Poll: is he ignorant or does he have a point

[Circleseer]

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.

I bolded the important part. Guns do not keep people safe, yet many people in this thread actively support allowing only "law enforcement" to wield guns. You get a situation where militarily armed police break down doors in the middle of the night, scream commands and point their guns at unarmed civilians. They also shoot dogs which is a psychological tool of submission. They protect and serve nobody but their own interests.

Until laws and the law enforcement system is overhauled, I will continue to actively support civilian right to weapons. There is no reason why criminals in uniform are allowed weapons but I am not.

I have no personal grudge against you, and I think I understand your point of view, but it still sounds to me like you have a personal problem with police that might impede your rational judgement about this subject. Fact of the matter is; if that man would've had a gun, the police might have shot him out of self-protection. The man might have killed police officers. As it is now, though it isn't right, merely a dog died. I do not see how adding guns to the equation could possibly have resulted in a better outcome. Please reply on that.

 

[Manatee Slayer]

Good Citizens don't resist. Good citizens don't question.

That video was disgusting...the thing is though, they would probably all back each other up and say that the dog was being aggressive, and even if there was an inquiery it would most liekly be internal...it's funny how ironic it is that one of the groups of people that the law treats differently is the police force.

I remember in Britain a police officer pushed over, subsequently causing him to die of a heart-attack, only because the officer *thought* the guy was a protestor...don't even think he got done for manslaughter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/5126464/G20-death-How-can-we-trust-the-police-now.html

OT: I would just listen to your parents, there is no real reason to own a gun, you should be proud that your parents know when to draw the line :-/

If they don't feel safe with a gun in the house then why do you NEED to take their feeling of safety away in their own home? Stop being acting like a child and realise that fighting against this is different to a little teenage rebellion, people could potentially get seriously injured.

 

[faceless chick]

is this a serious topic or am i getting trolled?
sorry op, you talk like one of 'em yokels i see the internet make so much fun of.

 

[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"

[snip] read my previous post if you want to see what's missing.

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.

i live in australia.
i don't know anyone who owns a gun.
it's not illegal to own a gun here, but what you are allowed to own is very very limited and getting a license is not at all easy. there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through.

people still get robbed, mugged, etc here. none of these smalltime crimes involve guns, though, and self defense is a lot easier. in my case, it consists of "sure, here's my wallet. now bugger off"

the only gun related crimes i hear anything about here are criminals, killing other criminals, in some sort of crime underworld related thing, or very very high risk holdups. (bank, jewellery shop etc).

i don't circulate in the criminal underworld.
i don't work somewhere that's particularly likely to get held up.

major criminals all pretty much would have illegal firearms. minor criminals tend to use knives. this means that out of everyone i know who's been mugged, or otherwise witness to criminal activity, nobody i know has seen a gun used.

yes, gun related deaths do occur here.
but it's all pretty much limited to the sort of people who get them illegally, using them on other people who also get them illegally, generally while doing something highly illegal.

 

[mkg]

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.

I bolded the important part. Guns do not keep people safe, yet many people in this thread actively support allowing only "law enforcement" to wield guns. You get a situation where militarily armed police break down doors in the middle of the night, scream commands and point their guns at unarmed civilians. They also shoot dogs which is a psychological tool of submission. They protect and serve nobody but their own interests.

Until laws and the law enforcement system is overhauled, I will continue to actively support civilian right to weapons. There is no reason why criminals in uniform are allowed weapons but I am not.

The fact of the matter is you guys need to live here in REALITY. Guns exist. They do. They're not going anywhere. You blame it on gun companies, criminals, and stupid people. The fact of the matter is that government is the biggest pro gun entity in ANY country. Stalin once said, "One man with a gun can control a hundred." The reason the American bill of rights gives the right to bear arms is to allow militias to be actively formed if the government ever got too big. In case you guys haven't noticed, the gov constantly conducts raids on civilian militias, often when the charges against these groups are questionable at best. If guns were nonexist, men would commit attrocities with blades, if blades were nonexist it would be with stones, if no stones then wood, I could go on forever.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[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"

[snip] read my previous post if you want to see what's missing.

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.

i live in australia.
i don't know anyone who owns a gun.
it's not illegal to own a gun here, but what you are allowed to own is very very limited and getting a license is not at all easy. there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through.

people still get robbed, mugged, etc here. none of these smalltime crimes involve guns, though, and self defense is a lot easier. in my case, it consists of "sure, here's my wallet. now bugger off"

the only gun related crimes i hear anything about here are criminals, killing other criminals, in some sort of crime underworld related thing, or very very high risk holdups. (bank, jewellery shop etc).

i don't circulate in the criminal underworld.
i don't work somewhere that's particularly likely to get held up.

major criminals all pretty much would have illegal firearms. minor criminals tend to use knives. this means that out of everyone i know who's been mugged, or otherwise witness to criminal activity, nobody i know has seen a gun used.

yes, gun related deaths do occur here.
but it's all pretty much limited to the sort of people who get them illegally, using them on other people who also get them illegally, generally while doing something highly illegal.

I once read on the Second Amendment Sisters webtsite that 64% of all gun homicide victims in the United states are either Drug Dealers or Drug addicts who failed to pay their tab to a drug dealer. I am not sure what the exact percentage of homicide victims who are criminals is, but the majority of all gun murder victims in the United States are criminals, by a large majority.

That said, does Australia use concurrent sentencing? In America, we use concurrent sentencing, which prevents criminals from actually serving time for breaking gun control laws. The nature of concurrent sentencing is essentially that you serve the longest sentence of the various sentences you recieve, rather than consecutively serving them one after the other. And the crime you actually commit with the gun tends to have a longer sentence than the gun cotnrol laws you break.

 

[Circleseer]

Maybe it's region-bound. I've never had trouble with the law, they are quite polite here. Certainly no barging in homes at night. Holland is a small country, anything like that would be on the news in a heartbeat, and be on a dozen shows after.

I do find your view on the matter worrying. The thought that to combat a threat, you have to be threatening yourself, is rather uncivilized and rather sad. It shows of desperation, and no better means to deal with the situation. I hope for a better solution to the issue you stated. I definetly agree that 'More must be done to stop them from arresting and murdering unarmed people under the guise of "protection"', however I just can't put myself to believing that more violence is the answer.

 

[aubreym]

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.

Lovely, your own poetic grasp over fire arms demonstrates your own passion for it. sadly i cannot say the same. But to each his own.

however, why would you want to own a gun at his age? 16? Ok, some responses disregarded age as long as certain responsibilities and compromises were met, ok, fine as well.

but the fact is, simply owning a gun wont come to any use (without using it of course). so what would he use it for? honestly he has given no details on how he will use it. If he lived on a farm, very well, go crazy, you have land the adventure and the security to so what you want. Otherwise if he is a suburban kid, then there is NO way that is ok with me. seriously it isnt the fact that someone responsible may own a gun per say in my neighborhood, it is just the fact that a person own a gun that scares me. Another human has the means to kill another human.

but anyways this is my own view

oh and Chupathingy, you didn't necessarily answer my question, i meant what he wanted the gun for in physical means, not necessarily directed at himself. so dont be too hasty on declaring your own passion for the smoke of a blown bullet.

 

[goldenheart323]

Ahaha! This has been a great thread to read. I used to get bummed at all the ignorant anti-gun comments, but now I just laugh at them. I'm almost bummed the thread's become more rational these last few pages. My post looks out of place now, but would've fit perfectly with the 1st several pages. These are my favorite silly anti-gun arguments:

"Self defense? Pffft! Just call the cops."
Some day I must learn which cities have these famous "police teleporters" that instantly put a cop in your house to protect you so you don't need a gun. I know a lot of people who can expect around 20minutes before any cops can make it to their home after being called. Even 1 minute is long enough for very bad things to happen. Which cities without the teleporters have criminals considerate enough to wait that long before doing anything bad? Or is it that I missed the headline that said violent crimes no longer happen at all & we're pretty close to utopia now?

"What good can come from owning a rifle?"
You know, I almost agree on that one. There are only 2 practical reasons for owning a gun: self defense & hunting. Since he hasn't mentioned hunting, then he should forget the rifle and just get a hand gun. Seriously though, what good does your TV/DVD player/video game console/etc. do? Shooting's fun. That's the good. Besides, when America finally collapses like the USSR from spending too much, well, being able to shoot a target is always handy when society collapses.

"Well I know what I was like as a teen, and I wasn't very responsible back then."
Pretty arrogant to suggest you represented the maximum amount of maturity & responsibility possible for all teens everywhere.

"I don't see the point of it, so you shouldn't have a gun."
Not as amusing as the other arguments, but still a pretty arrogant and weak. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's bad or pointless. I don't see the point of trying to catch a football when several very big guys will be trying to knock you down. That doesn't mean no one should play football.

I also really enjoyed all the posts asking why OP wants a gun when he clearly stated (before any of the edit updates,) that he enjoys shooting.

Yes, this may seem over the top, but rationally phrased responses often don't get through the fear clouding the thoughts of some anti-gun people.

By the way, when a parent says no, teens have to abide by it. If no harm will come from obeying, it doesn't matter how silly or ignorant the parent may seem.

 

[Druyn]

Well, neither are wrong. While a rifle can be okay, rifles can cause problems in the wrong hands. Rifles create more problems than solve usually, however the problems can be minimalism to basically none if you're responsible.

Short, sweet, and basically right. Im gonna say no not because its a gun and "guns are bad," but your only 16, and having a gun is a huge responsibility. I dont know what you are like, or what your friends are like, and so Im gonna take the safe route and say just wait a bit until youre more mature and a little older.

 

[Danny Ocean]

Being ignorant and having a point are not mutually exclusive. That's why children can sometimes ask such hard to answer questions, without meaning to.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

Lovely, your own poetic grasp over fire arms demonstrates your own passion for it. sadly i cannot say the same. But to each his own.

however, why would you want to own a gun at his age? 16? Ok, some responses disregarded age as long as certain responsibilities and compromises were met, ok, fine as well.

but the fact is, simply owning a gun wont come to any use (without using it of course). so what would he use it for? honestly he has given no details on how he will use it. If he lived on a farm, very well, go crazy, you have land the adventure and the security to so what you want. Otherwise if he is a suburban kid, then there is NO way that is ok with me. seriously it isnt the fact that someone responsible may own a gun per say in my neighborhood, it is just the fact that a person own a gun that scares me. Another human has the means to kill another human.

but anyways this is my own view

oh and Chupathingy, you didn't necessarily answer my question, i meant what he wanted the gun for in physical means, not necessarily directed at himself. so dont be too hasty on declaring your own passion for the smoke of a blown bullet.

He did give a reason. Target shooting. Does he need a second reason? As I recall, target shooting is a valid reason in Australia.

 

[Rainboq]

So you need a gun, Why exactly?

I just think that it's unnecessary for people to own a gun outside a firing range or for hunting.

Okay, let me ask you this, what good came come from it?

People who are spoiled sometimes want more than they deserve.

Points for you not to get a gun:
1)YOU DON'T NEED IT.

"Why do you need your own car?"
"Why do you need your own house?"
"Why do you need your own vote?"
This is America, comrade. The only reason you're entitled to as to why I pursue something is, "I want one."

1. I`m never going to own a car, at least, not one in the traditional sense.
2. YES, you need shelter.
3. Yes, unless you like living in an Autocracy.

Also, by your reasoning, people could own nuclear weapons BECAUSE THEY WANT TO. No, I see no point in owning a weapon unless you need one for survival.

Also, I'm Canadian, not all of the people here live in the states.

 

[RelexCryo]

2. YES, you need shelter.
3. Yes, unless you like living in an Autocracy.

A) In reply to 2:
He said, Your *OWN* house, not shelter period. he was referring to the concept of private space as opposed to a government shelter which you share with other people with no private space. In essence, "is private space really a need?"

B) In reply to 3:
Over the course of the centuries it is mathematically inevitable for the government to become corrupt if it is not already corrupt. Elections can be rigged. Hence, it is mathematically inevitable for Democracies to become Autocracies. In the eyes of some people, the potential for civilians to commit crimes is a bigger issue, even if you have good social conditions (But Switzerland proved a country with good social conditions can give Assault Rifles to pretty much everyone and have an extremely low crime rate.) In the eyes of other people, the potential for government corruption is a bigger issue, especially since Switzerland, as mentioned above, has proven it can work.

 

[MagicMouse]

With the right education, guns are safer than cars. Especially since we are talking about a BOLT ACTION 22!!!!! Honestly these things barely kill squirrels, have a low mag capacity, and a low rate of fire.

I started handling firearms when I was 5 under HEAVY supervision. I was taught all the right safety and edicate. I completed the hunter's safety course. I got my first gun at 12.

I got my first car at 16. I have come much closer to killing someone in my car then when shooting cans....

They are ignorant,or irrational I would say.

 

[aubreym]

snip[/quote]

He did give a reason. Target shooting. Does he need a second reason? As I recall, target shooting is a valid reason in Australia.[/quote]

You have failed to understand whom this was directed to.

 

[RelexCryo]

snip

He did give a reason. Target shooting. Does he need a second reason? As I recall, target shooting is a valid reason in Australia.[/quote]

You have failed to understand whom this was directed to.[/quote]

Here is my reply:

The OP (Original Poster) listed Target Shooting. The Original Poster said, and I quote:

"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."

-micky

pay attention to the second edit.