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

[Skeleon]

Last time I checked those were both illegal for anyone but the police to carry here aswell.

Huh?
They give you guns but not non-lethal weapons? Are they mental?!

 

[Eldarion]

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.

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.

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.

I cannot imagine what a pacifist like you does when an armed gunman comes into your house with the intent to rob and kill your whole family, you probably get killed and robed.

 

[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.

well I am a bit crass, what I call not hurt feelings involves disallowing hate speech, bigotry, etc. basically we all agree (or most anyway) that freedom of speech is everything except inciting violence, anything else if protected, but this point of misinformation was never brought up (it didn't fit the topics which were about hate speech) I still say you won't find many that support misinformation as free speech.

Edit: wait not, fuck that misinformation from the general populace is protected speech even though I feel that those spreading it should be shot. misinformation from the government and experts in fields (a scientist saying AIDS aren't lethal) shouldn't be protected speech (if it is)

I'm surprised that misinformation and potentially dangerous information weren't the first things to come up. On a video game message board on which just about everyone enjoys a good alien killing spree, it would seem that things that were only "offensive" to some people wouldn't even be worth mentioning. Guess I need to read the boards a bit more...

 

[Ivan Issaccs]

In the U.K mate.

 

[Eldarion]

[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.

Well, thank god there's no crime like rape or murder and that only robbery occurs in this day and age.

This, criminals are out there with guns waiting to do more than steal your shit.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

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.

Efficiency was never mentioned as part of the problem, the issue is guns leading to people getting harmed or killed. Clearly if the line is drawn at "dangerous weapon if used maliciously," guns aren't even at the top of the list, much less the only things that should be banned.

 

[ToxinArrow]

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.

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

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?

People already work FOR their prison stay by committing crime. I think they should work DURING their prison stay. Perhaps this is what you meant?

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.


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.

 

[Szass777]

Penn and Teller had a good example of how the right to bare arms is useful. Say hypothetically you gave EVERY woman in the USA a handgun. Then lets say even 50 percent either throw them away, store them and never carry them, or give them away. That means if you are a mugger out to get a woman there is a 50% chance that she has a gun. You don't think that will deter crime?

 

[ccesarano]

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.

Ok, I don't want to read five pages of bickering over this topic, but I feel a point (that has likely already been said) needs to be made.

Gun violence is primarily focused in city areas, primarily of poverty. If you go out to the country, say, backwoods Pennsylvania, fatalities related to gun violence become radically lower despite everyone and their dad having a gun. In fact, the idea that you are breaking into a home where the owner has a good chance of owning a shotgun, you'll think twice about breaking in.

I wish I could find which foreign leader had said it, but America's right to bear arms actually protects from invasion. Granted in this modern age of everyone but suicidal terrorists and Kim Jong Il wanting peace, we don't have to worry of that. Still, if anyone can beat our military, they have to defeat the national guard. Defeat that, and THEN you have armed peasants to deal with.

It's like Japan in WW2. Better to demoralize everyone with a giant bomb than send good men to die trying to take a country where the population would rather die than be conquered.

 

[IrirshTerrorist]

My thoughts: Leave America!... ha ha ha

 

[ArcWinter]

Well, that says if you have the same type of gun as the attacker.

A 9mm will not stand against a modern assault shotgun. Or perhaps a mounted chaingun on your family car?

And anyway, guns should not be illegal, they should not be made, so nobody, not even criminals can get their hands on them. If the police want weapons, make them learn how to wield katanas.

 

[Hedberger]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Venatio]

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?

My thoughts are this: You should watch this

Penn & Teller: On Gun Laws Part 1
Here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCXtfR0_roE&feature=related]

Penn & Teller: On Gun Laws Part 2
Here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtqufzEFCzw&feature=related]

Penn & Teller: On Gun Laws Part 3
Here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoIKlO20RqM&feature=related]

Seriously these guys are as funny as Yahtzee.

And I agree, Gun Laws are bullshit - you only need to watch one episode of Gangland halfway through to see that. You would have to be blind otherwise.

 

[DrDeath3191]

Cops aren't everywhere and can't prevent everything. I would like to have a dependable method of defense on my side, so I think I'll get a gun, thanks.

 

[Fritzvalt]

So... the idea we're running with is that if you make guns illegal than less people will get shot?

Because criminals wouldn't possibly get guns through illegal methods, and police are always morally pious and trustworthy...

It's not asif people use guns to defend themselves from theft/assault/rape/murder at all.

I don't suppose the the second amendment to the american constitution might have pointed out that states should have a standing militia to help defend it when the shit hits the fan.

You know, I really don't have the time for the amount of sarcasm needed to continue, in depth.

Suffice to say, I'll be keeping my pistol, my rifle, and my shotgun. Planning to buy a few more before President Obama goes even crazier on his anti-gun policies, but that's a different debate.

 

[Szass777]

Screw that you enter my home with the intention to take my stuff, and I will do everything in my power to execute you, and feel completely justified. See you soft hearted liberals put too much value on the lives of scumbags. It's the same reason I propose legalizing all drugs, oh damn a junkie od'ed ...doubt he was going to cure cancer. Even if you have a moral objection to guns, the fact is the government should not decide whether you can have one. Stick to maintaining a military and building roads.....thats about it.

 

[Skeleon]

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.

People already work FOR their prison stay by committing crime. I think they should work DURING their prison stay. Perhaps this is what you meant?

Well, I have to work "for my tuition fee" or "work for the new car I want to buy". But "during" works, too.

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.

 

[Hedberger]

[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.

Well, thank god there's no crime like rape or murder and that only robbery occurs in this day and age.

This, criminals are out there with guns waiting to do more than steal your shit.

You do know that criminals doesn't murder for fun right? If you get murdered or raped it's more probable that it is by someone you know. Someone that seems responsible until you kiss his wife or interprets "Would you like to come in for some coffee?" as "We should totally have sex now".