The right to bear arms / Do we really need a survey to tell us this?
- Thread starter thebrainiac1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
there is really nothing you can do. even if guns were banned and only cops had guns wouldnt necessarily stop crime. if someone wanted to have a gun that badly theyll find a way somehow. either way i dont get it? guns are bad! guns are bad! now lets go shoot some people on our xbox? also if only cops and military had guns then 90 percent of crime will be within the police force and the military. we wont know who to trust?
1. Your nation is pathetic. I'm sorry, but a nation that punishes people for protecting themselves is nothing but a nation of cowards and hypocrites. Self-defence is as natural an instinct as breathing and reproduction, and curtailing it in such a fashion is naught but as abject as permitting one's children to wallow in their own filth because their suffering brings them closer to heaven.Hardcore_gamer said:
2. Let me clarify. I am not talking about idly gunning someone down because they're a bit threatening. I am talking about self-defence, i.e. threatening said criminal, and, if they attempt to harm you, shooting them in defence of yourself. I'm not talking about simply shooting them without warning.
3. Actually, no. They may, or may not be a psychopath. Really, it's all to do with social cognition, but the value a person places on their property is something up to them. It is not the duty of lawmakers to protect lawbreakers, but to protect those who remain within those laws.
Excellent Post Sir. Very well stated. I've done numerous papers about the same topic, and while many are waving banners and shouting like idiots about how guns should be banned and studies show banning guns/handguns works, there is a HUGE amount of evidence that suggests the contrary. You only have to open your eyes!Gezab said:
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...
-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...
Oh how I love the irony that in Britian two cops got gunned down despite lack of guns....teisjm said:
And this article is full of shit XD
Thing is, if someones going to shoot you, they're going to do it ANYWAYS. Law, or your situation does not change this normally... now... if you armed EVERYONE.. I would like to see a bank robber walk in with a shotgun and demand money when the security guard, the bank teller, the customers, the terminally ill child there to promote cancer awarness, all pull a gun on him and tell him to drop it.
My grand father had to deal with a man breaking into his home who had a gun, my grandfather also had a gun. That man is now dead, and my grandfather went to live a much longer life then if he came down stairs with a baseball bat or unarmed as the man had previous murders on his records they found out.
You disarm the public, the criminals stay armed.. BECAUSE THEY ARE FUCKING CRIMINALS!
you ban knives, a criminal will carry a hammer.
You bann hammers, a criminal will carry a rock.
You arm your civilians with guns who lack a criminal record, and criminals will have to think 4x as much about wether they should try raping 21 year old jenny and ruin her life because he might end up losing his life.
The fact is, having more citizens with guns would be a crime deterent.... to those who are unsure, or never planned to shoot you in the first place. If someone is planning on killing you though, or is willing to use lethal force to prevent a mugging victim from talking, or fighting back, he was going to do so anyways wether you had a gun, bare fists, a tank, a plasma rifle.. ANYTHING!
You don't honestly believe that.Cliff_m85 said:
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.
This coming from a kid with a sickle and hammer as his profile pic.... I think that says it all. Communism failed kid...funny how those poor people who suffered under communist regimes are denied the right to carry guns and only the "revolutionary leaders" (aka thugs) were allowed to shoot them.Kair said:
Fineeee, you'll get an argument out of me. I'd just like to clear up the fact that seeing in black and white means you are only reading the text that is given to you. Just because there aren't statistics for say, crimes deterred, doesn't mean its not relevant to what we are speaking of.Skeleon said:
Now that that is out of the way, onto what your question/statements/whatever it was. Just because something hasn't happened in a long time, doesn't mean it won't happen. So right there, your authoritarian "bullshit" argument is thrown out the window.
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.
ok that is WRONG, the UK has a MUCH lower rate of homicide by firearms than America does, there's tons of stats to back it upGezab said:
it doesn't even register on this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence#Homicides_by_country
hey and look at this a LOWER homicide rate than the States in this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
and it's number 46 in this list
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
so how does stricter gun laws actually make Britain a more violent place? well if you take the fact that they have less murders, less over all crime then yes it's a more violent place
you do realize most criminals don't buy guys off the shelf right? so it would get you killed
that's one of the stupidest arguments i've heard, i know the first thing that a woman who is beaten and bloody cause she was just raped and beaten the first thing they think of is getting a gun.
i actually feel more stupid from reading that
sure that's a very easy thing to argue
and 2 minutes of the googles shall tell you why you're skew that in a very wrong way
Switzerland has mandatory military service, part of the requirement of service is to keep your sidearm at home at all times. so the guns they do have are NOT their guns, they belong to the military and are part of the duty to the military.
yes they do have some recreational but the majority of the guns are required for their military service and NOT because it's required by law
ok if gun control is so bad, home come Canada, who has strict gun laws, the UK, who has strict gun laws, Japan, who has strict gun laws and various other countries have lower amounts of gun violence than the United States does?
as for your questions, they are stupid and really impractical. the fact is a gun in those situations will probly end up getting you hurt WAY more than if you didn't.
i'm guessing you've never been raped and only seen it in the movies. most victims are beat senseless and/or pinned so their arms can't move OR they are rendered unconscious by drugs
also if someone is going to come towards you with "intent to kill" they may or may not kill you, HOWEVER if you pull out a gun you WILL get shot and die
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...Serge A. Storms said:
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.
Welcome to America where information, studies, and rational thinking does not often turn into policy. We still fund abstinence-only education despite the fact that it has been linked to higher rates of unsafe sex. We still have members of Congress who deny the existence of global climate change and claim that the earth is only 5000 years old. We have MEXICO asking for us to have tougher gun laws. We have people showing up to townhall meetings with loaded assault rifles. We retaliated against a country that didn't attack us.
The biggest problem with banning firearms outright is the relatively confusing language in the US Constitution regarding the "baring of arms" (i.e. the Second Amendment). Pro-gun zelots claim that the language essentially means that there are to be no restrictions on being able to buy a firearm. More reasonable people believe it means that a person can get access to a firearm, but not any firearm.
Personally, I would prefer the British and Japanese route and just straight Amend our Constitution to ban firearms to non-government personel.
The biggest problem with banning firearms outright is the relatively confusing language in the US Constitution regarding the "baring of arms" (i.e. the Second Amendment). Pro-gun zelots claim that the language essentially means that there are to be no restrictions on being able to buy a firearm. More reasonable people believe it means that a person can get access to a firearm, but not any firearm.
Personally, I would prefer the British and Japanese route and just straight Amend our Constitution to ban firearms to non-government personel.
I officially welcome you to the dark ages. Would you like a slice of cake?Rolling Thunder said:
Also instead of insulting someone's country you should maybe get a clue about what the idea behind this is. It's called a social contract. You give up power over yourself and give it to the state so that the state protects you (Hobbes, Locke, Mill, Rousseau). Yes, it doesn't work perfectly, but we all believe in a justice system, which too doesn't really work like it's supposed to.. so..?
You really should try to look across the border of your home.
And yes, I can see why you like your gun laws and right to self-protection.. but I guess its my upbringing that makes me still shake my head.