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

[Rensenhito]

This is going to be a hueg post, so please bear with me.

Protectionists (that's what most people in this thread are) seem to believe that banning guns would stop crime. But really, if you look at the statistics, many countries that have stricter gun laws also have more violent crime than the United States does. Britain is one of those countries. By disarming the people, their right to self defense is infringed, and you will just end up with a lot more dead innocent people than criminals.

Putting a gun in your hand doesn't automatically make you a violent elitist egotistical killer either. It makes you a responsible citizen. Taking guns off store shelves wont stop crime, it'll ensure crime, because then criminals will have guns, and law-abiding citizens will not. Before you hold your head up high, declaring you're on the side of the people, notice how you're making it easier for criminals to kill you.

And police. Oh how I love that argument. Police have an average response time, from when you call them, of about 5 minutes. If a criminal is in your house, I don't think it's very likely you will be able to dodge bullets for those 5 minutes until the police get there. Same with rape. If you're getting raped, it takes the guy around 2 minutes to finish up and run out of there while you're still bleeding from where the sun doesn't shine. Police aren't the magical end-all solution to everything, you guys.

People also neglect to look at the crime rates of countries with less strict gun laws. I'm thinking you've all heard of Switzerland, the country with beautiful mountains, collectable swiss army knives, great chocolate... and mandatory gun ownership. So you say "Oh no! It must suck to live in Switzerland!". The crime rate in Switzerland is even less than the US, and EVERYBODY HAS A GUN.
I'd like to see that be argued.

The military has guns. What about them?
Should they not have guns?

If you say "They should, because they protect us", then that's a stupid argument. If they need guns to protect us, why shouldn't we have guns to protect ourselves?

If you say "They're trained", then make training mandatory for citizens owning guns. That's not a gun issue.

Gun control is stupid. I ask everyone anti-gun here this:
If a man was coming towards you with the intent to kill you, and you knew he was determined and you were backed up against a wall, no way to escape, wouldn't you want a gun then?
What about rape victims? DO you think they would've wanted a gun while they were being sexually exploited?

People who want a gun ban are (and I'm serious about this) more of a danger to society than guns themselves.

I'm sorry, but... WHAT?
Please, allow me to systematically dismantle your argument.
1) "If you look at the statistics, many countries that have stricter gun laws also have more violent crime than the United States does."
Check the mortality rates. It's much harder to kill someone without an automatic "make-you-dead" lever, i.e. gun.
2) "Taking guns off store shelves wont stop crime, it'll ensure crime, because then criminals will have guns, and law-abiding citizens will not."
I believe you're confused on the identity of criminals. EVERYONE - and I mean EVERYONE - is potentially a criminal. Therefore, if you disallow EVERYONE from purchasing guns, NO ONE will have a gun.
Q.E.D.
Criminals won't have guns.
3) "Police aren't the magical end-all solution to everything, you guys."
True, but see above. If no one can legally get a gun, then the only way a criminal will have a gun is if they got it illegally, and with a tight enough safety net on illegal gun sales, it's more than likely that the guy who WOULD be breaking into your house would actually be already imprisoned for trying to buy a firearm.
4) "I'm thinking you've all heard of Switzerland, the country with beautiful mountains, collectable swiss army knives, great chocolate... and mandatory gun ownership. So you say "Oh no! It must suck to live in Switzerland!". The crime rate in Switzerland is even less than the US, and EVERYBODY HAS A GUN."
You'd like to see that argued, huh? Gladly.
The reason most people commit crimes is because they've become desperate, destitute, willing to do ANYTHING to get money / drugs / what have you. Switzerland is one of those countries that actually takes really good care of its citizens, unlike the good ol' U.S. of A. Therefore, its citizens don't have much of a reason to shoot each other; therefore, even though they all OWN guns, there's much less reason for people to USE guns. Also, since Switzerland is a neutral country with very happy citizens, the population isn't divided over many major issues like our citizens seem to be. In America, it's always "every member of group [x] is trying to destroy America and brainwash our children and they want the terrorists to attack." (If you have good marks in English, you'll notice that that last bit was a sterling example of hyperbole)
In short, Switzerland is much more well-run than America. That much is obvious. The "everyone-has-a-gun" thing is an effect of this, not a cause.

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.

P.S. I may get suspended or put on probation for this ENORMOUS WALL OF TEXT, and I'm not trying to be a martyr, it's just that this is the way I feel and if I'm limited from expressing my feelings via text on an open forum where most people will just scroll past my reply anyway, I don't think that'd be very fair.

 

[Berethond]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

I love how you act like you know all about American gun laws when you live in Britain.

 

[ToxinArrow]

Lol, troll....I see you think people who think differently than you are trolls.

No, that was in response to the way your post was structured. It was obviously meant to aggravate me and I have to admit that it worked to an extent.

Anyways, what kind of sick sadist are you if you'd rather inflict immense pain on someone instead of instantly or quickly ending their life because they tried violate your rights?

Right, because killing somebody is better than hurting them immensely for a short time.
If I were to kill people after hurting them immensely, then "sadist" would be appropriate.
I'm for preserving lives, though, and if that means hurting the offender, well, too bad.
What kind of argument is this, anyway? You can't seriously think that a headshot is better than a zap with a tazer. 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.

*snip*

Just because someone works in a metalshop while in the pen doesn't mean they won't/can't/aren't comtemplating a revenge scheme.

True. But people who are reintegrated into society with a secure job are less likely to commit follow-up crimes than people who come out of prison without any perspective in life besides hatred.

So, how much of their pyschotherapy/castration/life time prison setence are YOU going to pay? I sure as hell don't like paying for criminals.

Quite a lot, actually, but I'd prefer it if they worked properly during their stay to pay for their stay.

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. "

Way to practice what you preach But no, I wouldn't do that, because if he is incapacitated, shooting him in the head would be murder, something I just prevented on myself/my friends/family when I fired at him. Nice bait attempt though.

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?

I snipped the second part, since it's agreeable pretty much at this point and I misunderstood what you meant by 'for' earlier, but I understand now.

And yet, a large number of criminals have nothing but that, a perspective of pure hatred. I agree they should work in prison to be productive members of society once released, but it still costs immense amounts of money, which brings us to the next point. I'm glad YOU are willing to pay for these criminals, but many people aren't. 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. And yes, IF the system worked, criminals would pay for themselves, but it doesn't, so why should I pay for their luxuries?

Gee it might have something to do with people only having one life. Did you kill that man? I most certainly did. Why would you do such a thing? Well it was either that or cut off his balls, this way seemed less painful.

Who'll pay for it? The inmates partially if people finally decide to device a working penal system. the rest will be tax payers. Why? Because someone's life IS more important that your $50 whether you accept that or not. that's the fundamental disconnect between the two sides. You value cash money I value people's lives.

Exactly, people INCLUDING VICTIMS, have only one life. I have not killed a man, nor do I ever wish I have to, but I will if it comes down to it. Why? Again, to protect myself and my loved ones and their rights as human beings.

Again, the system DOESN'T work that way at this time, so that argument is irrelevant. And no, a murderer/rapist isn't worth my money, at all.(Nice ad hominem troll, if we're using Skeleon's definition. Trying to make me look like some kind of cash grubbing fatcat doens't help your argument though)They have forfeited their rights when they tried/succeeded in violating others' rights.

 

[tipp6353]

epically if you live somewhere with no law enforcement

 

[Ph33nix]

Hey Guys.

Today in my email I received this [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=dn17922] article.

For those who can't be bothered to read it, it's a New Scientist article about how the likelihood of being shot increases more than fourfold when you carry a gun than when you don't.

First of all, I think that this shows how stupid it is for normal people to get hold of a license to carry a weapon so easily in America, when all it does is increase levels of gun crime and related fatalities.


Secondly, I can't believe that we need a survey to tell us this. If I were a criminal, if someone counters my activities with a gun themselves, I will not be worried about shooting back at them. If no-one interrupts with a gun, no-one gets shot (hopefully). So the robbery still happens and someone has been shot, potentially fatally.
This is why American police have to carry guns, because all of the criminals carry guns and so they need to be able to properly defend themselves.



What are your thoughts?

dude get your facts right most gun crimes are committed by unregistered guns and people who don;t have licenses

 

[GHMonkey]

HA, mock us now fools but when the zombie apocalypse occurs we will have guns to take the shambling bastards out. you will be stuck with cricket bats. Edge goes to, USA and Nigeria (Gun Sale KingPins).

in all seriousness, i like my guns, if you want to take'em, come get'em. lemme tell you something though, i will not give them up easily.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

2) "Taking guns off store shelves wont stop crime, it'll ensure crime, because then criminals will have guns, and law-abiding citizens will not."
I believe you're confused on the identity of criminals. EVERYONE - and I mean EVERYONE - is potentially a criminal. Therefore, if you disallow EVERYONE from purchasing guns, NO ONE will have a gun.
Q.E.D.
Criminals won't have guns.

Just taking a magic moment to poke holes in this logic. Britain still has gun crime, small but still there. America still has a HUGE drug problem.

So what drugs are you on to think that banning guns will make them not exist? Especially in a country as accessible as the US?

All your statement says is that only criminals will have guns since they aren't stymied by silly things like laws. They are, wait for it, Criminals. The only ones truly affected by a ban or law are law abiding citizens... ...

 

[Rensenhito]

2) "Taking guns off store shelves wont stop crime, it'll ensure crime, because then criminals will have guns, and law-abiding citizens will not."
I believe you're confused on the identity of criminals. EVERYONE - and I mean EVERYONE - is potentially a criminal. Therefore, if you disallow EVERYONE from purchasing guns, NO ONE will have a gun.
Q.E.D.
Criminals won't have guns.

So what drugs are you on to think that banning guns will make them not exist? Especially in a country as accessible as the US?

See point number 3.

 

[tipp6353]

what about hunters? how would they kill game for meat?

 

[Rensenhito]

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?

 

[whaleswiththumbs]

Oh how i love to live in a country where guns are only legal if you're a cop.

Too late for us to become gun fearing panzies, i hate anti-american people, i may not support everything we do but shut up. We have had guns for more than 200 years as a right in the USA, there are wayy too many now to stop them, it's like if you outlawed smoking, there would still be people smoking they would just become criminals, sure it's almost ridiculus, people know smoking kills you, people know that sudden exopsure to hot lead will kill you, we still smoke and shoot guns, and through in some booze related things in there, its the way it is deal with it, if your mighty God wanted people to stop that bad then he would have smited them or flooded the earth by now. I know this arguement is full of huger holes and i probably don't like half of it but i'm rambling about this while there is food waiting and i don't want to leave this unfinished.

So don't read this

 

[InifniteWit]

Personally, I think no civilian should be carrying a gun (guns kept at shooting ranges okay aslong as they stay there), but everyone who hasn't got an asbo should be allowed to carry a sword. It's easier to parry and harder to hit the wrong person with a sword, so it's easier to justify having them as self-defence, plus they're harder for kids to use my accident and easier to see when someone has one drawn.

You just managed to say the most idiotic thing I've ver heard on this website. My standards plummet once again.

 

[Skeleon]

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).

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

2) "Taking guns off store shelves wont stop crime, it'll ensure crime, because then criminals will have guns, and law-abiding citizens will not."
I believe you're confused on the identity of criminals. EVERYONE - and I mean EVERYONE - is potentially a criminal. Therefore, if you disallow EVERYONE from purchasing guns, NO ONE will have a gun.
Q.E.D.
Criminals won't have guns.

So what drugs are you on to think that banning guns will make them not exist? Especially in a country as accessible as the US?

See point number 3.

So it relies on fantasy logic. Go ahead and scope the US seaboard and then scope the magnitude of the War on Drugs. Now just imagine that with more guns to be sold with the drugs. It isn't hard since guns are already funneled through there. We can't even keep illegal immigrants out and they have traceable biological functions to maintain as well as being bigger than any form of street contraband that I can think of offhand.

Tons of funding is put into the War on Drugs and we still have plenty of drugs floating around by the kiloton. Your point 3 is unfeasible due to the sheer magnitude of the project. We might as well wall off Canada to keep out the cold air, it would work just as well...

 

[101194]

I love my guns, Loves them *pets his FN-2000* shhh It's okay, I won't let obama hurt you...Awhh, Hes shaking, look at what you did...

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

my response is "well duh?" to the article. Honestly, the best way to solve gun crime is to BAN GUNS. Learn from Britain, America, not even the police wear guns here! Instead we have knife crime... lots, and lots of knifing.

True, but it's hard to drive by knife someone.

Part of our American pride is our innovative spirit... Just give them time if guns were banned. XD

 

[Rensenhito]

2) "Taking guns off store shelves wont stop crime, it'll ensure crime, because then criminals will have guns, and law-abiding citizens will not."
I believe you're confused on the identity of criminals. EVERYONE - and I mean EVERYONE - is potentially a criminal. Therefore, if you disallow EVERYONE from purchasing guns, NO ONE will have a gun.
Q.E.D.
Criminals won't have guns.

So what drugs are you on to think that banning guns will make them not exist? Especially in a country as accessible as the US?

See point number 3.

So it relies on fantasy logic. Go ahead and scope the US seaboard and then scope the magnitude of the War on Drugs. Now just imagine that with more guns to be sold with the drugs. It isn't hard since guns are already funneled through there. We can't even keep illegal immigrants out and they have traceable biological functions to maintain as well as being bigger than any form of street contraband that I can think of offhand.

Tons of funding is put into the War on Drugs and we still have plenty of drugs floating around by the kiloton. Your point 3 is unfeasible due to the sheer magnitude of the project. We might as well wall off Canada to keep out the cold air, it would work just as well...

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.

 

[ToxinArrow]

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