Question for people Pro-guns....

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Of course, the argument that everyone misses with these statistics is that self-defense with firearms simply does not happen. Compared to murder and manslaughter with firearms, legal self-defense cases are miniscule, and owning a firearm is dangerous, as it is several hundred times more likely to kill or injure a friend or family member than to stop a perpetrator.

Eighty-Five percent of all human beings have an ingrained resistance to killing others, even in defense of their own life. In fact, this resistance is so deep, that in a difficult situation your body will turn off its own bowel and bladder control before it flips the switch that allows most people to kill. This was basically proven by studies after WWII, that showed soldiers on all sides had a firing rate -with the intention to kill or injure the enemy- of about 15%.

Of course, someone without this innate resistance is what society often calls a "borderline sociopath." And while most of these people are perfectly normal and upright, sometimes they can become violent and kill, or even slip into full sociopathy.

This innate resistance can be circumvented by the need to protect a loved one, like a child or spouse, but strictly speaking in self-defense, it almost never turns off. Thus, there is no real difference between current gun laws in the US and if the government took all legal guns away from civilians, or rather, the only difference would be in accidental injuries and deaths.

Again, this innate resistance can be circumvented through operant conditioning. Modern militaries utilize this in order to increase their rate of fire of personnel, but there is strong evidence to suggest that this causes increased rates of PTSD as a result. So, we trade the trauma of death for the trauma of killing.

The major problem, to my mind, is that we have a massive society-level delusion about killing. We exalt it and obsess over it and delude ourselves about what it is and what it is like and what the consequences are. And this delusion has its roots in history, long before games and even movies portrayed violent acts.
 

Theseus32

New member
May 14, 2010
103
0
0
Also, the ammendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Careful readers will notice it says bugger-all about protecting your right to fire 600 rounds a minute, yet makes particular note of the fact that the entire reason this amendment exists is to support a militia, there not being much of an army in 1776. This entire debate is asinine and is funded entirely by the gun lobby.

It does not give you the right to own guns. The amendment doesn't mean that, has never meant that, will never mean that. This is not about giving a gun to any asshole off the street, it's saying soldiers, defending Americans, on american soil, have a right to guns. Torture the definitions all you want, that's what they said, that's what they meant and no amount of lobbying is going to change that.

Plus, as an added bonus to putting words in the mouths of the people who framed the constitution in america, you have the innumerable logical fallacies they immediately and desperately cling to like a limpet on a rock, in hopes of somehow defending this ridiculous proposition.

Here's a tip. You're not going to use guns to overthrow your government. They have bio-weapons, nukes, tanks and a metric fuck-ton of dudes in bodyarmor. So no. Not unless you're going to make the argument that little jenny at the church social ought to have a concealed-carry thermonuclear warhead.

Every study, as in all of them, have utterly disproved the notion that guns are safer for personal defense than the myriad of non-lethal means of defense. In fact, bringing a gun to bear against a mugger is a swell way to get him to take it out of your hands and shove it up your ass. Oh, you've practiced you say? Guess what. SO HAS HE. Guess who's made a career out of taking guns from stupid people?

You are FAR more likely to kill a friend or family member than any legitimate criminal, saying nothing of accidents. I fondly remember my grandfather's arsenal. The lock on the door was busted so we could have a selection of everything from shotguns to assault rifles to play with, and frequently did, because hey, we were kids and guns are awesome. The fact that we didn't end up shooting each other is a testament to my grandfather making sure to unload each weapon before he put it away, and us mastering Darwinism by not being dumb enough to load the things. I won't bore you with the statistics on how many underage children aren't as fortunate.

You wanna hunt? That's fine. They have 3d blinds and deer stands that are nicer than a lot of apartments. You don't need to bring automatic weapons into the mix.

And while I'm sure the NRA has graciously agreed to throw millions into researching just how amazingly effective having your very own assault rifle is in preventing you from being mugged, there are a lot of other ways to prevent it that are far LESS likely to A) get you killed and B) get your gun onto the street.

You know how criminals get guns? They rob people who have guns! Then THEY have the guns.

You are FAR less likely to have a robber wandering into your house at 3am and FAR more likely to have your teenage kid sneaking in at 3am after a party. Guess which one ends up shot FAR more often?

I get it. I do. Guns are cool. But if you wanna own one, own one because it's cool and because you're the kind of dapper individual who likes to run around strapped just DARING someone to fuck with you. Not because of any artificial illusion of "safety" it might present.

It's a viagra substitute for the terminally under-endowed. Not a safety measure. Let's stop pretending and call a spade a spade.

And FFS stop with the logical fallacies. They're transparent, misleading and utterly disingenuous. And you didn't come up with those arguments, gun lobbyists came up with those arguments. Because they want you to buy guns. Not because they're just so darned concerned about your safety.
 

Theseus32

New member
May 14, 2010
103
0
0
Also, while you're bitching about all these fictional attempts to "take your guns away" (an action, I will remind you, that would DRAMATICALLY decrease violent crime) the US government has actually legitimately overturned quite a few sections of the bill of rights, most notably the first, fourth, fifth and sixth amendments. You know. The ACTUALLY important ones. But hey, at least you can buy 6000 rounds of ammo for your assault rifle in case you wanna catch the late showing of batman.

Expressing a legitimate dissenting opinion about the actions of your government? Not so much. But who cares when you can buy a freaking minigun legally online? For... hunting. Yeah. That's it.
 

Grape_Bullion

New member
Mar 8, 2012
198
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
Words
Words
You're argument is that scare tactics and propaganda are more important that the truth and constitutional rights? Interesting.

If guns were illegal, the robber would still probably have a gun. The prohibition era and the war on drugs makes it pretty clear that banning something in the US doesn't stop people from getting it. Further, even if your attacker didn't have a gun and only had a knife, you would be very hard pressed to defend yourself without a firearm.

and I don't care if they're too emotional to see the truth. The truth is the truth. There's a reason we don't put the victims family on the jury, and we shouldn't allow them to sway our laws for the same reason.
Twelve people getting blasted in 6 minutes isn't a scare tactic or propaganda. I've already said my piece on why it's an illogical constitutional right, and truth, believe it or not, is beyond subjective. Stats can be interpreted from a variety of angles. Guns are illegal in the UK, and not surprisingly, their gun crime rate is low. In a hypothetical situation where firearms were never legal in the US, it's possible a robber would have a gun, but it's not likely; let's use the UK as an example again. The ability to defend yourself varies from person to person and a firearm is not a necessity when there are a million other types of personal defense weapons out there. Laws pass because elected officials use their judgement to decide what is right and wrong for society as they see in their eyes.

I'm not trying to belittle your opinion or attack your viewpoints, but I feel like people who are "pro-firearm" are more inclined to accept that tragedies happen and there's nothing you can do about it, so instead of fixing a problem they point out that it's going to happen anyway, regardless of what laws are passed. Maybe not you person
The fact is that someone in the US is over 125 times more likely to defend themselves with a firearm, ranging from simply waving it around to shooting the attacker to death, then they are to be murdered by anyone using a gun, gun wielding mass-murderers included. They are over 10 times more likely to need to wound or kill an attacker in self defense then they are to be murdered by someone using a firearm. A person in the US is almost three times as likely to kill themselves as they are to be killed by someone using a gun. So, lets say that in only 10 percent of the cases where the person felt they needed to wound or kill their attacker in self defense(8% of all cases of self-defense using a firearm), gun ownership and use in self-defense would still save more lives than than gun ownership costs in terms of murders. Now account for the fact that over 70% of homicides involving firearms are committed using legally acquired firearms and that would mean that if only 3% of 8%, or less than a quarter of a percent of the people who defended themselves using a firearm would have died without that firearm, gun ownership would still save more lives than would be saved by a gun ban.

Using 12(and it was more than 12) people getting "blasted" in 6 minutes to push gun bans is a scare tactic and propaganda, because while a gun ban might, and I have my doubts, might stop mass killings, it would still result in the deaths of more people than it would save.

Particularly since this guy had access to smoke grenades, body armor, and explosives, all illegally. This is the worst possible example of ineffective gun control because he could have killed a lot more people using the explosives even if, somehow, a gun ban stopped him from getting a gun.
You're giving evidence to a point I'm not disagreeing with. I've already said that guns offer protection and a sense of security in a country where people use guns, and other weapons, for offensive reasons. Evidence shows that in nations that have insanely strict gun control regulations, gun crime is low. I don't see how you draw your conclusion that more people die if firearms are illegal. Like I said, elected officials use their judgement to pass laws and regulations. People can use facts and opinions to put forth a bill, but they have no influence on if a bill passes. Smoke grenades, body armor, and explosives are an entirely different subject.
 

Ryan Hughes

New member
Jul 10, 2012
557
0
0
Theseus32 said:
Also, the ammendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Careful readers will notice it says bugger-all about protecting your right to fire 600 rounds a minute, yet makes particular note of the fact that the entire reason this amendment exists is to support a militia, there not being much of an army in 1776. This entire debate is asinine and is funded entirely by the gun lobby.
Correct, and in fact, George Washington -in his farewell address- warned against having any kind of standing army at all, he wanted the militia to handle self-defense of the nation. He also insisted that if there was a standing army, they should be barracked with the civilian population, as he had seen the effects of rampant militarism in the British army, and wanted to avoid this.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
Words
Words
You're argument is that scare tactics and propaganda are more important that the truth and constitutional rights? Interesting.

If guns were illegal, the robber would still probably have a gun. The prohibition era and the war on drugs makes it pretty clear that banning something in the US doesn't stop people from getting it. Further, even if your attacker didn't have a gun and only had a knife, you would be very hard pressed to defend yourself without a firearm.

and I don't care if they're too emotional to see the truth. The truth is the truth. There's a reason we don't put the victims family on the jury, and we shouldn't allow them to sway our laws for the same reason.
Twelve people getting blasted in 6 minutes isn't a scare tactic or propaganda. I've already said my piece on why it's an illogical constitutional right, and truth, believe it or not, is beyond subjective. Stats can be interpreted from a variety of angles. Guns are illegal in the UK, and not surprisingly, their gun crime rate is low. In a hypothetical situation where firearms were never legal in the US, it's possible a robber would have a gun, but it's not likely; let's use the UK as an example again. The ability to defend yourself varies from person to person and a firearm is not a necessity when there are a million other types of personal defense weapons out there. Laws pass because elected officials use their judgement to decide what is right and wrong for society as they see in their eyes.

I'm not trying to belittle your opinion or attack your viewpoints, but I feel like people who are "pro-firearm" are more inclined to accept that tragedies happen and there's nothing you can do about it, so instead of fixing a problem they point out that it's going to happen anyway, regardless of what laws are passed. Maybe not you person
The fact is that someone in the US is over 125 times more likely to defend themselves with a firearm, ranging from simply waving it around to shooting the attacker to death, then they are to be murdered by anyone using a gun, gun wielding mass-murderers included. They are over 10 times more likely to need to wound or kill an attacker in self defense then they are to be murdered by someone using a firearm. A person in the US is almost three times as likely to kill themselves as they are to be killed by someone using a gun. So, lets say that in only 10 percent of the cases where the person felt they needed to wound or kill their attacker in self defense(8% of all cases of self-defense using a firearm), gun ownership and use in self-defense would still save more lives than than gun ownership costs in terms of murders. Now account for the fact that over 70% of homicides involving firearms are committed using legally acquired firearms and that would mean that if only 3% of 8%, or less than a quarter of a percent of the people who defended themselves using a firearm would have died without that firearm, gun ownership would still save more lives than would be saved by a gun ban.

Using 12(and it was more than 12) people getting "blasted" in 6 minutes to push gun bans is a scare tactic and propaganda, because while a gun ban might, and I have my doubts, might stop mass killings, it would still result in the deaths of more people than it would save.

Particularly since this guy had access to smoke grenades, body armor, and explosives, all illegally. This is the worst possible example of ineffective gun control because he could have killed a lot more people using the explosives even if, somehow, a gun ban stopped him from getting a gun.
You're giving evidence to a point I'm not disagreeing with. I've already said that guns offer protection and a sense of security in a country where people use guns, and other weapons, for offensive reasons. Evidence shows that in nations that have insanely strict gun control regulations, gun crime is low. I don't see how you draw your conclusion that more people die if firearms are illegal. Like I said, elected officials use their judgement to pass laws and regulations. People can use facts and opinions to put forth a bill, but they have no influence on if a bill passes. Smoke grenades, body armor, and explosives are an entirely different subject.
Just because gun crime is low doesn't mean crime is low. It's quite easy to die without being shot to death. As people use guns for self-defense more than they murder each-other with them, they save lives
 

Theseus32

New member
May 14, 2010
103
0
0
Ryan Hughes said:
Theseus32 said:
Also, the ammendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Careful readers will notice it says bugger-all about protecting your right to fire 600 rounds a minute, yet makes particular note of the fact that the entire reason this amendment exists is to support a militia, there not being much of an army in 1776. This entire debate is asinine and is funded entirely by the gun lobby.
Correct, and in fact, George Washington -in his farewell address- warned against having any kind of standing army at all, he wanted the militia to handle self-defense of the nation. He also insisted that if there was a standing army, they should be barracked with the civilian population, as he had seen the effects of rampant militarism in the British army, and wanted to avoid this.
Exactly right. And as Friedrich Nietzsche, the founding fathers and Jesus Christ once said, "This shit is so obvious, there's no way anyone would ever be dumb or greedy enough to misinterpret it."
 

Grape_Bullion

New member
Mar 8, 2012
198
0
0
And where guns are legal, they are used in the majority of crimes, whether actually fired or not. People say that they'd rather let ten guilty men go than to let one innocent man be convicted. So is it okay that 10 people use a firearm properly, and one doesn't?
 

Grape_Bullion

New member
Mar 8, 2012
198
0
0
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
Words
Words
Words
Words
Just because gun crime is low doesn't mean crime is low. It's quite easy to die without being shot to death. As people use guns for self-defense more than they murder each-other with them, they save lives
And where guns are legal, they are used in the majority of crimes, whether actually fired or not. People say that they'd rather let ten guilty men go than to let one innocent man be convicted. So is it okay that 10 people use a firearm properly, and one doesn't? Double post town.
 

Theseus32

New member
May 14, 2010
103
0
0
Appeal to authority and a false dichotomy. The logical fallacy thing works both ways. Plus assuming that american conservatives would rather let ten guilty men walk to save an innocent is a tad optimistic when current trends indicate just the opposite is true. That they'd rather execute 10 innocent men just to make DARN sure they got the one guilty guy. That's hyperbolic, of course, but accurate, considering the trends they've been forwarding.

To answer your question though, no. Of course it isn't ok. However, in deference to reality, there are far more than 10 people who use a gun correctly for each that doesn't. The fact that anyone has access to a method of killing vast numbers of people in a very short period of time is kind of the problem. It's not that they're being used "incorrectly" it's that there is no correct use for these weapons that DOESN'T involve wholesale slaughter. It's what they're freaking designed to do.
 

spartan231490

New member
Jan 14, 2010
5,186
0
0
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
spartan231490 said:
Grape_Bullion said:
Words
Words
Words
Words
Just because gun crime is low doesn't mean crime is low. It's quite easy to die without being shot to death. As people use guns for self-defense more than they murder each-other with them, they save lives
And where guns are legal, they are used in the majority of crimes, whether actually fired or not. People say that they'd rather let ten guilty men go than to let one innocent man be convicted. So is it okay that 10 people use a firearm properly, and one doesn't? Double post town.
I'm confused. What does this have to do with anything? Increased gun control conclusively does not reduce crime in the US. I don't get this 10 guilty men and 1 innocent argument. It's not about catching the innocent with the guilty, it's about either letting the innocent defend themselves or not.
 

Grape_Bullion

New member
Mar 8, 2012
198
0
0
There's never been a scenario where firearms have been outright illegal to own in the US, obviously no data exists to show how crime would be affected if it were illegal to own a weapon. The point I was trying to get across is, in my opinion, if one person isn't capable of properly using a gun, then why should anyone have them?
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
maddawg IAJI said:
Moth_Monk said:
The only reason for thinking guns are needed, as far as I can tell, is if you think you need to kill somebody for some reason with them.

Captcha: hunky-dory

I <3 Captcha's irony. :)
That's kinda WHY we have the 2nd Amendment. An Armed population exists to protect against the threat of military or governmental take over of the country (Keep in mind that, its really not uncommon for a military to take over a country that had recently gone through a revolution. Just look at Egypt)

What a lot of non-U.S. posters don't understand is that we cannot make firearms illegal. It is almost impossible for us to do so. We have a federal amendment in the bill of rights (2nd Amendment:Right to bear arms) and for those of you who don't know what the bill of rights is, its essentially the first ten amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created because anti-federalists (Those who opposed the drafting of the Constitution because they felt it gave the Federal Government too much power) pretty much demanded it before they would vote and pass the whole constitution (Which included the Branches of government and how the process would work.) We cannot repeal amendments. We can only add in another Amendment that repeals the previous one (For example, the 21st Amendment repealed 18th Amendment) and it requires a CRAZY AMOUNT of support to pass. It would be impossible to get all the support needed to stop the 2nd Amendment, let alone one attached to such an early document of the US. So for those of you preaching for making gun ownership in the US illegal, just stop. Its not gonna happen with the way the US government works right now and if it does happen, its gonna be because we decided to stop using the Constitution, and given how many people cling to that thing likes its their mother's tit, its not gonna happen for several generations.

So can we stop beating the dead horse?
The 2nd Ammendment grants the right for Militia to bear arms (As far as I recall) Plenty of European nations have militia's that can own firearms. Just that the US court at some point interpretated Militia as Everyone living in the country.
 

Nikolaz72

This place still alive?
Apr 23, 2009
2,125
0
0
Renegade Shepard said:
I'd prefer it if it was harder to get a gun.

Then everyone and their mother wouldn't become a mercenary that thinks that they can take on people like me, a trained, card carrying galaxy saver.
Im starting to see why all the human mercs in the galaxy speak with American accents.
 

Tsukuyomi

New member
May 28, 2011
308
0
0
Why would it be a bad thing to outlaw private gun-ownership? Well, speaking as someone who is new to gun-ownership here in the states (I've probably been shooting about a year now or less, not entirely sure.) I can think of a few reasons that the...I tend to call them 'extremists'....would give you.

1: "Well if you don't have a proper firearm what if a crazed PCP-Addict busts into your home and threatens your family?!"

I have actually heard this offered up as a serious question in a debate about caliber. The man in question was dead-set that anything below a .40 S&W was just not worth it for self/home defense. There's a lot of them out there here in the states. Many of them old and white and racist/homophobic to varying degrees. I get what he's saying, but also, honestly speaking, unless you live in an area where such a thing is more likely to happen, that's probably a one-in-a-million chance. To me it's just an excuse to have a bigger gun around the house and whatnot.

2: "Well if we don't have guns, how are we gonna defend our freedom from *insert today's social or political or ideological devil here*?!"

Many a crack is made, covertly, against President Obama, Hilary Clinton, and other proponents of gun-restriction. Oftentimes the word Communist is thrown around, along with various slurs and derogatory remarks and doom-predictions about what would happen if they 'won' and took away our precious guns. This is basically a load of garbage and like the first argument it's a sign of fear and misunderstanding. However there may be historical precedent that a populace with little to no means of defending itself is easily rolled over by dictators and despots. Largely though, this I think is a factor of American upbringing. Look at Extra Credits' 'The Myth of the Gun' if you don't really get what I mean. We are indeed still enraptured with the idea of the Citizen Soldier. And as I recall the reputation does work in our favor sometimes. If I remember correctly (someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here), either during or after World War II, the Japanese Emperor at the time was talking about the war and he stated in pretty clear terms that he wouldn't have dreamed of attempting to take over America. When asked why his answer was something to the effect of: "There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

I suppose I could think of other arguments I've heard but suffice it to say they're mostly going to be stuff like the above two. Neither of which I particularly agree with.

----------------------------

For my own logic though? Well...I suppose self-defense is a small part of it, though I don't openly carry. I see the logic in it, however. Someone once pointed out that the Wild West was a very polite place, mostly because you were always very aware of the consequences of pissing someone off, as those consequences hung from an openly-seen holster. Barbaric? Yes. But there are some people in life who don't understand anything but barbarism. You can talk to them all day until your face turns blue but they simply won't learn anything until you apply force and/or pain. It's a sad fact of life, and it shouldn't have to be, and I'd like to see a day where those types of people don't exist, but I think it will likely always be a part of life.

I originally only wanted to learn how to handle a gun. I didn't want to own one, really. Conceal-Carry laws had just passed in my neck of the woods and after long periods of thought I came to the conclusion that I simply wanted to be prepared. It may be a one-in-a-million chance that I need to pick up someone's firearm and use it for the defense of myself or others, but however long the odds, if it ever came, I wanted to be sure I could use it safely and not hurt anyone who didn't need to be, including but not limited to myself.

My first experience at a range was...both lackluster and eye-opening. I wasn't totally enraptured the first moment I pulled the trigger on my family's old hunting-rifle, but actually experiencing it for myself dissolved many of my preconceptions from movies, television, and games. Even now, I find my perceptions of the shooting world changing every time I meet new people and handle new hardware. For example many competition shooters I've met stand by SIG Sauer, a German manufacturer known for top-end handguns and impeccable quality and visual design. My own experience with a Sig? Not bad, but rather lackluster.

The same goes for the infamous Glock. Interesting though it is to have a probably 90% composite gun, and it does work, I was not tremendously impressed. It put holes where I wanted them on the target, but I had more than one issue with reliability.

In part I think delving into a world that's so simultaneously hyped and reviled is part of the enjoyment for me. While there is a certain amount of Republican rhetoric and the stereotypical 'redneck gun-nut' business, for the most part it's not all that bad. The people who are there are simply there because they either enjoy shooting like anyone else enjoys a sport, (yes, I know it can be debated on if it's a sport or not) or, like me, they're trying to dispel the myths and preconceptions that the world feeds them. You meet many kinds of people, and while guns are obviously a prime factor at any range, safety and safe-use are glorified. These are not people who just wanna blow stuff up indiscriminately. They are keenly aware of the deadly potential of these items and they treat them with the appropriate amount of respect and caution they require.

Finally for me I think the biggest reason I have them and enjoy them is the incredible science and workmanship that goes into them. I'm consistently surprised as I learn more about certain weapons like the Colt 1911, the amount of science and sheer cleverness that goes into their design and execution. More and more it's occurred to me that these items represent what may perhaps be Man's longest-lasting legacy on earth: the ability to kill other creatures and each other. Grim though that is, it's the one thing we've pursued down to a science and a fine art. Hopefully in the future our positive achievements will easily eclipse it, but while we approach that, I look forward to seeing what kind of ingenuity and thought is put into these devices to advance them.

Do I see where they are bad and possibly horrible things? Of course. I was raised to believe they were everything wrong with the world. As you can tell I've changed those views somewhat, but I understand the misgivings others have. Should they be outlawed because singular people use them irresponsibly and for horrible, terrible ends? That's too big of a question for me to answer, as I don't have enough facts to make a reasonable one, but I don't really think so. Crazy people are going to be crazy people. A Gun is a hunk of metal, ceramic, and plastic. It has no brain. When someone points one at you, it's nothing personal on the gun's end. It's completely personal on the end of the guy who's holding it.
 

marche45

New member
Nov 16, 2008
99
0
0
illas said:
marche45 said:
illas said:
Because Americans suddenly become stupid the instant someone utters the word "freedom".

Seriously, in my experience, Americans will defend and protect almost anything no matter how dangerous, ridiculous, or unfair it is simply on the grounds of "we're the land of the free and people must have the right to do x/y/z".

Rational argument, decades worth of statistics and common sense have minimal relevance.
Did you actually stop to read some of the posts in this thread?
They were actually well thought out.
"Well thought out" does not equal "objectively correct". People can think and argue all they like, but if they refuse to consider perspectives and statistics which contradict their opinion, they're essentially acting as their own echo chamber rather than actually engaging in an informed debate. Notably both the "pro" and "contra" gun camps do this.

My initial post was tantamount to saying that there is minimal correlation between how much people think about these things and how correct they actually are. People have firm opinions on such issues and aren't willing to deviate (regardless of whether or not doing so would be in their best interests).

Proof-reading this post I feel like a character out of Aaron Sorkin's "Newsroom".
Fuck.
Disregard everything I said :p
While i would argue this is true about pretty much ANY argument people have,i would like to point out people have actually been pulling out statistics.
 

jakeblues69

New member
Nov 30, 2011
68
0
0
Nemesis729 said:
I live in America and I've never heard a gunshot, hell the only time I've ever seen a gun was on a police officers hip.

It's not about making guns illegal, before you know it the government will start making sharp knives illegal, it's about making sure only certain people can get them. In my state (New Jersey) it's nearly impossible for people to get their hands on one, if you have a criminal record they wont even consider approving you, that's how it should be in my opinion.

We're not children who need the government to tell us what we can and can't do.
I actually left NJ ( and refuse to go back, even to visit ) when Jim Florio put the assault weapons ban in place. With the stroke of a pen, he made me and everyone else who legally purchased any assault weapons, a felon. And of course, how can I almost forget Christie Todd Whitman, who in her campaign, said she would repeal the ban, then after she was elected, didn't. Because of this I try to make sure NJ doesn't see a dime of my money in any way, shape or form. Yeah, I hold a grudge.
 

Heinrich843

New member
Apr 1, 2009
96
0
0
I'll put it simply and we'll try to stay as simple as possible with this. They're two systems of dealing with guns. They're two separate theories.

Okay. Guns aren't necessary. We'll get that right out of the way to begin with. The problem is that you just can't remove them all, they still drift into the UK despite strict gun laws. The technology and material to make them still exists, as well as illegal imports. (I'd link to the post of a student buying a sub-machine gun for 200 pounds, but you get the point.) I could also tell you how to make zip gun, but I believe that's illegal.

The philosophy of the United States is that the police cannot be everywhere at anytime, criminals will continue to get guns, civilians without guns means only criminals with guns, individual gun freedoms, etc.

Gun crime tends to be higher as a result (despite background checks and waiting periods), and occasionally some downtrodden individual(or just with serious mental health issues) kills a bunch of innocent people that had nothing to do with their issues.

The bigger issue is crime rates and violent crime. When you remove guns, that gun crime turns into other violent crimes.

What we really need instead of gun debates:

Better mental health care for our communities, more social awareness of dangerous behavior, and more social supportive communities to prevent crime in the first place.

As long as we keep avoiding the root cause of the problem, those knives, guns, blunt objects and whatever have you will keep finding their way into troubled individual's hands. I'd like to live in a society where responsible, mature adults can own dangerous things because they're intelligent and wise enough to use them responsibly. (Like cars)
 

Heinrich843

New member
Apr 1, 2009
96
0
0
Nikolaz72 said:
The 2nd Ammendment grants the right for Militia to bear arms (As far as I recall) Plenty of European nations have militia's that can own firearms. Just that the US court at some point interpretated Militia as Everyone living in the country.
Well, to be specific- due to issues of actual implementation of the 2nd Amendment word for word- ~1790 or so, congress declared most of the male population as the militia due to a lack of standing army. (Similar to countries that call upon able bodies to fill the ranks of their military, but this would be in a citizen-soldier capacity.)