The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?

Chess__x

New member
Aug 4, 2009
41
0
0
Brockyman said:
I live here and I haven't seen a "good" change tried yet. Just overbloated government programs that don't work in your country any better, or maybe you like pulling your own teeth b/c you're tired of the year long wait at the dentist office..
Honestly, I've never had to wait to go to the dentist... you automatically get an appointment every 6 months and it really isn't hard to get put in earlier if you're having problems. I think the NHS is a totally wonderful idea and I'd hate to be without it - until you're 18 all treatment is 100% free and then you just have to pay £7.20 for anything you're prescribed, even though it often costs around £40 to make it. & of course going to see the doctor is always free and you're pretty much guaranteed to get an appointment on any given day, provided you call early enough and equally being treated in hospital is free. You basically just proved my point... what we have is undoubtedly better in terms of the healthcare system, but so many Americans refuse to see that cause you just seem too afraid of change... or something =/ I don't know, you're not my problem. As far as I'm concerned, if American's are too ignorant to understand why the things Obama's saying will really help them then they don't deserve it anyway.
 

gremily

New member
Oct 9, 2008
891
0
0
I'm American and proud of it, and I love my 2nd amendment right. To me this article just sounds like another attempt to get rid of it. I feel really sorry for people in the European countries who can't own a firearm. It's all a bunch of bullshit made by anti-gun, oh wait I mean anti-self-defense, people.
 

Gezab

New member
Oct 7, 2009
22
0
0
Rensenhito said:
Check the mortality rates. It's much harder to kill someone without an automatic "make-you-dead" lever, i.e. gun.
The main argument was that guns cause crime.
I was proving that it does not.

Your point doesn't even make any sense.
Criminals won't have guns because they obey the law
Lol, convicted criminals can't get guns in the US in the first place.
Your argument is so lulzy I can't bear trying to hide my laughter. Do you honestly think that criminals have no other ways to get guns? What do you think the black market is? How do you think the Taliban, IRA, and Neo-Nazis get guns? Yeah, illegally. Hear that guys? BIG SHOCKER - CRIMINALS BREAK THE LAW.

Expecting criminals to follow that rule is like putting a candy inf ront of a child and expecting that they wont eat it. Criminals will still have guns. Drugs are banned in the United States, but you can literally find a pot dealer every 4 blocks in most cities. But pot is illegal. See what I'm getting at?
a criminal will have a gun is if they got it illegally
Hurrr
The world is perfect, we can magically crack down on the black market cuz we can
No, it's not.
Again, Taliban, IRA, neo nazis, etc.
Why hasn't anybody been able to crack down on sales of weapons to the Taliban? Seems easy right? The world we live in isn't perfect, like you think it is. We can't just "halt the black market". As said before in this thread, we already have an entire section of the FBI dedicated to cracking down on illegal weapons and you still can't get them. Even the UK, with some of THE strictest gun laws, can't seem to stop domestic terrorists from getting guns. Same with the Neo Nazis in Russia and Ukraine.
US doesn't take care of it's citizens, switzerland duz, hurp dur
You just ignored my argument and defeated yourself, bravo.
If you truly believe that guns aren't a problem if the citizens are more happy, then guns aren't a problem, it's the happyness of the citizens, therefore you don't need to ban guns.
So stop trying to change gun laws and practice summore social justice.

There is absolutely no way that someone trying to rid the country of a dangerous and readily available weapon is more of a threat than said dangerous and readily available weapon.
It rids them of self defense against these weapons.
 

Eldarion

New member
Sep 30, 2009
1,887
0
0
Hedberger said:
Dark Templar said:
Steelfists said:
Dark Templar said:
Right, ban guns so that the average person is helpless during a mugging.

Oh and a criminal TOTALLY won't shoot you if you just hand over you money.

Everyone submit to criminals peacefully now.

All this "Ban guns" nonsense is stupid, doesn't stop the wrong people from getting them.

McNinja said:
You're right, because the police are omnipresent and are able to stop every rape, mugging, homicide, armed robbery in America.

I'll keep my guns, thanks.
Thank you.

Diablini said:
Arms should only be given to thrustworthy people, no crimnal record, is 18 (or 21) and so on.
Exactly, people need to think a little thats all.
You have contradicted yourself. You say that banning guns doesn't stop bad people getting guns, and yet you support Diablini saying that guns should only be given to "trustworthy people".

And a mugger is not going to to fucking shoot you if you hand over your phone and cash, ffs.

I don't understand how people can make these abstract arguments about how you need a gun to protect you from criminals.

No. 1: Criminals are generally not out to kill someone. They want monies. All your monies. Or at least all the monies you have on you at the time. You give them to him and are out of pocket $50 or something, and he gets to get high! And no one gets shot!!

No 2: Unequivocal statistics show that less people from gunshot wounds in countries where the average citizen cannot own a gun. I don't understand how you can argue against such facts. Maybe you MIGHT get mugged, but less people would die. How can less people dying NOT be the desired outcome.
Really all you are doing is putting more value on you or your family's material goods than a stranger's life. Which might be understandable if you were a caveman. But you're not. At least, not physically.
No I didn't contradict myself, learn to read.

You idiotic gun bad will only keep innocent, responsible people from having them. It will not stop criminals from getting them. With a basic intelligence test and gun safety education there is no reason to keep guns away from responsible people.

The second some scumbag draws a weapon on me with the intent to steal or anything else I stop caring about his safety. You think they are entitled to my money just cause they have a weapon? If thats how you feel, be sure to bend over for him too.
You do know that once you get into that situation the mugger has already pulled a gun on you. That's the only way you know that he/she is a mugger and then it's too late to pull out your own gun. Actually the mugger will probably tell you to raise your hands slowly and then take your gun and sell to his friends. That's how criminals get's their hands on guns in the first place. At least the ordinary street mugger. So a gun is a very poor defense anyway and only serves to arm the criminals.

If you don't have a gun the mugger is less likely to get stressed and do something stupid, like shooting you. Just hand over the money and the insurance company pays.
Its very hard to get into that kind of situation. You would have to walk into a near deserted part of town, they don't try that where there are allot of other people around. If there are other people around, someone else can shoot him.

And no that is not how most criminals get guns, the black market on that is WAY more complicated. Besides, its allot easier to get a gun on the internet and runs a hell of allot less risk.

You are banking ENTIRELY on the fact that you "know" that most criminals won't kill you. You are banking entirely on the morality of a criminal. I don't have that kind of faith in a common criminal and I don't value their lives.
 

cleverlymadeup

New member
Mar 7, 2008
5,256
0
0
DeathWyrmNexus said:
So basically you are saying that the citizens should rely on the goodwill of criminals for their safety in a crisis...

Which is worse? Relying on the goodwill of criminals or at least giving the citizens a fighting chance to protect themselves?
most criminals do NOT want to kill you and pulling a gun will increase the chance you will be shot, so yes relying on the fact that they aren't going to kill you is a very good thing

And I have asked cops. And I've also asked victims. And I've also read more than biased reports. Soooo, my conclusion is that a chance is better than no chance at all. It is true that it is technically all a crap shoot whether or not you are raped and/or killed during a mugging but if I can have loaded dice in my favor, even in the slightest bit of favor, I prefer to have it rather than rely on the generosity of somebody threatening my person for a few trinkets.
sure someone can say "oh i'd love to have a gun" but there are tons of stories of "mugging gone horribly wrong" where they say "the victim pulled a gun on the would be attacker and got shot and killed"

also you could have asked the person who got mugged if they should have went somewhere else that night and they would say yes. as for rape, well generally speaking most people know the rapist personally, the same goes for murder

as for you asking cops what was the response from them? every single one i've talked to have always said "just give them the money it's not worth taking the chance that you can kill or disarm them"

heck once a person has a gun pointed at you, there is no way you can draw and shoot before they can pull the trigger on your gun, so even taking a chance is a big gamble, when you have a better chance just to hand over your money and live. as has been said most criminals do NOT want to kill you, they just want your loot
 

Berethond

New member
Nov 8, 2008
6,474
0
0
Rensenhito said:
tipp6353 said:
what about hunters? how would they kill game for meat?
They don't anymore. Most hunting in the U.S.A. is for sport, not out of necessity.
If they REALLY need to kill an animal for food, then they can buy a hunting bow or use traps. You can't conceal a bow, and when was the last time you heard of someone being held at arrowpoint?
Bows are much more expensive, much harder to use, and much less effective. Traps even more so. And, wouldn't you know, there are still huge areas of the United States covered in wilderness. People need guns there.
 

Fallingwater

New member
Mar 20, 2009
177
0
0
teisjm said:
Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.
Agreed; I can't understand how so many americans feel safe carrying a gun in a place full of guns. By a simple question of statistics, if you're attacked you're likely to face more than a single aggressor; at that point you can have the biggest gun in the world, but you'll still be outgunned. In a nation with no guns you always have the option of fighting, intimidating, or simply running like hell.

Still, I would definitely like my country to enable me to carry a non-lethal weapon. For example, I'd very much like an air taser (or two, akimbo-style :p ). As it is, we're left with our muscles alone to defend ourselves with, which is a problem for those of us who don't really have any brawn to speak of. Actually we are allowed to carry pepper sprays, but I'm unconvinced about their effectiveness; I've seen too many videos of dumb people who intentionally spray themselves with it, and don't really seem to suffer any seriously debilitating pains.

Personally, I'm thinking a high-power (say, 2-300mW) green laser pointer with an unfocused lens (so it hits a wider area) could make for a decent aggressor stopper. You can't really pound anyone into submission when you've just been temporarily blinded by a blast of photons in your face.
 

Necrofudge

New member
May 17, 2009
1,242
0
0
Interesting how the rest of the world functions just fine without the right to bear arms among civilians. I'm not talking about all of those countries in Africa and central Asia. I doubt anyone ever does, but most European countries are doing just fucking dandy without their own people running around shooting each other. Makes the job lots easier for the police when they don't risk getting shot themselves by a redneck trying to hide his meth lab (even though that isn't even why the cop is there)

And now I await the comments from people who want to defend the right as part of self defense. (against other people with guns who don't know how to use them responsibly either)
 

ToxinArrow

New member
Jun 13, 2009
246
0
0
Skeleon said:
ToxinArrow said:
So I'm a troll because of my post, yet here you are with: "And imagine if the guy is actually hit in the belly, he'll die really slowly and really painfully. But you'd probably go ahead and put a bullet in his head to put him out of his misery; aren't you merciful. "
Yup. Told you I was aggravated. I'm not innocent of occasional trolling myself.

Yes, an instant death headshot is better than having 50,000 volts surge through you (have you ever had it happen to you? I have, and it doesn't go away in 5 minutes), espicially since liberals are so against using those on criminals as well anyways. Which is it? Use a gun or use a tazer?
Tazer. Who said liberals are against tazers in general?
I guess they're against tazer use on old ladies, pregnant women and guys standing on ledges. Against irresponsible tazer use.
As for your question, no, I haven't experienced it myself. But tell me honestly, would you rather be dead?

And yet, a large number of criminals have nothing but that, a perspective of pure hatred.
Then the penitentiary system has failed its function (it isn't - or at least shouldn't - be primarily there to punish). Though I'm not surprised that happens when it's already overcrowded and not providing perspectives for the future. It'd be one of the issues that must be adressed.

They lost their chance to be upholding citizens, so they don't deserve any of my capital to pay for their color TV or their hot meals.
Sort of agreed, but this is what I meant with "black and white". There are criminals that need to stay locked away forever for heinous crimes. They don't deserve much comfort besides that for which they work themselves. But those aren't the only kind. Some of them are basically kids who made a mistake. Others got suckered in by their peers. Again, others fell into an addiction and did it solely to feed this addiction. These people are criminals but, in a way, they're victims too and the system should rehabilitate them and give those that deserve it a second chance.

And yes, IF the system worked, criminals would pay for themselves, but it doesn't, so why should I pay for their luxuries?
Because things can be improved instead of keeping them the same, flawed way forever.
And nobody asks for prisoners to live in luxury. But there must be enough room to avoid riots and enough work to go around to keep people busy (helps them) and productive (helps society).
Acceptable. Apologies for my earlier comment.

I've seen many number of people on other sites/in my pol. sci. classes discuss how they are both against guns AND tazers in law enforcement.

While it was happening? Yes, I wished I was dead. It is excruciating, but that could also be because of my low tolerance for pain. Afterwards you get up and laugh about it as the next guy goes and gets his, but it is like pain no other and it lingers for a long time.

The prison system is an entirely different line of debate. Some things it should be there to rehabilitate for, others it should be punishment. You can't have one or the other, as there is no one cause for crime, so there is not one solution.

And agreed. There isn't only black and white. It depends on the prisoner involved. But frankly, ignorance/peer pressure is a poor excuse for doing something illegal. As to the 'crime' committed in the teen example (weed, minor 'sexual' crimes, like public urination) I will say that somethings the punishment does not fit the crime, and leave it at that.

And yes, prisons should be that way, it's a shame they're not, because the majority of people in there are there because of stupid laws that, as stated earlier, have punishments ill-be-fitting of the crime. But taking tax money that could be used for other better things like roads, and improving the education system, are instead used to pay for prison/ers. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
I will leave it at this seeing as people wish to rate murder rates of an item as the reason to bann it. Taking away guns is a great idea.... until you look at our nations past. We came from a people that were taxed on ANYTHING by a cruel government, and when we said NO, that government came over with their guns and tried to control us by force. we farmers and pilgrims picked up arms, and defended our human rights. Upon making our independance known, we did so by writing a series of very simple, but VERY needed rules. Upon writing these rules, we added a rule that these rules can not be misreepresented, made metaphorical, or even changed by the government, or it's people as we knew how easily a government could make one little change turn into thousands before you even knew it. The right to bare arms is there to protect the people in the end from a tyranical government which we came face to face with less then 300 years ago.

Might I also bring up Hitler exercised strict gun control to assure his reign was unchallenged? Should I mention Stalin exercised strict gun control to ensure his reign was unchallanged? I am not saying that that WILL happen, I am saying that that CAN happen if we allow our government such sway as to rewrite the very rules our forefathers put in place to prevent such tyranny in the future.
 

DeathWyrmNexus

New member
Jan 5, 2008
1,143
0
0
Rensenhito said:
All right, I'm sorry if I came off as abrasive and unrealistic, but think of it this way:
People can't get physically addicted to guns.
That means that the illegal gun trade wouldn't be as profitable if guns were publicly disallowed. There wouldn't be as much demand for guns as there is for drugs. Sure, there'll always be stupid people who will wanna shoot people just because they can, or to protect said drugs, but most crimes are not premeditated enough to warrant procuring a gun if guns are hard to get. Nowadays, anyone with enough money can go down to Wal-Mart and get themselves a pistol. Again, fewer guns means fewer deadly spur-of-the-moment crimes.
Um, what? It isn't a matter of addiction. It is a matter of supply vs demand vs balance of power. Also crimes of passion tend to just use what is available. If a gun isn't available, it is a crime of passion, death is most likely still going to happen.

An illegal product means a black market for said product. You basically just give drug dealers another product to push. A seller creates a need and only criminals and police have guns. If you ban guns completely, only criminals have guns. Hence why it works on fantasy logic.

You don't need to explain your thinking since your thinking is at its heart, very simple, which is why it is lacking on particular points of reality. Guns exist, as does porn, alcohol, and drugs. The logistics just aren't there to eliminate them. Control them, sure. Remove them, no, not even close to a chance in hell.

Bringing up European countries whose populations, population diversity, and landmass are a small fraction of ours is comparing apples to asshairs on a realistic basis. Sure we could always dig up Switzerland and pretend it backs us up or Britain and pretend it backs you up but it really doesn't.

Both countries have a different diversity of people and much smaller borders. Cultures are also highly different as well as their governmental capacity. Sure they are more efficient, smaller creatures tend to be. They also lack our geography. Switzerland is in the damn mountains and Britain is a small island nation. Those borders aren't hard to defend compared to our own. Let alone that Switzerland has compulsory military service and thus every household has an assault rifle and a military trained person inside. Not exactly what criminals want in their risk assessment.

Meanwhile we shoot back to America, where it is a logistical nightmare to control the Mexican border when the Mexican government can't even control much of anything. South American countries are shipping shit left and right through Mexico with Mexico producing its own crime for export. Then there is simply just shipping over the Gulf of Mexico.

Our sheer landmass and accessibility means that a civilian ban only hurts civilians. Sure we lose a couple crimes of passion though a fire poker or a kitchen knife kills just as well. Anything beyond a crime of passion has just as much gun access as they did before...
 

WhiteTiger225

New member
Aug 6, 2009
1,039
0
0
ToxinArrow said:
Actually, Liberals are against tazers too because in rare instances they can kill even the healthiest of men via stopping the heart.

Thing is, as long as something can kill people, there will be someone against it.
 

ToxinArrow

New member
Jun 13, 2009
246
0
0
Monkeyman8 said:
ToxinArrow said:
Monkeyman8 said:
Yes victims also have one life. That fact does NOT give you the right to take the life of the criminal. Respond with potentially deadly force? Sure, but guess what if you were trained with a knife instead of a gun you could just as easily incapacitate an intruder while making less likely that you kill them. The criminals did forfeit their rights for a time, all rights except the right to LIFE. unless they are about to kill you and you have no option but to kill them instead, you do not get to take their life. Trying to paint you as a fatcat? I don't need to try you're the one that says kill em all I ain't paying for it.
And yet, you assumed that I just go about gunning down criminals, instead of responding with 'potentially lethal force."

Lol, how is a knife any less lethal/dangerous than a gun? for one, you have to be hand to hand to use it, which greatly increases risk to yourself. Secondly, if you're going to 'stab,' the chance is pretty much equal you're going to hit something major, if you're going to 'slash' you're going to do considerably less damage, which gives your opponent more time to retailiate.

And how do I know what their intentions are genius? Just because they say they only want my money doesn't mean shit. I have to assume for my safety they are there to murder, and I will respond appropriately.

How about you go and actually read and understand the context here? I responded to Skeleon's argument along the lines of 'what if the gun goes off while you point it at them, and kills them' to which i replied, "Good, one less rapist." They responded with potentially deadly force after being confronted and unknowning of the opponent's intentions. Your own words of being acceptable. Yet here you are, deliberately misquoting me, and using ad hominem, trying to make it look like I said: "Kill em all."

l2debate plx
let's see, I said with training. If you were trained with a knife you could throw one. if you throw one yah you're more likely to kill someone but at that point you don't get a choice. Hand to hand slashing tactics are amazingly effective and non lethal. Oh it'll hurt like hell, and there is a chance of him bleeding out but it's far less likely to be lethal then stabbing/shooting someone in the chest.

How do you know their motives? basic body language, emotional response, and demeanor. Things they should teach along with how to best wield your boom stick. Just assuming that, hey he's threatening me he must want to kill me, is bullshit. shoot first ask questions later is not a valid policy.

I wasn't responding to that I was responding to the endorsement of capital punishment over life sentences.
And yet again, slashing puts you dangerously closer to the attacker, thus increasing the already incredibly high danger for you. How can you possibly endorse that over having a gun?

Sorry, most people can't read body language, emotional response, and demeanor while they are incredibly stressed, running on probably pure adreneline, and in a dark alley. And yes, they DO teach you things like that at a CHL course. And just assuming that, hey, just because he says he only wants my money and won't kill me, is also bullshit. Ask questions first, not get a chance to shoot later may be acceptable to you, but it isn't to me. It works both ways pal, and I'd rather assume he is going to do something harmful and react accordingly.

That is an entirely different issue that wasn't brought up by me or Skeleon, so why mention it?
 

Superhyperactiveman

New member
Jul 23, 2009
396
0
0
The second ammendment has been misconstrued so much it's unbelieveable.

The right to bear arms is not meant to protect your home from robbers, it's to protect you from the govt. The Founding Fathers put that in there so if the Govt. became oppressive, the people could revolt, while being on the same military level as the govt. If the second ammendment was being enforced as it was meant to be, everyone would have an atomic bomb in their basement (Although, that would raise an entirely new list of problems, so let's not get into how stupid giving everyone atomic bombs would be)

I believe in the second ammendment. I think everyone should have the right to bear arms. But I think we need it to be MUCH more difficult to obtain a gun. I think the sale and distribution of guns should be something handled by the govt., at least in an ideal world where the people in the govt. aren't complete idiots, which as we all know is just pipe dreams, so someone else should handle the distribution of guns, but whoever it is handling the distribution SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO GAIN FROM YOU RECIEVING A GUN (I.E. a monetary profit) And people should not be allowed to carry guns around with them. That's just idiotic. Your gun should stay in your home for defending the homefront. It should be kept in an area where you can reach it, but where small children cannot... as in, not in a locked cabinet. Somewhere that you can easily reach it, but where it is physically impossible for the child to reach, such as up on a very high shelf, out of sight, or possibly hanging up in the closet in YOUR bedroom. And no heavy duty stuff. No one outside of the military NEEDS an AK-47. Just a little handgun for your home, and maybe a hunting rifle if you're into that sort of thing...

Getting rid of guns would cut down on crime, but only the small time stuff. The more sophisticated, intelligent, dedicated criminals would still be able to get guns. We'd still have things like bank heists, home invasion, random shootings, etc.

But the fact is that if guns were made illegal for civillians, it would mean taking power away from the people and giving more power to the govt... the very stupid, inept, slightly corrupt govt... I don't want the govt. to have that kind of power over us.
 

thiosk

New member
Sep 18, 2008
5,410
0
0
I think guns are great if i have them and you don't.

Also,

 

ToxinArrow

New member
Jun 13, 2009
246
0
0
WhiteTiger225 said:
ToxinArrow said:
Actually, Liberals are against tazers too because in rare instances they can kill even the healthiest of men via stopping the heart.

Thing is, as long as something can kill people, there will be someone against it.
And it is a stupid reason. Just because something has the capacity to kill someone doesn't mean shit. If we outlawed everything that was capable of killing someone, there wouldn't be anything here.