Poll: is he ignorant or does he have a point

[RelexCryo]

Gun laws in the U.S. are stupid as hell. SO many people die due to guns compared to other countries.

So no, I don't think you should get a gun.

I recommend watching that Columbine documentary from Michael Moore, gun laws are not the problem.

The movie from Michael Moore said that guns kill a lot of people, and that we should ban guns because they kill a lot of people. He didn't actually examine the effectiveness of Gun bans. He just sort of assumed the result would be lower crime.

 

[Mortons4ck]

It seems your mom's boyfriend's major issue is "not in this house you don't."

Would they be willing to let you have a .22 rifle if one of your shooting range friends was willing to house it for the time being?

I suppose their counter-argument might be "Well what if it gets stolen, or someone uses it for a crime and they trace it back to you?!"

The response being: "Anyone who attempts to commit crimes with a .22 bolt-action peashooter is liable to wind up on America's Dumbest Criminals."

 

[Butterworm]

Gun laws in the U.S. are stupid as hell. SO many people die due to guns compared to other countries.

So no, I don't think you should get a gun.

I recommend watching that Columbine documentary from Michael Moore, gun laws are not the problem.

The movie from Michael Moore said that guns kill a lot of people, and that we should ban guns because they kill a lot of people. He didn't actually examine the effectiveness of Gun bans. He just sort of assumed the result would be lower crime.

...by looking at countries in which gun bans are in place

 

[Chupathingy_v1legacy]

Again, yes respect your parents, but come on, you have to agree do people only get things because they need it and therefore if they don't NEED it they shouldn't get it? Because saying things like "A 16 year old kid does not need to own a gun" is like saying "A 16 year old kid does not need to own a computer". I'm not saying its the same thing, but please choose your arguments more sensibly. If you base your argument solely on need, then please be ready to prove to me that you have never in your life bought something that was not a total necessity.

all of the things that i have bought that i do not need, are not *weapons*.

Also, as far as danger, it is also dangerous to turn on a car that is literally powered by explosive force, it is dangerous to consume even a drop of alcohol which (like most things) usually impairs your judgement and can either directly or indirectly lead to your death, it is dangerous to set foot on an aircraft that is propelled by a combination of fire and precision aerodynamics to make it move. It is dangerous to smoke a cigarette which is PROVEN to eventually lead to cancer and other health issues in later life if you continue. Despite these dangers, PEOPLE STILL DO IT. Why? Because flying is almost a necessity now, because drinking is how people cope with problems or just something fun to do with friends, driving IS a necessity in modern times, and I still can't find a reason people smoke..... You cannot tell me that "These things are common practice and everyone understands the danger and accepts the risk" because if they can be trusted to accept those risks and take responsibility for what happens, then why on earth can people not make the same decisions with firearms?

people who drink to cope with problems should not drink.

Alcohol is involved in approximately 75,000 deaths per year in the united states (Source below). Firearms were involved in 32,436 deaths in 1997, which just under half as many killed, which includes law abiding citizens defending themselves with legally purchased firearms. If you're so worried about saving american lives, the first thing you should do is work on prohibition of alcohol.

alcohol is more than twice as easy to get your hands on in the US. compare the availability of alcohol to the availability of firearms. this is a straw man argument.

And please, for all the people who come on and say little more than "guns are bad, don't get it" or "guns are dangerous, don't get it" PLEASE, unless you are willing to back this up with proof or a logical, valid argument, keep it too yourself.



http://www.ehow.com/facts_4895060_statistics-alcohol-related-deaths.html

http://www.securityworld.com/ia-424-firearm-related-deaths-and-injuries.aspx

sure, here's one. when you pull the trigger of a loaded gun, a very dangerous, high speed projectile emerges from the barrel. this is why guns are dangerous. there are not many conditions that require the high speed projectile to emerge.
-gun is loaded
-safety is off (not always required)
-trigger is pulled (not always required)

Why does the fact that its a weapon change anything? I know people who buy and even make "weapons" for either the novelty of having it or for self defense. I believe it is the reasoning behind the purchase, not the item itself. Granted some things are rightfully implied, like a guy buying illegal drugs is assumed to be either using or redistributing a controlled substance. But buying a weapon does not mean someone intends to perform an act of violence. I have a good number of firearms at my disposal that I do not intend or expect to EVER use on another human being, whether it be self defense or an act of aggressive violence. All the same, I am prepared to defend myself and others with them.

I agree, there are people drinking for the wrong reasons who should not drink. But does that mean we have the right to say "A percentage of the population drinks for the wrong reasons, and therefore we are banning alcohol from the ENTIRE population"? Or are you denying that there are people out there who drink as a release rather than a social event?

True, alcohol is easier to get your hands on. But the people who INTEND to use a firearm for a violent act will find a firearm to use in a violent act. Even if they cannot find a firearm, they would go for a knife, or a bow and arrow, or a sharpened stick or a blunt object or their bare hands. Even if you managed to get all the firearms out of the country or in lockdown that dont belong to military or whoever, yes the number of firearm related deaths will go down. But the number of deaths with other weapons will go up, and most likely approach the number of deaths that occurred when firearms were still in circulation. Its the motive of the man, not the weapon he holds that determines how many people die.

In regards to negligent discharges (there are no "accidents") I have been the cause of one myself. No damage was done, and I was scared stupid, but believe it or not, i'm a human being. That means 2 things. First, I make mistakes, i'm a dumb kid. Second, the tools humans make and use are also inherently imperfect, which means of course there will be situations where a discharge was not intended and should not have happened but did anyway. This is a fact we have to accept and learn from. I know what I did to cause this problem, I will NEVER do it again, and a great deal of people I know have also had a SINGLE negligent discharge that led them to a great deal more care. Will people die in the process? Occasionally yes, and the person responsible (the man holding the smoking gun) will be punished accordingly. Yes it is a steep learning curve, especially where safety and comprehension of danger is concerned, but I think it all comes down to I believe that is an acceptable risk well within an Americans rights, and (correct me if i'm wrong) you do not believe that is a risk we should allow people to take.

I'm sorry, I should have clarified, I was not addressing you when I said people need to support their statements with proof or facts. You are very well spoken and I am greatly enjoying this debate. I meant that mainly i'm getting tired of the people who write 1 or 2 sentences that sum up their position but do not explain it properly.

 

[RelexCryo]

The issue isn't that he is 16. The issue is that his Mom's boyfriend thinks civilian gun ownership is inherently wrong.

don't know where you're getting this from, as the OP only states that his mum's bf won't live in the same house if the OP gets a gun.

The poll question isn't, "Should 16 year olds have guns," the question is,"Is he right?" His mom's boyfriend didn't say 16 year olds shouldn't have guns. He said no civilians should have guns.

all this aside, i still don't think it's a great move for any civilian to get a gun. in any country. just like i don't think it's a great move for any civilian to get a machete. or a compound bow. there will certainly be people who own these things, for various reasons, but their practical use for the majority of the population is extremely limited, and this is why i don't really understand the appeal of gun ownership.

if one of my really good friends told me that he was considering buying a machete, i'd seriously start to question his motives for doing so and i'd call him out on it. if someone i barely knew said that they were considering buying a machete, i'd do my best to keep my distance from them from that point onwards

Do you believe banning guns would keep them out of the hands of criminals?

no. but it would mean that they couldn't break into the house next door to get one before robbing me.
it would make it a lot harder to get them, and it would also mean that when criminals are being tracked down, finding out where the firearms came from would mean a whole lot more.

it means that i don't need to be worried about the domestic going on downstairs because i don't know if the psychotic crazed out guy has gun or not. (this would not affect whether i would intervene or not - i always go and check it out)

do you know anyone with a machete? i don't. i'm sure many undesirable criminals do have them. but my chances of running into this mysterious undesirable with a machete are currently a lot less than me running into someone with a gun. and this is *only* because guns are so freely available.

Cocaine and Mirjuana are feely available despite a full 50 state wide ban. The bans on them have not prevented them from becoming freely available in the Urban areas. As I said above:

"Cocaine and Marijuana are smuggled into the United States by extremely large amounts every year. Guns are manufactured in extremely large amounts every year by companies based outside the United States. In addition to Legal Hand Gun manufacturers outside the United States such as:

Taurus
Glock
Sig Sauer
Heckler & Koch
Beretta
Stoeger
Fabrique Nationale
CZ
IWI
Manurhin
Walther

There are many, many illegal handgun manufacturers on the Illegal Market. And this is only counting handgun manufacturers mind you."

 

[gellert1984]

Gun laws in the U.S. are stupid as hell. SO many people die due to guns compared to other countries.

So no, I don't think you should get a gun.

I recommend watching that Columbine documentary from Michael Moore, gun laws are not the problem.

The movie from Michael Moore said that guns kill a lot of people, and that we should ban guns because they kill a lot of people. He didn't actually examine the effectiveness of Gun bans. He just sort of assumed the result would be lower crime.

...by looking at countries in which gun bans are in place

Which doesnt work canada has more guns per person than the US but less gun related crime (though I'm not sure if thats as a percentage or per person, if its per person ignore this statement).

 

[Circleseer]

Snowplow, guns do not equal the power to act. Also, I don't see how the vid you posted would be better if that guy would've had a gun. What, he would've shot too? More death?

A gun has one function; to propell ammo through the air at great velocity, injuring and often killing what it hits.

Guns do not keep people safe. They merely give you an oppurtunity to shoot someone else before they shoot you. That is not safety, that's just someone else dying. Every death is a waste. Whilst I do respect the sentiment of 'rather them than me', factually it doesn't solve shit.

 

[TimeLord]

Guns should not be available to anyone under 25yrs 7months 19hrs and 4mins old

 

[Chupathingy_v1legacy]

It seems your mom's boyfriend's major issue is "not in this house you don't."

Would they be willing to let you have a .22 rifle if one of your shooting range friends was willing to house it for the time being?

I suppose their counter-argument might be "Well what if it gets stolen, or someone uses it for a crime and they trace it back to you?!"

The response being: "Anyone who attempts to commit crimes with a .22 bolt-action peashooter is liable to wind up on America's Dumbest Criminals."

I'm sorry but I need to rebut that last statement. Yes, bolt action weapons in a potential combat situation = bad idea. But as far as a .22 caliber, they are an incredibly dangerous round because that have enough power to enter the body, but not enough to exit. Which means the bullets bounces a bit and then stays inside you. Not to mention the notable difference in sounds which in some cases is quiet enough to be completely muffled by the building or surrounding area. So .22 caliber weapon for use as a lethal weapon = not a bad choice.

 

[RelexCryo]

Gun laws in the U.S. are stupid as hell. SO many people die due to guns compared to other countries.

So no, I don't think you should get a gun.

I recommend watching that Columbine documentary from Michael Moore, gun laws are not the problem.

The movie from Michael Moore said that guns kill a lot of people, and that we should ban guns because they kill a lot of people. He didn't actually examine the effectiveness of Gun bans. He just sort of assumed the result would be lower crime.

...by looking at countries in which gun bans are in place

Switzerland has a lower crime rate than Britian or Canada. Does that mean we should all get Assault Rifles? He ignores the difference in Social conditions between countries. You can't use the difference in crime rates between two countries with wildly different social conditions for support for a ban. We could just as easily compare the United States to Switzerland and say that we should all get Assault Rifles.

But you can't really compare the United States to Switzerland because the two have wildly different social conditions. By the same standrards, you cannot compare Britain to America. The Social Conditions in America's major Urban Areas, like L.A. and Chicago, are far, far worse than the social conditions in London or Britain in general. The only way to actually judge the effectiveness of gun control is to examine the effect gun control has within a given country. And Britain's crime rate actually increased after guns were banned. Australia's crime rate increased after guns were heavily controlled. By contrast, the United States' murder rate and crime rate in general has been steadily declining since 1980, and it hit a record low in 2008, the lowest in 28 years, *despite* the recession. Michigan's choice to let law abiding adults carry guns resulted in less crime, and was part of an overall trend towards more gun ownership and gun carrying citizens.

Due to differeneces in social conditions, you can only really see the effect of gun bans by comparing whether the crime rate increases or decreases within a given country after the ban itself.

 

[aubreym]

please answer the most important question of all:

Why do you need a gun?
(or preferably why do you want one?)

 

[Mortons4ck]

It seems your mom's boyfriend's major issue is "not in this house you don't."

Would they be willing to let you have a .22 rifle if one of your shooting range friends was willing to house it for the time being?

I suppose their counter-argument might be "Well what if it gets stolen, or someone uses it for a crime and they trace it back to you?!"

The response being: "Anyone who attempts to commit crimes with a .22 bolt-action peashooter is liable to wind up on America's Dumbest Criminals."

I'm sorry but I need to rebut that last statement. Yes, bolt action weapons in a potential combat situation = bad idea. But as far as a .22 caliber, they are an incredibly dangerous round because that have enough power to enter the body, but not enough to exit. Which means the bullets bounces a bit and then stays inside you. Not to mention the notable difference in sounds which in some cases is quiet enough to be completely muffled by the building or surrounding area. So .22 caliber weapon for use as a lethal weapon = not a bad choice.

Point taken. All guns bullets are dangerous, but I still think you're more likely to survive from a single shot .22 than a .38 or a 9mm.

 

[Chupathingy_v1legacy]

please answer the most important question of all:

Why do you need a gun?
(or preferably why do you want one?)

I don't need one. Whatsoever. I could theoretically go through the rest of my life and never touch a gun again and never wish I had one at any time.

Why would he want one? Because for some people the act of shooting or even just having a gun can be an exhilarating experience. Like, for me, I feel the my rifle is almost a part of my body when I pick it up. I can tell how well it is functioning by the sounds it makes, by the smells it produces when it fires, by the ever so slight amount of variation in the 4.5 pound trigger pull. I love few things more than working with my rifle. Not shooting at human beings, or even living things, just practicing with it and cleaning it and, yes, shooting it at paper targets. I have never hunted either animals or people, and have only killed in order to put creature out of their misery. Even then, never with a firearm.

So why? Because it can be a very rewarding and fulfilling experience, given you are safe with it. Even so, things go wrong, but you recover, you learn, and you move on.

 

[mkg]

It's a culture thing really, some places it is perfectly normal for children to learn about firearms, some it is generally rare for anyone to actually see a gun unless it's held by the proper authorities. I think rather than just trying to shelter you from possible accidents, he acts like a man and teaches you to use it responsibly. Buy a gun lock, keep the ammunition some place you don't have access to without asking. Unless you really are just an immature fucktard, then he might have a point.

 

[Butterworm]

Again, yes...

[snip]

I'm sorry, I should have clarified, I was not addressing you when I said people need to support their statements with proof or facts. You are very well spoken and I am greatly enjoying this debate. I meant that mainly i'm getting tired of the people who write 1 or 2 sentences that sum up their position but do not explain it properly.

no worries, debate is part of any development. i'm enjoying it too.

my position, not only toward guns, but towards weapons in general, is summed up best by homer, in 'the odyssee'
"the blade itself incites to violence"

a weapon, by its nature, is designed to cause damage. it's actually worse than that, because what homer is arguing is that by looking at the sword, the intention of using it is planted in the mind. i'm not arguing the necessity of weapons. but i think there's something very wrong with the world when everyone wants a weapon with the same sort of mindset as wanting an xbox or a tv or a car.

i didn't used to think like this. and before anyone accuses me of being all hippy and flowers and everything, let me relate what changed my mind.

in 2003, i went to visit my parents in egypt. at the time, they'd been working there for 2 months, and i went and stayed with them for the last 2 weeks that they were there. most of the time, we were in cairo, which is an amazing and beautiful and mind-blowing (and smelly) city.

we took 2 trips, one 3 day trip to luxor, and one 3 day trip to sinai.

on the way to sinai, at one of our many stops at many small villages to get a meal, i saw some kids running around and playing with each other. fairly unremarkable, i'd actually had a few games of soccer with some kids in the previous village. this time, the kids were from about 6 years old to the oldest about maybe 12 or 13, who was clearly in charge. he didn't appear on the scene at first, and i'll get to him in a sec.

the younger kids, about 5 or 6 of them, had wooden rubber band guns, the sort that you can load about 10 rubber bands onto and shoot them consecutively. they were playing some sort of hide and seek game, and it was quite fun to watch. after about 10 minutes, the older kid arrived, clearly calling his brother over to come home for lunch.

what chilled me to the core was that he was holding a rifle. i don't know enough about different sorts of guns to say what sort of rifle it was, but it looked like the same sort of rifle that we had seen militarymen holding throughout cairo and egypt (and they are *everywhere*). neither he nor the militarymen used the guns or threatened anyone with them, so far as i could see.

it became clear that the kids running around with the rubber band guns were training, so that they could handle real guns. i'm not saying this was the extent of the training, i'm not saying they weren't enjoying their game. and they certainly were not terrorists, as we and everyone else that i could see were treated only with kindness, hospitality and respect. they invited us to share their lunch with them, which, in moslem circles, is only one step away from calling you brother.

in hindsight, it looked as though financially, these kids best prospect would be to join the military, and what they were doing was part of getting ready for that.

it was this realisation that changed my opinion altogether.

what state are we in were people in some remote part of the world have their hopes and futures dictated by some obscure war that will otherwise have no impact on their life? the war would never reach these kids. they, or their parents, were actively seeking it out, purely for the financial benefits that military connection would provide.

the blade itself incites to violence. if i have no need for a gun, keep them as far as possible from me, please.

 

[Mr Companion]

Its a waste of money, that is my only quarrel with it.

 

[Ryokai]

im 16 and i decided to get a rifle because i really like shooting and i told my moms boyfriend and he said he wouldn't live in this house if i got it and that "no good would come from that thing". hes acting like its a horrible omen like when i get it the world will end. am i wrong or is he just ignorant
p.s. my moms with him on it


edit: my dads an ex marine and has trained me to the best of his ability's. only problem he lives in new Hampshire

edit again: i want to get one for target shooting and i can get one with parents consent.

edit AGAIN: im sorry if i come off as if im begging to get a gun, i respect the house rules i just dont agree with them. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with them.

Depends where you live. Here in Israel, everyone generally has a gun at one point, what with the constant terror threat. But guns aren't toys, you shouldn't get one just 'cause they're "cool."

 

[RelexCryo]

Again, yes...

[snip]

I'm sorry, I should have clarified, I was not addressing you when I said people need to support their statements with proof or facts. You are very well spoken and I am greatly enjoying this debate. I meant that mainly i'm getting tired of the people who write 1 or 2 sentences that sum up their position but do not explain it properly.

no worries, debate is part of any development. i'm enjoying it too.

my position, not only toward guns, but towards weapons in general, is summed up best by homer, in 'the odyssee'
"the blade itself incites to violence"

a weapon, by its nature, is designed to cause damage. it's actually worse than that, because what homer is arguing is that by looking at the sword, the intention of using it is planted in the mind. i'm not arguing the necessity of weapons. but i think there's something very wrong with the world when everyone wants a weapon with the same sort of mindset as wanting an xbox or a tv or a car.

i didn't used to think like this. and before anyone accuses me of being all hippy and flowers and everything, let me relate what changed my mind.

in 2003, i went to visit my parents in egypt. at the time, they'd been working there for 2 months, and i went and stayed with them for the last 2 weeks that they were there. most of the time, we were in cairo, which is an amazing and beautiful and mind-blowing (and smelly) city.

we took 2 trips, one 3 day trip to luxor, and one 3 day trip to sinai.

on the way to sinai, at one of our many stops at many small villages to get a meal, i saw some kids running around and playing with each other. fairly unremarkable, i'd actually had a few games of soccer with some kids in the previous village. this time, the kids were from about 6 years old to the oldest about maybe 12 or 13, who was clearly in charge. he didn't appear on the scene at first, and i'll get to him in a sec.

the younger kids, about 5 or 6 of them, had wooden rubber band guns, the sort that you can load about 10 rubber bands onto and shoot them consecutively. they were playing some sort of hide and seek game, and it was quite fun to watch. after about 10 minutes, the older kid arrived, clearly calling his brother over to come home for lunch.

what chilled me to the core was that he was holding a rifle. i don't know enough about different sorts of guns to say what sort of rifle it was, but it looked like the same sort of rifle that we had seen militarymen holding throughout cairo and egypt (and they are *everywhere*). neither he nor the militarymen used the guns or threatened anyone with them, so far as i could see.

it became clear that the kids running around with the rubber band guns were training, so that they could handle real guns. i'm not saying this was the extent of the training, i'm not saying they weren't enjoying their game. and they certainly were not terrorists, as we and everyone else that i could see were treated only with kindness, hospitality and respect. they invited us to share their lunch with them, which, in moslem circles, is only one step away from calling you brother.

in hindsight, it looked as though financially, these kids best prospect would be to join the military, and what they were doing was part of getting ready for that.

it was this realisation that changed my opinion altogether.

what state are we in were people in some remote part of the world have their hopes and futures dictated by some obscure war that will otherwise have no impact on their life? the war would never reach these kids. they, or their parents, were actively seeking it out, purely for the financial benefits that military connection would provide.

the blade itself incites to violence. if i have no need for a gun, keep them as far as possible from me, please.

If civilian handgun ownership resulted in less deaths due to criminals being able to smuggle them into the country, and civilian self defense actually reducing crime, would you

A) Continue to support gun bans despite the increase in deaths?

B) Support gun ownership because the existence of the illegal market makes gun bans an overall net increase in crime?

C) Automatically assume that gun bans really do result in less crime despite the math and evidence, simply because of what you want to believe?

I support gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, throwing corrupt corporate executives in prison, dismantling the American Empire by overhtrowing American supported facist dictators in Latin America and granting the people of those countries true freedom, envirormentalism, and many other liberal things.

But the math simply has not supported gun bans. Many people assume the math supports gun bans because they don't like the idea of violence or weapons, and they make these assumptions without looking at the math involved.