Poll: is he ignorant or does he have a point

[RelexCryo]

snip

So you are basically saying you think you need a gun for self defense. That's not only plain stupid, but also just wrong. You think you have the right to take a mans life when you think you're in jeopardy? It might be self defense, but you're still a murderer. If you have to have a gun to feel safe, you should see a psychiatrist.

There is not one situation where there should be a gun in your house. Not one.

If you really want a way to feel safe at home, you should train the shit out of your body. So when it comes down to it, you can take your enemy down like a man.

Guns are for pussies.

A Murderer and a killer are not the same. Murder is when you kill someone else without justification. Self defense is adequate justification. Hence, self-defense is not murder.

no, you can still murder someone with justification. that's why they call them passion murders.

A reason and justification are not the same thing. Your spouse cheating on you might be a reason, but it is not justification. Justice implies fairness and equity, in essence, a just punishment will always match the crime. Hence, vengenace and justice are not the same.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

Personally, I don't think any civilian should have access to guns, unless they live in one of those places where you need to hunt. If I had my way guns would be outlawed, but that's not going to happen due to the bizarre gun fetish culture and large amount of guns in circulation.

OT: I don't think he's that unreasonable for not wanting a deadly weapon in the house frankly. Their house, their rules.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

snip

So you are basically saying you think you need a gun for self defense. That's not only plain stupid, but also just wrong. You think you have the right to take a mans life when you think you're in jeopardy? It might be self defense, but you're still a murderer. If you have to have a gun to feel safe, you should see a psychiatrist.

There is not one situation where there should be a gun in your house. Not one.

If you really want a way to feel safe at home, you should train the shit out of your body. So when it comes down to it, you can take your enemy down like a man.

Guns are for pussies.

A Murderer and a killer are not the same. Murder is when you kill someone else without justification. Self defense is adequate justification. Hence, self-defense is not murder.

no, you can still murder someone with justification. that's why they call them passion murders.

Dunno which law school you studied at. There's no such thing as a passion murder. Killing someone with any ounce of justification or provocation is called manslaughter.

 

[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.

*sigh*

In reply to A) It's human nature to want a sort of territory, if we all lived in a government shelter, fighting would break out.

In Reply to B) I'm not saying that corruption is inevitable, nor am I saying its not, but with good regulation and transparency, it can be miminalized.

It seems that in your opinion, the capacity for civilians to commit crimes is more important. While I would not say your perspective is wrong per se, the perspective that government corruption is a more important threat is not wrong either- especially since Switzerland has proven it can work.

 

[Rainboq]

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.

*sigh*

In reply to A) It's human nature to want a sort of territory, if we all lived in a government shelter, fighting would break out.

In Reply to B) I'm not saying that corruption is inevitable, nor am I saying its not, but with good regulation and transparency, it can be miminalized.

It seems that in your opinion, the capacity for civilians to commit crimes is more important. While I would not say your perspective is wrong per se, the perspective that government corruption is a more important threat is not wrong either- especially since Switzerland has proven it can work.

Okay first, look at the differences between the USA and Switzerland.

Switzerland has a decent education system, the US does not. (Nearly half of Philadelphia Proper is illiterate)

Switzerland has a decent health care system, the US, don't make me laugh.

Switzerland doesn't have as much poverty as the US, because they have a better education system.

Secondly, the gouvernment is only corrupt so long as the public allows it, hence the second amendment, it was created to allow an uprising if the gouvernment got corrupt.

 

[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.

*sigh*

In reply to A) It's human nature to want a sort of territory, if we all lived in a government shelter, fighting would break out.

In Reply to B) I'm not saying that corruption is inevitable, nor am I saying its not, but with good regulation and transparency, it can be miminalized.

It seems that in your opinion, the capacity for civilians to commit crimes is more important. While I would not say your perspective is wrong per se, the perspective that government corruption is a more important threat is not wrong either- especially since Switzerland has proven it can work.

Okay first, look at the differences between the USA and Switzerland.

Switzerland has a decent education system, the US does not. (Nearly half of Philadelphia Proper is illiterate)

Switzerland has a decent health care system, the US, don't make me laugh.

Switzerland doesn't have as much poverty as the US, because they have a better education system.

Secondly, the gouvernment is only corrupt so long as the public allows it, hence the second amendment, it was created to allow an uprising if the gouvernment got corrupt.

I'll agree that the social conditions are very different. I commented earlier that you couldn't use the success of Switzerland to argue in favor of giving everyone assault rifles, any more than you could use the lower crime rate of Britain to argue in favor of gun control- different social conditions make comparisons between countries difficult, and you can only truly observe the effectiveness of gun control by observing the before and after effect within a given country.

That said, while I do believe that social conditions are far more important than gun ownership in terms of creating crime rate, the math I have seen has led me to believe that when you have bad social conditions, letting law-abiding citizens own and carry guns tends to result in less crime rather than more. In a country with a well-entrenched illegal market with a huge network of smugglers, the effectiveness of a ban is questionable. Or more simply put- we banned liqour, it didn't work, we banned drugs, it didn't work.

 

[Rainboq]

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.

*sigh*

In reply to A) It's human nature to want a sort of territory, if we all lived in a government shelter, fighting would break out.

In Reply to B) I'm not saying that corruption is inevitable, nor am I saying its not, but with good regulation and transparency, it can be miminalized.

It seems that in your opinion, the capacity for civilians to commit crimes is more important. While I would not say your perspective is wrong per se, the perspective that government corruption is a more important threat is not wrong either- especially since Switzerland has proven it can work.

Okay first, look at the differences between the USA and Switzerland.

Switzerland has a decent education system, the US does not. (Nearly half of Philadelphia Proper is illiterate)

Switzerland has a decent health care system, the US, don't make me laugh.

Switzerland doesn't have as much poverty as the US, because they have a better education system.

Secondly, the gouvernment is only corrupt so long as the public allows it, hence the second amendment, it was created to allow an uprising if the gouvernment got corrupt.

I'll agree that the social conditions are very different. I commented earlier that you couldn't use the success of Switzerland to argue in favor of giving everyone assault rifles, any more than you could use the lower crime rate of Britain to argue in favor of gun control- different social conditions make comparisons between countries difficult, and you can only truly observe the effectiveness of gun control by observing the before and after effect within a given country.

That said, while I do believe that social conditions are far more important than gun ownership in terms of creating crime rate, the math I have seen has led me to believe that when you have bad social conditions, letting law-abiding citizens own and carry guns tends to result in less crime rather than more. In a country with a well-entrenched illegal market with a huge network of smugglers, the effectiveness of a ban is questionable. Or more simply put- we banned liqour, it didn't work, we banned drugs, it didn't work.

I agree with you.

Now, I'm going to stop this and get my work done, it was... well it wasn't fun.

 

[Rachel317]

At 16, I'd never let a kid of mine have a gun, no matter how mature or "trained" they were. Regardless of my opinion, while you're under your mother's roof, you gotta abide by her rules, whether you like them or not. She's letting you live in her house and regardless of whether you "agree" with them, you should show her the respect she deserves for bringing you into this world and, from what it sounds like, giving you a great, caring start in life.

If she allows you on to the shooting range, that's great, because you're surrounded by professionals and, probably, ex-military men who will keep you right, but if she's dead against having a gun in the house...that's her prerogative.

Notice I haven't really mentioned your mum's boyfriend yet...it's not his decision, it's hers.

 

[soilent]

If you plan on hunting, otherwise you're just wasting ammunition.

pretty much this, I have no issue with hunters, its random and pointless gun collecting that i have an issue with.

 

[Keepitclean]

He certainly has a valid point. I'm not sure if he is right in this situation because all my information has come from one side of the arguement and was discribed in about 25 words. If the OP's mum owns either the house or the lease if the house is rented I think she gets to choose whether there is a gun in her house or not.

Why doesn't the OP just keep it at his dad's house?

 

[bam13302]

He is a bit ignorant, i live in maryland and my dad comes from a family of gun owners, no one has ever gotten hurt and it is a great pass time (although it is a little hard to find a gun range here). Guns are perfectly safe if you know how to use them, if you come from a family that doesnt use guns, i would -strongly- recommend you take a training course (i believe that is required anyway when purchasing a gun) and find someone that also likes target shooting.

 

[Mammon]

Back when I was your age kids just bought crack.

Truly, what has happened to the ways of old!

 

[clairedelune]

Because you can so easily just go to a range and use one of their guns, if you only want to do target practice why would you need to own a gun yourself? Especially with you being a teenager. You may not be stupid with guns but I bet your friends are.

 

[RoutineEnvelope]

If there's a shooting range near where you live, then you should appeal to them that you will use it for this. Do you want a future in the military? Are you a keen hunter? If not, why do you want a gun? So you can go out and shoot targets?

And for all those people who think that 'America's gun laws are stupid, gun crime, yada yada yada... That's not what this post is about. He's not asking for permission to carry a gun tucked in his belt so he can hold up a liquor store (How am I doing for cliche?).

If you can be trusted, then they should trust you, but I honestly don't see the point in having a gun, personally...

 

[McNinja]

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.

How much do you actually know about guns? Do you know how to safely handle one? How to load one? If you don't, then there's a pretty god chance that something will get shot/injured.

The thing with guns is that they are dangerous.

I love guns. But I've been tought how to use them safely since I was about nine. I also went to a two week camp where all you did was shoot guns and learn various hunting techniques and skills, as well as gun safety (prior to the camp, you had to fill out what was basically a 20 page book with what part was what on a gun and gun safety questions).

The point I am getting at is that if you have no idea how to use a gun safely, things have a much higher chance of getting screwed up, because bullets tend to move quite fast and humans are not good stoppers.

Chances are your parents are not well educated on guns in general. All they see is stuff on the news about how many people died from a shooting this week, and thats all they know. And any accidental shooting can be attributed to everyone being involved being a f**king moron. Remember that one story a while back about a kid who got shot with an Uzi because the gun-show attendant didn't properly check that it was empty? Both of them were morons. All you have to do is take the magazaine out, then check the chamber to make sure there are no rounds chambered. Simple as that.

So if you end up getting one: Don't be a f**king moron. Learn some stuff first. I'll help:
-Treat all guns as if they are loaded- This can be easy to forget, because most people are retards and can't be bothered to not point guns at people. Basically assume all guns are loaded, and point them either up (if in an open area, like a field) or downrange (doesn't matter where you are). Just do not point them at people. Ever. I hate seeing idiots messing around with real guns and pointing them at each other.

Actually i just found this, after not looking very hard:
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp?PHPSESSID=3302267395f568e684d4886d70a40f86

NRA gun safety rules.

And to all you people who think nobody should have guns ever: If there were less morons in the world, and gun safety was widely distributed and known, would you change your answer?

Edit: Just in case, this isn't meant to be condescending. If you don't see the point then this isn't an issue, but I feel that a lot of gun related incidents could be avoided if people were less retarded.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Like this. "Having a gun causes psychopathy, and psychopathy is the only reason someone would want a gun for a non-utilitarian purpose." *Facepalm* Please base your arguments in typical reality.

Maybe, but I'm not one to march on government conventions with loaded firearms as seemed to be the case with most 2nd amendment activists.

As an aside, I'm sorry, but that's...very, very bad reasoning. Saying that humans are inclined to simply act violent for no other reason than acting violent?

Perhaps you should offer support before calling me wrong? If I were to hunt down you're posts and just reply with "No, you're wrong." would it be making a suitable case?

It would be a fun experiment, but I'd likely get banned for harassment so treat it as a hypothetical situation.

 

[Jofrak]

He is a bit ignorant, i live in maryland and my dad comes from a family of gun owners, no one has ever gotten hurt and it is a great pass time (although it is a little hard to find a gun range here). Guns are perfectly safe if you know how to use them, if you come from a family that doesnt use guns, i would -strongly- recommend you take a training course (i believe that is required anyway when purchasing a gun) and find someone that also likes target shooting.

The only way a gun is 'safe' is if it's stripped into its component parts, otherwise it's a liability and thinking it's safe is sure to cause an ND or someone getting hurt in general.

Because you can so easily just go to a range and use one of their guns, if you only want to do target practice why would you need to own a gun yourself? Especially with you being a teenager. You may not be stupid with guns but I bet your friends are.

Whereas there is generally not a great deal of difference the zeroing of a sight to your own eye and positioning of your cheek and eye to sight varies between people, if he has his own gun it will be zero'd for him, if he's renting a gun he would typically need to zero it every time he uses it to ensure he's hitting where he's aiming. It gets quite tedious to have to re-zero every time.

 

[WakeTheDead1]

I wouldnt want a gun in my house, especially if a 16 year old was in charge of it