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

[brewbeard]

A panicked person doesn't really aim at all unless they've had training. There's a lot more non-vital points in the human body than vital ones.

 

[Brockyman]

I think the right to bear arms is one of the worst things about America. So I definitely agree, it shouldn't take a survey for people to realise things like this... but I'm constantly surprised by the level of stupidity so many Americans display. I mean, England isn't perfect but all the stuff the Americans complain about (people saying they shouldn't have the right to bear arms, introducing an NHS, underprivileged kids getting EMA etc), are all part of what makes England a good place to live. I can never grasp why Americans can't see how much better things would be if they just made some changes. Honestly, they vote in Obama with his whole 'change' thing, and then have a bitchfit when he actually tries to put good changes in place >.< but that's another matter...

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..

 

[Skeleon]

So right there, your authoritarian "bullshit" argument is thrown out the window.

You might say that, I say it's baseless paranoia. That's not really a convincing argument because it's baseless claim against baseless claim.

As for amount of deaths, its really up to the individual incident. Was it because they were committing a crime, being mugged, were drunk, slipped and fell, fooling around with the gun, not being responsible? Its a tough call on whose at fault here for the deaths, but it isn't the gun that should be blamed.

I dunno. Maybe I'm being a liberal here, but I think life matters. Yes, even the life of a thief. A lot of people on this forum say that "if a guy enters my property, he forfeits his rights". This statement I disagree with. While he may forfeit his right to freedom, he does not forfeit his right to live.
And we should not forget that accidental deaths and all those examples you brought up could be severely limited with stricter gun control.

 

[Toty54]

This pretty much sums up my feelings about having the right to bear arms.

 

[forever saturday]

If it leads to me shooting him, then that's another mugger dead. No real loss, though surely an unpleasant experience.

What I'm trying to say is, yes, it may be stupid to try and defend yourself. But it's still an invioable right, and I'll kill anyone who says otherwise!

This kind of attitude is utterly disgusting, if not insane. In Iceland where i live, life's are always considered more important then dead objects, and if you were to shot someone trying to rob your house you would go to jail for murder and rightfully so.

Anyone who considers dead objects or a couple of hundred dollars in his wallet to be worth killing for is a sociopath.

Hardcore_gamer is right. That mentality basically states "my stuff is more important than other people's lives".

Gun control would make it much more difficult for criminals to obtain guns. Its not a 100 per cent fix though. So while its still an improvement, people won't allow it because one person will still have a gun. This is a logical fallacy called the "perfect solution fallacy".

Gun control is not the perfect answer. But its the BEST answer.

 

[ToxinArrow]

Aim a gun at them. That doesn't kill anyone.

You don't honestly believe that.
You know exactly what'll happen in a situation like that.
She panicks. And instead of stunning the potential rapist, she kills him.
And then it turns out it's some bum about to ask for a dollar.
The "shoot first, ask questions later"-mentality is extremely prevalent, especially among people who're scared.

Good. One less rapist in the world.

So let me get this straight: Instead of killing a violent criminal, you'd rather put them in immense pain, clog the already over clogged prison system even more (assuming he is actually convicted, either of which costs tax payer money immensely,) and give them a chance to sit and stew on the thought of the failed attempt so they can go out and exact revenge once they're released?

Brilliant sir.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I bet if this were a discussion about the first amendment and the dangers of misinformation, everyone here would be arguing that a right to total free speech is better than having no first amendment, even if it means people getting hurt.

oh how badly you would lose that bet. we've had debates on free speech here at the escapist, and it has always come to free speech > not hurting feelings. maybe you've read those thread and say that because of them, if you have you'll notice that none of them mention misinformation, and you'd be hard pressed to find a liberal (the same people that support antigun laws) that thinks misinformation is protected speech. Of course I may be totally off, and am basing my assumption off of the views of the 1200 or so liberals I've interacted with.

Now OP I am personally anti gun, and agree with the studies done (as there has not been a single study done that has shown the opposite effect but at least a dozen that have shown direct correlation) I'll undoubtedly end up buying a gun if I stay in the U.S. because the gun nuts scare me, and I'm not allowed to carry knives (the fuck? they're easier to use to incapacitate while less likely to kill accidentally) the problem I have is one that might have been caused by over exposure to the right wing wack jobs, but once the populace is disarmed what recourse would they have if a tyrant were to rise up? Ideally the socialist standing army envisioned my Marx (I think) would defend the populace from tyranny, but that relies on teaching the soldiers that their first loyalty is the protect the populace they second to obey the chain of command. They're taught the exact opposite, never question the CO (which is fine unless the CO is a tyrant) you can only serve the people by following your orders to the letter. Now yes my suggestion could destabilize the military if taken too far, but I don't mean teach them to obey a civilian above their CO, I mean teach them to never break the chain of command, except when that that is directly bringing harm to the populace they swore to protect. that was a bit rambly and off topic but I hope yall understood that. back to my point, if a tyrant ascends to power, and has the full backing of the army and the populace has no access to guns, what happens? Most'll dismiss this as fear mongering and it probably is because I myself don't know why I'm envisioning such a scenario. I'll just blame the right wing and be off.

Not hurting feelings? Jesus, I actually hope you are wrong on that one, although I just got here today and wouldn't know, I got here thinking that this place was full of late-teen liberals, if that's the farthest the first amendment debate has gone here, this crowd's younger than I thought.

 

[DazBurger]

Look, it's simple. No government has the right to disarm their populace unless they disarm their police force.

Wow.. Thats a long post.. But long posts dosent make things any more true.

Yes, the government has just THAT right. At least in the most of the western world, and much of the rest.

Just like the government/teh system has the right to arrest and make trial... And declare war... And bomb things :<

I wanna bomb things.... But still! Its not about what I want, but whats best for the people.





Its not about freedom, its about being happy.

 

[Mr.Pandah]

So right there, your authoritarian "bullshit" argument is thrown out the window.

You might say that, I say it's baseless paranoia. That's not really a convincing argument because it's baseless claim against baseless claim.

As for amount of deaths, its really up to the individual incident. Was it because they were committing a crime, being mugged, were drunk, slipped and fell, fooling around with the gun, not being responsible? Its a tough call on whose at fault here for the deaths, but it isn't the gun that should be blamed.

I dunno. Maybe I'm being a liberal here, but I think life matters. Yes, even the life of a thief. A lot of people on this forum say that "if a guy enters my property, he forfeits his rights". This statement I disagree with. While he may forfeit his right to freedom, he does not forfeit his right to live.
And we should not forget that accidental deaths and all those examples you brought could be severely limited with stricter gun control.

I have to go for now, but I'll respond when I get back. Sorry, I don't want you to think I'm skipping out. =/ I'm enjoying this conversation too...

 

[Skeleon]

Aim a gun at them. That doesn't kill anyone.

You don't honestly believe that.
You know exactly what'll happen in a situation like that.
She panicks. And instead of stunning the potential rapist, she kills him.
And then it turns out it's some bum about to ask for a dollar.
The "shoot first, ask questions later"-mentality is extremely prevalent, especially among people who're scared.

My opinion is that if you must own a firearm, you must take it upon yourself to lean how to use it properly. if even half the people did so, i don't think gun violence would be as prevalent.

This I fully agree with.
I guess if you must have guns available, at least make sure that people are properly trained and aware how easily serious accidents and injuries/death can occur when used in a foolhardy way. But that, again, would come down to (a form of) gun control, because people'd have to be trained, the government'd have to check whether they really are competent enough to own a gun and so on...

 

[Redliph]

My opinion is that if you must own a firearm, you must take it upon yourself to lean how to use it properly. if even half the people did so, i don't think gun violence would be as prevalent.

This is a good point too. I think an expansion and demystification of firearms would do America some good. My uncle is a police officer and has taken his kids to the firing range in order to instill in them a respect for guns and remove the mystery that will make them want to play with them. It has worked and the kids have no real interest in playing with his .38 at all. I think a little training goes a long way.

Maybe making gun training for kids mandatory in houses where guns are kept would be a good idea too.

 

[The_Splatterer]

If your in a country where all the police men have guns, what do you need? a gun!
Criminals have guns because they need them in places like America, and yes, the really wrong people are gunna get them anyway, they do here in Britain, but the average mugger doesn't have a gun, because you can't get them easily at all. just plain normal Criminals don't feel the need for a gun because the police don't have one and to be honest, guns complicate things, you might get mugged randomly in the street, are you going to be carrying your gun to protect yourself? and even if you are doesn't that give the robber even more reason for him to carry his?

 

[Ivan Issaccs]

You may not care about deterred crime, but the person who avoided getting raped would certainly care about it.

Take a pepper spray, a tazer or a tranquilizer gun next time. You don't have to kill people for self-defense.

Aim a gun at them. That doesn't kill anyone. If a rapist sees a woman with a purse walking out in a dark alleyway, they might get the idea to jump her. If they see a firearm on her hip, they probably won't.

Last time I checked those were both illegal for anyone but the police to carry here aswell.
And a tranquilliser gun? Are you kidding me? Is this Metal Gear? Not to mention that if you were carrying anything shaped like that you would find yourself given the Brazilian electrician treatment.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

My opinion is that if you must own a firearm, you must take it upon yourself to lean how to use it properly. if even half the people did so, i don't think gun violence would be as prevalent.

This is a good point too. I think an expansion and demystification of firearms would do America some good. My uncle is a police officer and has taken his kids to the firing range in order to instill in them a respect for guns and remove the mystery that will make them want to play with them. It has worked and the kids have no real interest in playing with his .38 at all. I think a little training goes a long way.

Maybe making gun training for kids mandatory in houses where guns are kept would be a good idea too.

I agree with this completely. While there's no complete answer to a topic such as this, education can only help. This would also greatly reduce the number of accidental injuries caused by children mishandling guns.

 

[ToxinArrow]

If your in a country where all the police men have guns, what do you need? a gun!
Criminals have guns because they need them in places like America, and yes, the really wrong people are gunna get them anyway, they do here in Britain, but the average mugger doesn't have a gun, because you can't get them easily at all. just plain normal Criminals don't feel the need for a gun because the police don't have one and to be honest, guns complicate things, you might get mugged randomly in the street, are you going to be carrying your gun to protect yourself? and even if you are doesn't that give the robber even more reason for him to carry his?

I've posted it once, but I direct you here.

http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html

Guns don't complicate things, guns equalize things. If the mugger even thinks there's the slightest chance the woman walking down the alley is packing heat, he will hesitate, if even for an instant.

as soon as I turn 21, I'm signing up for my CHL class, and yes I will be caring it. And no, the robber is either going to be carrying or not. Me carrying mine would have no affect on his decision to carry when he leaves his house that day/night. Me having the ability to carry only gives me a chance to defend myself.

 

[Skeleon]

Good. One less rapist in the world.

So let me get this straight: Instead of killing a violent criminal, you'd rather put them in immense pain, clog the already over clogged prison system even more (assuming he is actually convicted, either of which costs tax payer money immensely,) and give them a chance to sit and stew on the thought of the failed attempt so they can go out and exact revenge once they're released?

Brilliant sir.

Obvious troll is obvious.
Anyway, as for your first question, yes, immense pain is better than death.
As for your second question, yes again. Though I'd change a few things. Make people work and pay for their prison stay and such. But that's a different story.
As for your third question, no, a penal system should also have a system of rehabilitation available. After all, we can't keep people locked up forever, they need to become productive members of society. Some prisons provide apprenticeships in metalwork, electronics and all kinds of useful things that might help ex-cons find a job in the real world.
As for the specific example of a rapist? Psychotherapy and/or chemical castration. If he's impossible to reform, permanent institutionalization.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

It seems you missed this statement:
"We don't have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous," Branas says. "This study is a beginning."

I'm tired of arguing about this topic on a site that has a very liberal attitude (which is perfectly fine when it comes to human rights, but with some other things... not so much), so I'll just post this site, hope that people read it, and then hope some more that I don't get insulted for posting this on a very flammable thread.
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/rkba/40reasons.htm
Followed by...
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6684
Ooh, let's not forget this one!
http://www.dysan.net/Weird/show.php?num=674

 

[DazBurger]

If your in a country where all the police men have guns, what do you need? a gun!
Criminals have guns because they need them in places like America, and yes, the really wrong people are gunna get them anyway, they do here in Britain, but the average mugger doesn't have a gun, because you can't get them easily at all. just plain normal Criminals don't feel the need for a gun because the police don't have one and to be honest, guns complicate things, you might get mugged randomly in the street, are you going to be carrying your gun to protect yourself? and even if you are doesn't that give the robber even more reason for him to carry his?

Well, here in Denmark, every policeman carries a gun, and that dosent make criminals doing the same. Criminals tend to avoid the police over shooting at them.
But ofc. they cant really avoid the victims So you seem to be partly right.

 

[Hedberger]

I'm still not sure I really get this. If safety's the point of this, and safety is defined by one study suggesting a correlation between two things, one of those things presumably being harm, I can think of a whole bunch of shit that should be banned

-cars
-airplanes
-pets
-water (or it should at least be controlled, wouldn't want t0o drink to much and blow up)
-alcohol
-lighters, fireplaces, and anything that could be used to create fire
-TV, video games, computers, and all other forms of media that can be used to desensitize children to violence
-cooking appliances and eating utensils
-lengths of rope or cords
-bathroom cleaners and bleach
-sharp objects
-blunt objects of a certain size
-sex toys


The list would go on and on and on...

A old man in england disarmed and INJURED a shotgun wielding criminal with 2 heads of cabbage.. we should bann food too seeing as it can be far more useful to criminals then a shotgun by this evidence...

We also need to bann hospital equipment. The drugs they use can be used to murder, needles, scalples, kitchen knives. You can make sharp objects from cardboard so cardboard needs to be banned too. We also need to bann phones, they have been used before to bludgeon people to death. OH! And the police, they have gunned down innocent people by mistake (Like the man who had a "Grenade" but it turned out to be a pear) so we must bann law enforcement...

As you see, you can bann all weapons, but still, people WILL find a way to kill eachother.

Yes, but most people aren't prepared to learn how to kill efficiently with everyday household objects. Keep in mind that we are talking about soccer moms, 45-year old system analysts and plumbers here, not Spetnaz.

You can shout all you want about how you can kill someone with a toaster but that still won't be as efficient as a gun or a knife.