People should stop protecting guns

[M-E-D The Poet]

5/6 Gun experts and research has shown those are the most effective tools, indeed it is an opinion that it's the most sensible use but a short sanity check should help you out here :

What does a shotgun do? or in gun terms what is it's power? as opposed to your machine gun solely being there for suppression the shotgun would solely be there for stopping power/incapacitating your assailant.
A handgun/pistol would in the home defense case be much easier seen to have use of excessive force or be susceptible to accidents.

Now in the reverse case, being assailed in the street (if it ever may happen at all) you will need more freedom more agility and more precision, where the shotgun for home defense is meant to be one blast and over with the handgun/pistol in the street is rather to not harm others and be able to defend or attack over a longer range.

If you want me to look up the studies I'll be glad to but I'm sure some escapist gun-users can back me up here.

When someone is invading your home, how is killing them with a handgun any different than killing them with a shotgun? Either way they're dead, and either way you've shot them. As far as them being more susceptible to accidents, sure, if you're an idiot then they are. Consider this, however; where are you going to store this self-defense shotgun? A pistol handily fits into a nightstand drawer or a closet without being easily found. A shotgun, on the other hand, is much more difficult to hide. Personally, I feel safer with a handgun in my drawer where I can reach it in a moment's notice, likely without being heard, than a shotgun in my closer where I'll have to open up the door, find the shotgun, bring it out, then load it. Similarly, in the confines of your home, maneuvering around corners and hallways is much easier with a handgun than a shotgun.

On the other hand, while handguns may be the weapon of choice for self-defense on the street, you don't see people committing crimes when there's a guy carrying around a rifle on his back. Handguns are good for concealed carry, yes, and they give you an advantage there, but I don't see any problem with people carrying a rifle on the streets any more than a handgun.

As far as the "excessive force" goes, if someone attacks me with the intent to kill or cause permanent harm, I will empty my clip into them each and every time. It's how I was taught, and it makes sure they're down and out. Shooting them once or twice and then stopping because you didn't want to use "excessive force" is ridiculous when you're faced with a life or death situation and stopping to re-consider after every shot could be the difference between you walking out unharmed and being killed. If they start to run or drop their weapon sure, I'll stop shooting. Other than that, I'll stop when they're on the ground or when I'm out of ammo.

1. In as much as wooden swords are the equivalent of that and we don't allow people running around with katanas and zweihanders in the public space yes.

Because sir that's the only comparison I can draw and would defeat the entire discussion altogether I should think.

7. How about storing your gun in a gunsafe in the town where you go to hunt? I mean sure it will be a menial task but no much more than going into a store to buy drinks whilst you're out there.

For your first point here, target shooting guns and those used for hunting are completely different from practice weapons versus real ones. A target pistol will shoot the same rounds as a concealed carry pistol, just more accurately, which would in fact make them deadlier on the streets. A wooden sword doesn't have the same cutting edge as a katana.

As for the second one, are you seriously suggesting that I should purchase a separate house for hundreds of thousands of dollars, coupled with a multiple-thousand dollar safe, just to keep my hunting gear in a town closer to where I go hunting? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, to be frank. Or are you suggesting a buy another safe and stick it out in the wilderness somewhere? Because that would be equally ridiculous.

I'm going to boil this down to one point and you may then tell me whether this is something reasonable.

In your post you assume that when shooting with either a pistol or a shotgun at someone you're shooting to kill (not to incapacitate)

Why is that? and do you then think that such killing intent as you automatically assumed makes it safer for people to have guns over people who solely wish to protect?

 

[Burst6]

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

That's a pretty bad comparison. Drugs are consumed so if you stop or slow down production they'll go away pretty quickly.

Despite that though, people are still arguing that we should legalize all drugs. There's a massive black market for drugs funding various drug lords, gangs make their money selling drugs, and these people cause most gun deaths.

Imagine the massive black market that would come from gun control.

 

[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]

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.

nope I actually believe gun ownership is reasonable to a certain degree.

if my utopian way of thinking about it would be portrayed for the U.S every citizen would have the right to 1 Shotgun kept at home , 2 A hunting rifle in areas where one can actually hunt or otherwise storing the hunting rifle in the hunting area. 3 if proven reliable a handgun to be carried on their person.


A lot of you are very sincerely misreading some of the points I've made, which is sad but can't be helped.

 

[Daveman]

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

That's a pretty bad comparison. Drugs are consumed so if you stop or slow down production they'll go away pretty quickly.

Despite that though, people are still arguing that we should legalize all drugs. There's a massive black market for drugs funding various drug lords, gangs make their money selling drugs, and these people cause most gun deaths.

Imagine the massive black market that would come from gun control.

Key word there is "imagine". My point is just because something is hard to do is not a reason to not do something, especially when it comes to legislation.

I really like your avatar btw, reminds me of this.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

This is incorrect. There is a pretty even split among the experts on what the best home defense weapon is. Many believe that shotguns are a poor home defense weapon when compared to a pistol. There are many reasons, but they basically boil down to the fact that a pistol is easier to use in a dozen different ways. They are easier to load in a high stress situation, they hold more rounds, they can be fired from either hand, they are more difficult to take away from you, they are more effective in a hand to hand situation, they are less likely to cause collateral damage, they are easy to place in a convenient location for quick access. The list goes on. There are advantages to every different type of gun, but most experts I have talked to recommend a pistol.

Also, shotguns are much more lethal than a pistol in a home defense situation. I don't know where you got the idea that a shotgun will be less likely to kill, but you are completely wrong. I cannot stress this enough. A shotgun is far, far more lethal than a pistol at that range. On this point you are misinformed. This is actually one of the strongest arguments for using a shotgun in a home defense situation: if you hit you are almost certainly going to kill or completely incapacitate your target (which will then proceed to bleed out in a matter of minutes,) thus eliminating the threat much more effectively.

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 it is not a gun if it is not fully serviceable/working no more than a computer is a computer without the CPU. A collector does not usually want something that simply looks like a collection piece.

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 completely disagree. You are making a slippery slope argument here. It could go even further. Why not tanks? or missiles? Why not let civilians have nukes in their basement?

The answer is obvious. A rocket launcher is far more dangerous than an assault rifle. The destructive capacity of a rocket launcher is much greater than an assault rifle. There is a clear distinction. On the other hand, civilian available assault rifles are no more dangerous than other civilian owned weapons.

I think you misunderstand what an assault rifle is. You are probably thinking of military grade fully automatic weapons. This is not the case. In reality, there is no real difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, at least not in legally civilian available weapons. They are basically hunting rifles with cosmetic and structural changes. From the point of view of lethality, hunting rifles are just as bad as assault rifles, and shotguns are even worse (at ranges up to around 100 yards depending on the type of round used.) Pistols are not as lethal, but the ability to conceal a pistol makes it much more dangerous than an assault rifle to the general public.

And so again I must ask why single out assault rifles when they are arguably the least dangerous of civilian owned weapons?

 

[Odin311]

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.

The Constitution aside, the only reason why this is in debate right now is because of the tragic shootings that have occurred. Someone that is sick enough to commit such an act will not be deterred by the small measures that the legislature will take.

We need to take a look at why these shootings are becoming more common, and what we can do to stop them.

Most people calling for a "ban" on "Assault Rifles" don't understand how firearms work. To begin with, there will never be a ban on hunting rifles, and shotguns. That being said, the only difference between a "Assault Rifle" and a simi-auto hunting rifle, is some aesthetics, and the quantity of rounds that they hold. That being said, I am in support of high capacity magazine restrictions. On to the use of shotguns. Someone who has trained a bit with a shotgun can do more damage with a simple pump action shotgun than most can with an evil assault rifle.

Whatever weapon restrictions that congress pass, it won't stop these horrible shootings. If you look at the 1994 weapons ban, the shootings continued to increase even after it was passed. We need to find out why, and stop them completely.

We have a problem when we are just trying to stop the 11th person shot.

 

[BrassButtons]

In your post you assume that when shooting with either a pistol or a shotgun at someone you're shooting to kill (not to incapacitate)

Why is that? and do you then think that such killing intent as you automatically assumed makes it safer for people to have guns over people who solely wish to protect?

If you are shooting at someone and your intent ISN'T to kill them you are too irresponsible to own a firearm. There are several reasons for this (and please note that my usage of "you" here is meant in the general sense):

First, you never let your gun point at anything you don't want destroyed. So if you're pointing a gun at a PERSON that means the situation has escalated to life-or-death (otherwise you're an idiot and shouldn't have a gun).

Second, if you're in a situation that's desperate enough to warrant shooting someone you want to minimize the chance of missing. This means aiming for the largest target, which means the torso. Unfortunately human anatomy means getting shot in that region can easily be fatal.

Third, if you aim for an extremity and you miss the bullet will keep flying--possibly into an innocent bystander. So, again, you don't want to miss.

Fourth, if you decide to be an idiot and aim for an arm or leg anyway you still have a decent chance of killing the person (a shot to the leg could sever the carotid artery, for instance).

Fifth, even if you use non-standard rounds (that is, rounds intended to incapacitate and not kill) you might still end up killing them by chance. Blunt-force trauma is no joke.

So to summaraize: anyone who points a loaded gun (and the gun is always loaded, even if you just emptied it) at another person, without being prepared to kill that person, is a dangerous moron who has no business handling firearms.

if my utopian way of thinking about it would be portrayed for the U.S every citizen would have the right to 1 Shotgun kept at home , 2 A hunting rifle in areas where one can actually hunt or otherwise storing the hunting rifle in the hunting area. 3 if proven reliable a handgun to be carried on their person.

I'd still like to know what the issue is with storing a hunting rifle in a locked safe at home.

ETA:

A lot of you are very sincerely misreading some of the points I've made, which is sad but can't be helped.

It might help if you changed the tone of your OP. Your very second sentence is Poisoning the Well, and it puts everyone who disagrees with you on the defensive. You need to explain your points without insulting the people you're talking to. Otherwise you're guaranteed to be misunderstood, because nobody's going to try overly hard to understand you.

 

[Burst6]

Key word there is "imagine". My point is just because something is hard to do is not a reason to not do something, especially when it comes to legislation.

I really like your avatar btw, reminds me of this.

Actually in politics that is a reason to not do something. Usually something is hard because it's intertwined with a lot of other things, and attempting to fix it can cause a lot of other problems. For example, if guns were eventually banned the economy would greatly suffer because gun manufacturers wouldn't be able to thrive as well leading to large job losses. Military equipment would probably suffer too because the firearm corporations have less funding. Criminals would still have guns because there are a massive amount of guns in circulation in the US that can't be taken away as long as they were bought before the law came. This, along with our massive shared border with mexico, would start a black market and perhaps encourage more crime. Hunters would suffer, and even if they could get a license they would become targets for theft by gun traffickers.

With something so deeply intertwined into american law, georgaphy, and culture you can't just get rid of it. Even if politicians try their hardest, more problems could arise that outweight the good caused by the law.

Also, thanks. I drew the avatar myself after i got my first heavy taunt kill on a sniper. I wanted to draw a minigun but i'm not that good.

 

[AgedGrunt]

Woooooo lets all get wound up into hysterics by our love of guns!

I mean, seriously, you can't be safe unless you are surrounded by at least 6 firearms.
And a collection of landmines.

And don't talk to me about tasers either.
Those things are dangerous man.

I'll give you a taser and see if you can hold your own against two muggers approaching you while walking to your car at night. Or when a car cuts in front of you with four teens jumping out to do whatever they want and take whatever you have. Enjoy your life knowing that you can do nothing, in the meantime let others who won't consent to being victimized take care of themselves.

Military/law-enforcement-grade weapons/accessories do not need to be accessible by the public.

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

Hi there. The AR-15 is a civilian (semi-automatic) variant of the military M16. No one is protecting military-grade hardware; ban-hammers are going after civilian small arms and nuances such as capacity, which is infringement.

Regarding amending the Constitution, that's a great idea! So why has no one tried it? Why pass laws that just violate the shit out of the Supreme Law of the Land? Maybe it's because Washington and individual States couldn't then -- violate the shit out of the Constitution and have to answer to the Republic? Amazing system, it's just ignored to thunderous applause.

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.

I responded with honesty, integrity and truth. All you have done is alienate yourself and now misdirecting and insulting someone, among many others, who take the noise (which you originally stated as facts) and righteously smack it down. Why make a thread to whine if you can't debate? You want a reasonable discussion yet you're flagging and saying people "misread" and back-hand them for having an "opinion" after they dismantle your points.

 

[Shinomori]

First off: Learn the difference between "fact" and opinion.
Second: The argument against people getting guns illegally is a valid argument to stand behind. You can ban guns and people will still get them illegally. If we take away the right of people to purchase guns in a legal registered manner then all we will do is increase crime and make sure that the law abiding citizens are easier to prey upon. In "EUHMERICA" (jackass) we have the right to own guns because the founding fathers recognized the need to defend your self against a tyrant. Shotguns create a spread which is not very useful at a long distant or a short one unless the target is with-in the spread. A pistol is easier to get to get to in emergency situations. There are already laws against firing hunting rifles in a city. And if you live in the city and hunt, where the hell are you supposed to keep the rifle?

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Woooooo lets all get wound up into hysterics by our love of guns!

I mean, seriously, you can't be safe unless you are surrounded by at least 6 firearms.
And a collection of landmines.

And don't talk to me about tasers either.
Those things are dangerous man.

I'll give you a taser and see if you can hold your own against two muggers approaching you while walking to your car at night. Or when a car cuts in front of you with four teens jumping out to do whatever they want and take whatever you have. Enjoy your life knowing that you can do nothing, in the meantime let others who won't consent to being victimized take care of themselves.

Military/law-enforcement-grade weapons/accessories do not need to be accessible by the public.

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

Hi there. The AR-15 is a civilian (semi-automatic) variant of the military M16. No one is protecting military-grade hardware; ban-hammers are going after civilian small arms and nuances such as capacity, which is infringement.

Regarding amending the Constitution, that's a great idea! So why has no one tried it? Why pass laws that just violate the shit out of the Supreme Law of the Land? Maybe it's because Washington and individual States couldn't then -- violate the shit out of the Constitution and have to answer to the Republic? Amazing system, it's just ignored to thunderous applause.

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.

I responded with honesty, integrity and truth. All you have done is alienate yourself and now misdirecting and insulting someone, among many others, who take the noise (which you originally stated as facts) and righteously smack it down. Why make a thread to whine if you can't debate? You want a reasonable discussion yet you're flagging and saying people "misread" and back-hand them for having an "opinion" after they dismantle your points.

I'm only actually flagging people who're calling names.

 

[thiosk]

People should stop protecting planets. Because planets are dangerous.

Behold its malevolence!

Jupiter. Not a toy, and fully intended to harm.

 

[The_Healer]

Woooooo lets all get wound up into hysterics by our love of guns!

I mean, seriously, you can't be safe unless you are surrounded by at least 6 firearms.
And a collection of landmines.

And don't talk to me about tasers either.
Those things are dangerous man.

I'll give you a taser and see if you can hold your own against two muggers approaching you while walking to your car at night. Or when a car cuts in front of you with four teens jumping out to do whatever they want and take whatever you have. Enjoy your life knowing that you can do nothing, in the meantime let others who won't consent to being victimized take care of themselves.

2 Muggers? Sure, I'd give that a go with a taser, followed with my fists.
I do see your point though. If I were a small insecure person then I'd be worried.

4 Teens I'd happily just play "lose all my valuables as quickly as possible" and hope that they go away.
What is wrong with that? I'd rather get my stuff retrieved by the police than:
A. Getting the shit kicked out of me.
B. Killing 4 Teenagers.
C. Giving them impromptu counseling sessions about their messed up lives in an attempt to distract them while I secretly call my army of ninjas.

 

[Emmanuel Ruvalcaba]

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).

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

Guns are illegal in Mexico
In 6 years since they started the major crackdown on drugs, over 50,000.. ready that again FIFTY THOUSAND people have died to gun violence.
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/05/mexicos-drug-war-50-000-dead-in-6-years/100299/

 

[Mikeyfell]

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.

You have no idea what a "fact" is do you?

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

Leaving out all the justifiable reasons to kill, you left out intimidation.
Your gun doesn't necessarily need to even be loaded to protect you from harm.

If someone plans to rob you (or worse) and they see a gun on your hip it doesn't matter if it's real, loaded, or you don't know how to use it, they're going to think twice.

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.

Fair enough

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 just said is the very definition of an opinion. Saying one argument is valid while another one is not based on nothing at all. I know you said to stay calm but you're not making it easy.
Putting a legal ban on guns would obviously would make it harder to get a hold of a gun (as you said) but not impossible (as you also said)
Think for a second, who would that take the guns away from?
The law abiding citizens would turn their guns in, but the criminals wouldn't.
All that means is that the people who have guns are the ones who are morally compromised enough to break at least one law.
And you're saying that isn't a valid argument against banning guns?

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

That one's not a fact, it's also not an opinion, it's just a lie.
How is anything in a safe supposed to protect you? You think someone who is willing to break into your house is going to sit and calmly wait for you to open your gun safe? Assuming you're even at your house or near your safe.
A shotgun has one hell of a kick to it, if you need to react quickly and snap shot with a 12 gauge you're likely to break your wrist.
A hand gun can be aimed quickly and fired repeatedly accurately

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.

What kind of non semiautomatic pistol are you talking about? I don't think there's anywhere you can buy a flintlock pistol these days.
But you're lack of knowledge about guns aside, use some logic, would you rob someone carrying a shotgun?
You'd probably give them a wide berth. Same goes for someone with automatic assault type weapon. (Although there aren't many places where you can carry those openly)

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

You're on a roll, There should be a law about the torture of the word "Fact"
While I can admit it's hard to think of a practical use for a rifle in the suburbs. There's nothing practical about needing to protect yourself from armed human beings who intend to do you harm.

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]

pretty much everything you're arguing operates on the assumption that all criminals are either honorable enough to abide by a gun ban or polite enough to allow you to defend your self. (Gunsafe, please)

I've always though the exact opposite would do more to reduce gun violence. Making gun ownership and carry (and marksmanship training obviously) mandatory for all citizens.
There's a philosophy (I'm really sorry I don't know the name of it, but it's the thing Ninja Theory is based on)
It states that the less there is of something the more powerful it becomes.
Allow me a diversion into an exercise in logic
If there are 5 people in a room and 1 of them has a gun that person is the most powerful
If there are 5 people in a room and all 5 of them have guns none of them are more powerful than the other (Spherical humans in a vacuum obviously, but the point is solid)

Like that school that got shot up, That guy would have had a gun, bought a gun, found a gun regardless of any sort of ban. But if every single adult who worked at that school was packing heat would he have made it through the front gate? probably, but not much farther.
Or the joker shooting at the movie theater.
Or Columbine
Or the massacre before that
Or the next random massacre

Crazy people are going to hurt people and kill people, if the sane ones are able to defend themselves the crazies will hurt less people.


My Capcha is "Public Good" by the way.
It's funny how capcha's are sometimes.

 

[TakerFoxx]

I'm divided over the whole gun control issue, and generally stay out of it. But when it comes to rhetoric and debate, I do have a few pet peeves of mine that I tend to jump on when I see people violate some very basic rules. And here's one of the biggest.

If you're going to end your post calling for rational and polite discussion, and then go on to call out people who call you names, don't include stuff like this in your post:

the United states of EUHMERICAH

Seriously, we get enough America hate on this board as it is, and some people (like myself) are getting sick of it. So even if you weren't deliberately trying to insult Americans, putting stuff like this in your OP is just going to piss them off, even if they agree with some of your points.

 

[Mossberg Shotty]

Ugh, I know this is gonna circle back to the fact that I'm a Texan, but I believe in owning defensive guns. Bottom line, criminals don't obey laws, and disarming the people who have restraint and (semi?) good intentions isn't a solution.

 

[Something Amyss]

And regarding cowardice:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I shouldn't even have to cite this one, but -Benjamin Franklin, Feb. 17, 1775.

Of course, it's neither essential liberty nor TEMPORARY anything, but hey, rattling off a bunch of meaningless quotes is better than formulating an actual argument.

Like Chicago? Or Baltimore? Yeah, those places don't have much gun violence *rolls eyes*

"tend to have." Did you even read what I wrote before you railed against it?

 

[Something Amyss]

Seriously, we get enough America hate on this board as it is, and some people (like myself) are getting sick of it. So even if you weren't deliberately trying to insult Americans, putting stuff like this in your OP is just going to piss them off, even if they agree with some of your points.

America's gun fetish is one of the largest parts of the problem here. That's like saying you can't bring up racist attitudes when discussing slavery because you're going to piss someone off.

Ugh, I know this is gonna circle back to the fact that I'm a Texan, but I believe in owning defensive guns. Bottom line, criminals don't obey laws, and disarming the people who have restraint and (semi?) good intentions isn't a solution.

It has more to do with the paranoid attitude of Americans than the specific state in which you live. Though Texas does have those "chase them to the end of the Earth" laws that allow you to not only defend your home, but gun down anyone who might have been involved with extreme prejudice.

Caution: the prior statement may have included hyperbole. Handle with extreme caution.

Yes, criminals don't obey laws. And?

 

[tangoprime]

And regarding cowardice:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I shouldn't even have to cite this one, but -Benjamin Franklin, Feb. 17, 1775.

Of course, it's neither essential liberty nor TEMPORARY anything, but hey, rattling off a bunch of meaningless quotes is better than formulating an actual argument.

Like Chicago? Or Baltimore? Yeah, those places don't have much gun violence *rolls eyes*

"tend to have." Did you even read what I wrote before you railed against it?

And if you'd have actually read and comprehended the quotes, you'd have a picture of my argument, and the argument of those who are responsible for founding the nation that's given you the liberty you currently enjoy. If the message presented by those who designed our system of liberty is indecipherable to you, then we have nothing else to talk about, as you'll never get it.

As for the essential liberty for temporary safety thing, I included the Himmler quote for an important reason, even with the risk of proving godwin's law. At the time, their government decided, ostensibly for reasons of safety and wellbeing of the citizenry, to disarm their populace, as mentioned in the quote, there is no reason for the private citizen to be armed. Well, we found out a few years later, that YES, there was perhaps a reason for them to be armed, but it was too late. Temporary safety- which is arguable in this case, but without arguing how criminals would have guns anyway- would be giving up arms as a knee jerk reaction, contrary to the intentions of those who founded our nation, and opening up the people of the nation to the future machinations of an oppressive government who no longer serves the people, whether that government be domestic, or influenced by foreign powers.

But if you weren't able to extract that from the quotes I provided, I don't expect you to have really heard anything else I just said. If, on the other hand, some of that actually sunk in, please watch this if you get a chance, it's a rather lengthy speech by a now elderly lady who grew up in Austria, during *that* phase of the 20th century.

I also mentioned those two cities, as I've personally lived there. Though both have very restrictive gun laws, I was able to personally witness muggings, shootings, and carjackings. I now have chosen to live somewhere where local laws afford me to keep the means to at least give myself a chance if me or my family are ever victimized.