the UK about these things but fortunately we have WAY fewer guns and so WAY fewer self-defense killings. Anyway, that's why I don't think a gun for self-defense is justifiable. Sure there are rare cases where somebody is out to kill your entire family but again you can't KNOW they're going to do that, they might just be trying to nick your telly.

Within the United States, the only way you could actually enforce a full-on ban (revoking the 2nd Amendment) on all guns would be to get warrants to search ever single house in the country (the Constitution states that the Government, Federal or State, cannot search someone's home without a warrant), or completely dismantle the constitution as a whole.

So guns would at least have to stay on the grounds of it being too hard to get *rid* of them. Or one party could completely dismantle the constitution and basically commit political mass suicide, but that's a pretty unlikely option.

Legalise all drugs because you can't get rid of all of them, you'd need to search every home in the country.

 

[J Tyran]

Military/law-enforcement-grade weapons/accessories do not need to be accessible by the public.
There are no arguments that can be made.

There are 2 states that do not let people pump their own gas (because it is flammable), yet still uphold the second amendment.

Read up the definition of "amendment".. there is no reason why it can't be amended again.

Sure there are arguments that can be made, I live in one of the states that doesnt let you pump gas (I do anyway but thats a different matter) and I just bought one of these:

(Damn a semi auto 12 guage with 20 round drums is a beast)

But you know why I own one? (other than my job as armed security) Is because I know how to handle it, I treat it with respect, and my owning it is not putting anyone in danger (other than some fool who breaks into my house).

That little beauty wont jump out of its locker and go on a rampage if I forget to lock it down, it wont decide one day 'fuck this asshole, ima shoot him!' because it has no motive of its own, it does what I make it do.

Here lies the problem. You're treating this weapon as something of beauty. The "right to bear arms" is so deeply rooted in your mind for some reason that you will never see any other point of view.

Now, of course the argument can be made that responsible people will make sure nothing bad ever happens. However you're ignoring that fact that this still leaves open a liability... a small chance, but in a country of 300mil, even a small percentage is too much.

Why do you need this gun? I suppose art, nature, science, literature just have anything to keep you occupied with your time?

Let me add... it's true not all places are lucky enough to have low crime. I don't think there's anything wrong with being allowed to keep some sort of firearm for self-defence. But no one needs military grade weapons to defend themselves.

If you need an M4 carbine, you have bigger problems.

It's true, criminals will always be able to obtain these guns, but restricting guns will help.

You live in the United States... perhaps I am not accustomed to the culture, but I can tell you in Canada and many other countries (including Bosnia) people function just fine without the need for keeping such powerful guns.

You missed the other thing he mentioned, how the use (or threat of) lethal force is seen as an acceptable way of dealing with property crime. Its been shown again and again how some American gun owners must sit awake at night dreaming of the day they might get to actually be the victim of property crime so they can actually get to kill someone legally.

Hell they even dream of the day their neighbours get to be the victim so they get to kill somebody. Note that I am not painting all Americans with this brush but time and time again its be shown they do exist.

 

[5ilver]

I'm not from America and I don't think guns are bad. In fact, I think they should be legalized elsewhere as well. People will kill eachother with or without guns- the only difference is whether an 8-year old knows what the safety looks like or not.

 

[Xanex]

I've also been wondering about this, when people play the "but then only criminals will have guns" argument they are assuming that guns will still be obtainable as cheaply & easily as sliced bread. This blows my mind. The mentality in US is basically built around assuming that millions of guns will always be in circulation around the country, and taking guns away from the civilians will "leave more" for criminals. Holy shit. It's as if guns are flour bags, or milk cartons.

There are about three times more registered guns in private ownership the US than people living in the UK. The key word in the last sentence is "registered". The exact number in the hands of criminals is unknown. So yes guns are freaking everywhere here and thats not taking accoount of all the guns in police/government hands.

Secondly, the "I need guns to defend myself & my family" argument also blows my mind. These opinions are coming from a politically stable FIRST WORLD country - not fucking Somalia, not Syria, but none other than US. I cannot fathom crime rates being so incredibly high that so many people feel the need to own guns for self defense. How often do you people keep getting attacked by burglars/thieves?? Once a week? Again, this attitude is based around the fact that there are enough guns in circulation around the country so people can use them like disposable nappies.

There are in fact people who do legally defend themselves with guns. In fact there were a few in the last few months. A mother with 2 childern and also a young boy with his dad's (evil) AR-15 defended himself and his little sister. But the main media outlets subscribe to the gun control agenda so those stories don't get much play.

Statistically your house probably won't catch fire, so you don't need a fire extinguisher in your home right? Wrong. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. Same with a gun to defend yourself and home.

There has to be a way to make guns rare enough to be considered a LUXURY, not a NEED so that neither criminals nor civilians can get their hands on them. There has to be a way to severely cut-down the number of guns in circulation. Civilians will have to pass thorough background checks and testing, their guns should cost $800-1500 each. In the black market things cost 5-10x more, so even criminals will hold them in high regard. Over-the-counter sales should be an offense punishable by prison sentences to the seller/buyer, that shit is stupid.

Every single time the US government has banned or illegalized something is has failed spectacularly in enforcement of it. There are entire history book series detailing how badly it failed. The US gov cannot even stop the drug flow from either border. What makes you think that they could magically stop something when history has proven is cannot.

Everytime when banned or illegalized the activity went underground and still continused to run. And the illegal gun market is already in operation in the US which is how criminals with a history get their guns. Because it is already illegal for a convicts felon to buy/own/possess a gun yet they can still get them.

Over here we have police do background checks with the gun owner, family, friends, etc to make sure the person is mentally stable and they also come to the house to confirm that there is a secure gun safe (not just any safe, a proper certified gun safe) properly bolted/screwed to the wall/floor. The process can take weeks. And we had to do all that buy a .22 rifle for rabbits -_-

That's how it should be.

And for your last point I have one question.

Can criminals in your country have still get guns after all that? Yes. Yes they can.

 

[DrOswald]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

Correction, there is no practical purpose for a gun other than to wound or kill. There are, however, a number of other non-practical purposes for a gun, such as a collection piece or recreational shooting. Similar to how the only practical purpose of a sports car is to go faster than the law allows, but there are other non-practical reasons for owning such a vehicle.

Also, there is a great deal of discussion that could be had on if a gun is "safe" depending on the definition of "safe" that is used. With the proper precautions a gun is not dangerous. The function of a tool does not necessarily have anything to do with the danger it poses.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

Agreed.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

Not entirely accurate, but I agree on the general point.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

What you said here is that making it more difficult for the average joe to get a gun is a good argument against gun control. I think you may have meant to opposite. Is that correct?

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

Disagree. What is the distinction here? Why must it be a shotgun? What is the difference in your mind?

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

I will agree with this, but I must stress that the reason this is true is because carrying a larger weapon is impractical for this purpose and will cause a disruption of the peace.

Any weapon can be defensive depending on the situation. Everything from assault rifles to an improvised club.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.

Do you mean to say that owning a hunting rifle in suburbs or a city is bad? Because if that is it I will have to disagree. Many hunters live in suburbs and therefore own a hunting rifle.

Question for you:

The vast majority of gun crime is committed using pistols. This is because a pistol is ideal for the situations in which gun crimes take place. They are easily concealed, they are much easier to use than a rifle or shotgun when firing at a short range, and they are cheap. And yet many people are scrambling to ban assault rifles when rifles account for less than 4% of gun crimes and are much more difficult to use in most crimes (because they are difficult to use in very close quarters, they are difficult to conceal, and they are far more expensive.) It seems to me that people are going about this incorrectly. It seems to me that if we are going to tighten gun laws we should restrict the sales of pistols, not assault rifles. What is your opinion on banning assault rifles?

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

Correction, there is no practical purpose for a gun other than to wound or kill. There are, however, a number of other non-practical purposes for a gun, such as a collection piece or recreational shooting. Similar to how the only practical purpose of a sports car is to go faster than the law allows, but there are other non-practical reasons for owning such a vehicle.

Also, there is a great deal of discussion that could be had on if a gun is "safe" depending on the definition of "safe" that is used. With the proper precautions a gun is not dangerous. The function of a tool does not necessarily have anything to do with the danger it poses.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

Agreed.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

Not entirely accurate, but I agree on the general point.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

What you said here is that making it more difficult for the average joe to get a gun is a good argument against gun control. I think you may have meant to opposite. Is that correct?

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

Disagree. What is the distinction here? Why must it be a shotgun? What is the difference in your mind?

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

I will agree with this, but I must stress that the reason this is true is because carrying a larger weapon is impractical for this purpose and will cause a disruption of the peace.

Any weapon can be defensive depending on the situation. Everything from assault rifles to an improvised club.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.

Do you mean to say that owning a hunting rifle in suburbs or a city is bad? Because if that is it I will have to disagree. Many hunters live in suburbs and therefore own a hunting rifle.

Question for you:

The vast majority of gun crime is committed using pistols. This is because a pistol is ideal for the situations in which gun crimes take place. They are easily concealed, they are much easier to use than a rifle or shotgun when firing at a short range, and they are cheap. And yet many people are scrambling to ban assault rifles when rifles account for less than 4% of gun crimes and are much more difficult to use in most crimes (because they are difficult to use in very close quarters, they are difficult to conceal, and they are far more expensive.) It seems to me that people are going about this incorrectly. It seems to me that if we are going to tighten gun laws we should restrict the sales of pistols, not assault rifles. What is your opinion on banning assault rifles?

4 you're right
5 shotgun has been proven to be the most capable home defense weapon, a shotgun blow would incapacitate an assailant not even necessarily killing him, there would be less room to struggle and the gun by itself is a lot more imposing than a handgun.
7 no I mean having a hunting rifle in a loft in new york city centre should not be something we look at and say "oh yes this makes perfect sense" (again i've no clue about individual state gun laws but this is the most visible comparison one can make)

To answer your question, I personally feel assault rifles shouldn't be available to the general public at all, it's my opinion and we can disagree on it but to me like the hunting rifle in NYC idea I see no logical explanation why anyone should be allowed to have one, sure a collectors item is all well and good but why do you need a fully servicable/working gun if you're a collector?
Because if we're allowing Assault rifles to the general public on these grounds I would argue it's not wrong for anyone to own a rocket launcher either now you either agree that it makes perfect sense that one should own a rocket launcher (Because it's a gun like any other) or you can agree to the fact that a civilian with an assault rifle is a bit odd.

I agree that Americans should have their own say in what they can and cannot do, but with some things I just want to ask "why? do you really not see why people might frown upon this?"

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

When a person values an inanimate object used for killing over the life of a real person currently living that person is clearly insane and their votes and opinions should therefore not count. This is clearly a messy, complicated issue but seriously?

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

snip

I'm English, here are my thoughts on the matter.
1. Guns are indeed designed to kill people. However shooting is also a recognised sport, or rather category of sports. (Target and clay pigeon for example)
2. Agreed.
3. That is the general consensus but I disagree personally. Guns aren't bad. People do bad things with guns. Guns were designed to kill, but as I've mentioned shooting is a popular sport.
4. Trying to organise my thoughts on this point is very difficult at this moment in time because it's a complex issue. It's not as straight forward as most people think.
5. I don't understand how a shotgun is a self-defence weapon but any other firearm isn't. Also, pistols are generally semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are extraordinarily difficult to obtain in the US as far as I'm aware.
6. As far as I'm aware, anyone carrying anything other than a pistol they are licensed to carry is looking at a looooooooong prison sentence.
7. What if these people drive to wooded areas to hunt? Or drive to ranges to shoot?

And now some extra thoughts that have been rattling around.
Banning guns in the US will do nothing. For one, it's against the constitution and I actually think the 2nd amendment is a pretty intelligent piece of work. Also, the guns are already out there in wide circulation. Banning guns isn't going to make those already out there magically disappear. Sure, some people will hand in their guns. Others won't.

Part of my plan for the future is to get a firearms certificate and a solid, reliable rifle. Why? Should shit hit the fan and the U.K. is invaded, or civil war break out, or some other incredibly unlikely situation occur, I want to be armed. That is only part of the reason I desire a rifle however. I happen to enjoy target shooting, and have done so for years with an air rifle. I also happen to think that rifles are magnificent and fascinating pieces of design and engineering.

It is worth mentioning however, that I think civilians carrying pistols on the street is a terrible idea and that easy access to firearms is a bad idea. You should have to prove that you are sane and capable of handling a firearm before you are allowed to purchase them. However, the government should not be the regulatory power in this instance. It should be an independent entity with no political agenda.

and as an aside: despite saying you are neither for or against guns, you do come across as anti-guns. Personally I consider myself pro-sensible-gun-use.

If this post seems incoherent and/or nonsensical in part or in full, it's because I haven't slept for quite some time. At least 24 hours.

on point 5, I'm not saying it's the only one, I'm saying it's the best tool for the job and the only one I've ever heard someone put down reasonable arguments for.

Although he wasn't meaning civilian use some other bloke mentioned machine guns are used for suppression fire rather than efficient murder tools (I somewhat agree and disagree with that statement but it's a personal oppinion)

The idea of the shotgun as home defense tool is simply that it is meant to incapacitate in the same way a machine gun is meant to suppress.

It's not a big haul but it's a reasonable argument.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.


Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.


[sub]the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns[/sub]

I'm all up for people to stop feeling the need to protect guns.

How about, I don't know. People take responsibility for their actions?

Such a preposterous idea, I know.

I must offer you tea at least, I think you make a very reasonable case for yourself here.

 

[GamemasterAnthony]

*sighs at this whole thread*

Guys...let's look at it this way...

In the hands of a man filled with rage, the gun is used as a means to vent that rage and cause pain and suffering...but in the hands of a police officer, it is used as a deterrent to protect others and hopefully prevent crimes.

In the hands of a psychotic, an assault rifle is used to kill as many as possible just because...but in the hands of a member of a SWAT team, it is used to try and prevent more killing.

See...the problem here is we need to stop focusing on whether or not it's the GUN'S fault or not. The gun really doesn't need villifying or defending. What needs to be done is to focus on the PEOPLE using them. A person capable of respecting a weapon and knows how to properly use it is not likely going to cause problems because of the fact he/she knows what kind of damage it can cause. While a person who WANTS to cause harm or is unfamiliar with the weapon will be the one who causes all the problems we're talking about here.

So...forget the hardware. The hardware is inert. We need to focus more on making the PEOPLE more responsible.

 

[Sylveria]

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.


Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.


[sub]the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns[/sub]

Everything you've said is ignorant, misinformed, or factually wrong and despite your disclaimer, you obviously you do condemn guns or you wouldn't have made this thread in the first place.

I won't even dignify the foolishness of what I'm reading with elaborating on how and why what you're saying is nonsense as you clearly haven't bothered to do any research in to the subject at all other than what sensationalist propaganda you've been reading from the anti-gun lobby.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

These were not "facts", just a blanket of subjective, offensive (and hypocritically "ludicrous") statements. It's also very nice of you to say "EUHMERICAH" and then ask people to be "polite, calm and respectful".

1) Of course guns are safe. Tens of millions of guns did not kill, wound or even fire today. Millions of guns were used safely in ranges, outdoors, training exercises and engagements safely, as intended. A peaceful gun owner is safer with a gun than the average driver is with a vehicle.

2) Violence is reality. That people argue a firearm does its job too well is simply astounding. When a small person can be protected against a violent group with a simple tool that fits in the hand, yes, that is the intent and the meaning of the word "equalizer". Do not even bring up non-lethal tools, they are clumsy, come with their own risks and are insufficient.

3) No one took a consensus, let alone came to such an absurd conclusion. There is a stigma about firearms in the same way the mainstream has done it against pornography, violent video games and the like: through the use of propaganda and public ignorance.

4) Most arguments against a small arms ban are valid. They are basic, commonplace, can be used safely, effectively and serve a fundamental purpose to defending life, property and preserving freedom. Gun bans are not reasonable, rational or restrictive, they revoke and infringe upon all people with prejudice.

5-7) There are very strong carry laws in America. Nobody is walking around the city with a shotgun or rifle slung over the back. However, a pistol is versatile and effective in all firearm applications. Get some real facts...

I'm getting sick of ludicrous arguments I keep hearing about guns
Wether you're pro-guns or anti-guns I wish to put a few facts straight that everyone with a sane mind can understand.


1 Guns aren't "safe" guns are tools intended to harm, there is no other purpose for a gun than to wound or kill.

2 People may kill people but people with guns kill them a whole lot faster.

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

4 The fact that when you ban guns there will still be guns on the street is not an argument to hide yourself behind, however making it more difficult for the average Joe to own a gun and limiting the influx of guns into the open world is a valid argument against it. (quote me on this and I will elaborate on the subject).

5 A shotgun in a secured gunsafe in your home is a defense weapon, semi-automatic/automatic weapons and pistols aren't.

6 A pistol securely fastened on your body is a defense weapon if you're out on the street, a shotgun or semi/automatic weaponry is not.

7 Hunting rifles in woodland areas are a yes, hunting rifles in the suburbs or the city are a No-No.


Any arguments to add, anything you wish to discuss ?
Be polite,calm and respectful about it.


[sub]the poster of this thread neither condemns nor accepts guns[/sub]

People will stop appearing to "protect" this right when others quit attacking it and the people who defend it.

you've misread the most points in my post completely, But you have a right to an opinion like everyone else.

The EUMERICAH remark was perhaps out of place but people know what it refers to and it is all but meant as a reference, if this post seems to have caused offence to you my apologies.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

3 The general consensus everywhere but the United states of EUHMERICAH is that guns are bad and one should not be able to own, this does not however mean that Americans shouldn't be able to choose whether or not they're allowed to own guns.

Bloody hell, you're a stupid one, aren't you? Have you even researched gun laws in England and Europe? Let me clue you in just a tiny bit. Over here in the U.K, you can get a license for a freaking anti-material sniper rifle, provided you know enough about the operation and safe usage of such a weapon. You can get it classed as a frigging home defense tool if you so please, assuming you pass a psychological examination.

So no, the general consensus is /not/ blah blah dee fallible stupid argument herp a derp, it's that people who are possessing of basic intelligence and social skills are fit to possess a weapon. Please, for the love of everything, research before you initiate and argument, 'cause you've made yourself look like a right nonce.

Flagged, I was just about to say how I enjoyed the reasonable polite discussion.


There is no need to start calling names and I will not redeem your reply with any further response because of it.