Poll: Lets pretend the government passes a law stating that you can't have a gun anymore...

[chadachada123]

"that you can pretend makes you safe" compared to...what?

A police force that wont be there (nor are required to be there) when you need it the most with its 10+ minute response time while you are dealing with a pyscho armed with a crowbar?

Hey, only 9 minutes and 30 seconds left to go while im tanking his crowbar with my face!

Question. Gun rights notwithstanding, why aren't there any initiatives, civilian initiatives, to actually increase police responsibility and obligation. That they are not legally obligated to protect the citizens is ludicrous and completely messed up. Even leaving the gun question off the table - gun control or no gun control - you will be safer if the police actually have, you know, the duty to protect.

Why is nothing being done there?

Because police in the US are more likely (five times more likely) to shoot innocent people than the average gun owner, despite gun owners killing over twice as many criminals in self defense than officers. You're safer when you defend yourself, when the police don't get involved unless you have no other options.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/02/21/disarming-the-myths-promoted-by-the-gun-control-lobby/2/

(This next bit is a rant against the insane amount of police abuse this country has)
And any attempt to try and hold officers accountable for MURDERING PEOPLE raises accusations of being a cop-hater. This is without taking into account the massive cover-ups, the many officers that lie to protect a fellow "man in blue," and the courts that are essentially in bed with police departments, with prosecutors almost never bringing charges against an officer that abuses their power. Even in the rare instances where an officer IS charged and convicted, they get a pathetically small fraction of the punishment that the average citizen gets, and preferential treatment in civil cases despite an absence of evidence in their favor.

 

[Strazdas]

Removing a tool simply because it can not solve a problem by itself is folly.

Would you agree that removing a tool that is working not as intended and does significant damage to the mechanism it is applied to is a good thing?
if so, by your own definition you agree on restricting access to weapons.

Because police in the US are more likely (five times more likely) to shoot innocent people than the average gun owner, despite gun owners killing over twice as many criminals in self defense than officers. You're safer when you defend yourself, when the police don't get involved unless you have no other options.

So what that says, is that there is a HUGE problem with your police force. which actually does explain A LOT. So i guess the first step to making sure the paranoid lunatics who think they will be attacked every time they go outside are not right is to make police actually effective. and yes, removing guns from civilians does make it much easier to make police effective.

Oh, but i have almost been killed by deer numerous times due to there not being many hunters in my state (thanks to strict gun control) and the deer population becoming rampant.

deer population is not rampant, its dwindling.
deers are not agressive unless provoked.
hunting deers should be prohibited. if strick gun control lowered the amount of deerhunting, then we have already proven that strict gun control does a lot of good.

 

[Falsename]

In the words of that man "with solid gold teeth, camouflage clothes and who'd just bought a heavy machine gun from a gun-show without any background checks what-so-ever".

"I'd like to see them try!"

Anyone who surrender's their guns is responsible with them, everyone who doesn't is the kind of person who's created this problem in the first place!

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

Americans are too soft to go to war over a hobby, which is really all gun culture really amounts to these days. There'd be a handful of extremist holdouts in the deep south and maybe Michigan who'd take a few pot shots at the police, and maybe even successfully kill a two or three of them, but tough talk of rebellion would be quashed and within a few days life would return to normal.

Personally, I'd wait for the Supreme Court to overturn whatever decision allowed this to happen and reclaim my weapons or use the compensatory check to replenish my arsenal. Failing that, it's not like they're tracked accurately enough that I couldn't just hide one until the heat was off.

And so every once in a while some poor sucker on the street gets his head blown off with a handgun. Gun's a gun and a loony is a loony

I guess I would hand them over, but I haven't been brought up in an environment which places affection on the right to 'bear arms'. In Aus we REALLY rarely have shootings, in fact I think more people are killed by toasters, and it would be down to the total ban. Seems like a better deal to me. Just keep a really big dog handy.

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

Hand them over. Here is aus where guns are banned more people get killed by toasters.

 

[Vegosiux]

So wait a minuet, your argument seems to be that most of the time bad things don't happen so no one needs to bother being prepared if they do happen?

Nope.

That may very well be the most illogical argument for gun control I have ever heard, congratulations.

Would have been if you heard it, I suppose.

Most of the time car accident don't happen so no one should wear a seat-belt because its pointless. Most of the time the power is on so no need to own a flashlight or candles or an emergency radio.

Congratulations, you've managed to completely misinterpreted what I said. I'm still not sure whether you did it on purpose or because you simply didn't get it.

Why don't you tell these people how most of the time people don't break into your house or try to rape you and they shouldn't own a gun to defend themselves with.

How about this:

Most of the time people don't break into your house to try and rape you, so if you need you feel a gun to protect yourself from such an occasion, you come across as more than just a little paranoid. And if paranoia is the norm, shouldn't you be afraid of good people with firearms turning bad and coming after you as well?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/01/05/woman-hiding-in-attic-shoots-intruder-5-times-to-protect-her-children-n1479445

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/23/12-year-old-girl-shoots-home-intruder/

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10451493/

So if I link three stories where a legally owned gun resulted in innocent victims, we're even? Do I "win" if I link more than three? Because you can find more than three just on Escapist, you know.

What did I say about anecdotes a page and a half ago or so?

 

[Delicious Anathema]

Living in a country where firearms are not as prominently owned as they are in the US, I'd say go for it, there's always melee weapons and homemade flamethrowers.

 

[TornadoADV]

In this case (and I thought it was rather obvious) a law abiding citizen is anyone who can legally purchase a firearm. There seems to be a lot of people on this forum that are totally ignorant on US gun law (probably cause they don't live in the US) and they have this idea that anyone can just walk right into a gun store throw some cash on the counter and walk out armed to the teeth 30 seconds later. Sorry to burst your bubble folks it does not work like that. With almost all felony conviction's (including non violent convictions) you lose the right to own or purchase firearms for extended periods of time or even for life. You can also lose the right to own firearms if a restraining order is issued on you.

Right. Maybe you could read my post again and you'll maybe notice that I said nothing about the availability of guns to convicted felons, now have I? I'm not sure which bubble you're bursting, but it sure as hell ain't mine.

What I said is that everyone is a law-abiding citizen right up to when they commit a crime, so every law-abiding citizen that's not died yet has the potential to become a criminal at some point in the future for whatever reasons. So when you're selling a gun to a law-abiding citizen, you're still selling a gun to someone who might become a criminal in the future, potentially using that very gun in the crime they commit.

Now what's quite interesting here, "You can never be too careful" can go both ways, can't it? I mean, that previous paragraph of this post looks a little...paranoid, no? I mean I look downright scared that everyone who's buying a gun is going to shoot up some place the first chance they get. Quite paranoid, I admit. Almost as paranoid as expecting a killer around every corner (that you allegedly need a gun to defend yourself from) and a child molester in every bush (that you allegedly need a gun to defend your children from).

Except "innocent until proven guilty" raining on your parade.

 

[Vegosiux]

Except "innocent until proven guilty" raining on your parade.

And yours. After all, even if there's a burglar in your house, and you kill them in "self-defense"; you've killed an innocent person. Since, if they're dead, they obviously can't be put on trial and proven guilty. And, with "innocent until proven guilty" in effect...

 

[TornadoADV]

Except "innocent until proven guilty" raining on your parade.

And yours. After all, even if there's a burglar in your house, and you kill them in "self-defense"; you've killed an innocent person. Since, if they're dead, they obviously can't be put on trial and proven guilty.

Not really, breaking and entering or if for some reason I left everything unlocked in my house, being on private property without permission and being told to leave is against the law. Since I would be a witness AND the owner, it would be in my legal right to shoot them. Unless they surrender, then it would be murder.

 

[Vegosiux]

Except "innocent until proven guilty" raining on your parade.

And yours. After all, even if there's a burglar in your house, and you kill them in "self-defense"; you've killed an innocent person. Since, if they're dead, they obviously can't be put on trial and proven guilty.

Not really, breaking and entering or if for some reason I left everything unlocked in my house, being on private property without permission and being told to leave is against the law. Since I would be a witness AND the owner, it would be in my legal right to shoot them. Unless they surrender, then it would be murder.

"Innocent until proven guilty". You might be in your legal right to shoot them, but if they're not actually guilty until legally proven so, you've still shot a legally "innocent" person. It's a bit iffy, I agree, but if they die in the process, they can't be proven guilty at all, since you can't pass a guilty verdict on someone who's unable to defend themselves against the charges.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself, but what's the point of the judiciary if a citizen is at liberty to arbitrarily decide who's innocent and who's guilty?

 

[HellbirdIV]

I'm paranoid, alright? Hellbird is right, I'm medically certifiably paranoid.

I didn't say that (I think someone else might have?). I'm not any kind of medical professional so I wouldn't be able label someone 'certifiably' insane.

I just think you're regular flavor crazy.

You're asking that from someone who's stated outright they believe they'd be raped in Australia for being a white american woman.

If it's any consolation, I think I'd be raped and/or attacked anywhere just for being a foreigner and an easy percieved-as-rich American white girl target.

Australia is a very dangerous place - but not because of the people. The people aren't going to rapemurder you.

It's the snakes. And if it's not the fucking snakes, it's the spiders. And if it's not the spiders, it's the jellyfish. And if it's not the jellyfish, it's the crocodiles. And if it's not the crocodiles, it's the sharks. And if it's not the sharks, it's the starved dingoes... and the list just keeps going. There's even plants down there that will fuck you up if you look at them wrong.

Why don't you tell these people how most of the time people don't break into your house or try to rape you and they shouldn't own a gun to defend themselves with.

*links*

While the former is silly, the latter is quite valid:

How about an alarm? Or a big dog? Or just waving a baseball bat?

What's so good about murdering someone because they're desperate enough to break into people's houses? ("Home intruders" are generally burglars, not Michael Myers)

 

[Ashley Blalock]

My plan get a maple leaf tattoo and try to figure out how to smuggle myself into Canada. Sure the winter weather there stinks but I think I could get used to free health care and the rest of the world not hating me just because of where I lived.

We already have crazy people who will fly a plane into an IRS building because of something like taxes so I can only imagine the shit storm that would erupt from the groups of crazy people already worried about some evil plot by the government.

I'm also not sure that just getting rid of all guns would solve the American problem with violence. People get beaten, stabbed, strangled, and killed violently in a variety of ways each year and I'm sure none of them ever thought well gee at least I'm not being shot to death.

 

[jpoon]

I lot of people will to give up their principles here apparently. I for shit sure wouldn't just hand over my guns, but that's just me.

 

[HellbirdIV]

I'm also not sure that just getting rid of all guns would solve the American problem with violence. People get beaten, stabbed, strangled, and killed violently in a variety of ways each year and I'm sure none of them ever thought well gee at least I'm not being shot to death.

That's very true. Guns are a symptom of the problem with violence in American society - The idea that you need guns to protect yourself doesn't exist in most countries because most countries don't have the same degrees of violent crime.

Removing guns won't solve the problem, but it will be a step forward.

 

[TornadoADV]

Except "innocent until proven guilty" raining on your parade.

And yours. After all, even if there's a burglar in your house, and you kill them in "self-defense"; you've killed an innocent person. Since, if they're dead, they obviously can't be put on trial and proven guilty.

Not really, breaking and entering or if for some reason I left everything unlocked in my house, being on private property without permission and being told to leave is against the law. Since I would be a witness AND the owner, it would be in my legal right to shoot them. Unless they surrender, then it would be murder.

"Innocent until proven guilty". You might be in your legal right to shoot them, but if they're not actually guilty until legally proven so, you've still shot a legally "innocent" person. It's a bit iffy, I agree, but if they die in the process, they can't be proven guilty at all, since you can't pass a guilty verdict on someone who's unable to defend themselves against the charges.

I'm not saying you shouldn't defend yourself, but what's the point of the judiciary if a citizen is at liberty to arbitrarily decide who's innocent and who's guilty?

That's deep man, I love it. Would I want to shoot the person? No, no I wouldn't, I don't like taking life, but that doesn't mean I'm afraid to do it if it comes down to that. The dead cannot defend themselves and too many people have used that with the "two people go out on a boat, one person comes back, says the other fell overboard and drowned.". If the world could function on implict trust, we wouldn't need laws because we would trust that everybody had everybody's best interest at heart.

So yeah, it's a grey area and the United States has decided for the time being that the property owner or legal occupant of a building is "lord of the castle" and is granted the right to defend their property with lethal force (the Castle Doctrine).

But yeah, so much the better the intruder surrenders to me or flees rather then me having to shoot them.

I'm also not sure that just getting rid of all guns would solve the American problem with violence. People get beaten, stabbed, strangled, and killed violently in a variety of ways each year and I'm sure none of them ever thought well gee at least I'm not being shot to death.

That's very true. Guns are a symptom of the problem with violence in American society - The idea that you need guns to protect yourself doesn't exist in most countries because most countries don't have the same degrees of violent crime.

Removing guns won't solve the problem, but it will be a step forward.

Maybe you should focus on solving the social-economic inequality that creates the majority of crimes before disarming the populace.

 

[Hammartroll]

The second amendment acts like a shield for the other ones. Sure we can say we have the right to free speech, the right to peaceful assembly, the right from unreasonable search and seizure, but if the government goes Third Reich and ignores all that, us simply saying we have those rights would be useless. That's why we need to be well armed, because sometimes you need muscle to back up your words.

So the people here equating gun ownership in the US to being nothing more than a hobby are being completely ignorant, but luckily the majority of Americans are aware of the true purpose of the second amendment. If such an extreme law was passed there would be an armed uprising and most likely cause a fracturing of the Union. It would be the worst thing to ever afflict this nation, it may even mean the end of it.

I don't own guns though, but I would fully support someone if they shot a police officer who was in their house, without their permission, stealing their belongings, because that's an invasion of the 4th amendment (search and seizure) and as I've said, the 2nd amendment is there to protect the 4th.

 

[Raytan941]

And yours. After all, even if there's a burglar in your house, and you kill them in "self-defense"; you've killed an innocent person. Since, if they're dead, they obviously can't be put on trial and proven guilty. And, with "innocent until proven guilty" in effect...

Ah I get it now, should have seen it earlier, your just here to troll. Well at least we can all now ignore all those truly ridiculousness things you have been saying, I gotta admit for a while you had me going.

 

[Vegosiux]

Ah I get it now, should have seen it earlier, your just here to troll.

Reported for ad hominem.

Well at least we can all now ignore all those truly ridiculousness things you have been saying

"We all"? How about you just speak for yourself and quit telling people what they can or can't ignore, hm?

I gotta admit for a while you had me going.

Still being serious. If an argument starts looking ridiculous if it's approached from a different perspective, I suppose the human thing would be to blame the perspective, but it's not the rational thing to do (which would be, to re-examine the argument). If you refuse to see my point, that's up to you, just don't blame it on "trolling" if you're uncomfortable with what I'm saying.

It happens a lot that people resort to personal insults and loaded expressions like "truly reidiculous" when it suits them, so I'm not really going to pay this little exchange much more thought.

And with that, I bid you good day.