ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1091 157738
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
807 posts
Blacksmith

Discuss. General Tavern rules apply. (No mudslinging, be respectful, etc.)
I'll open with the statement that people should not have guns. No one at all, except the armed forces, and even then, keep the guns on the bases. Cops should carry riot shields and armor instead of guns. If they need crowd control, use Water Cannons.
Supporting evidence: the following skit:
What's your reason?
Setting: A gun shop, modern day.
A Customer walks into the gun shop and asks the Shopkeeper, "Hi, i'd like to buy a gun please."
The Shopkeeper pulls out an application form and asks the customer "Alright, what's your reason for wanting to buy a gun?"
The Customer says "I need one for personal protection."
The Shopkeeper nods. "I have just the thing for you, I guarantee you cannot get any more personal protection than this baby right here. What i'm about to show you offers so much protection, it can stop a shotgun shell."
The customer, very interested, stares at a full-size Riot Shield, the kind the police use. He scoffs. "That's not what I want, I want a gun!"
The Shopkeeper shrugs. "Are you sure? This fine piece of equipment will protect you more than a gun ever will! It's very strong, reinforced titanium and kevlar..." by now, the angry Customer has left.
Later, another Customer enters. "Hi, I need a gun."
Again, the Shopkeeper clicks his pen and pulls out an application form. "For what reason?" he asks.
The Customer hesitates, than says "Hunting."
The shopkeeper smiles. "Of course! I love to hunt. Hunting is a wonderful sport. I guarantee that this item will give you the maximum amount of satisfaction you can ever get from hunting! Here, this is the sport at its peak." And he pulls out a Crossbow, complete with crosshairs for better accuracy.
The customer shakes his head. "No, I want a gun." he states.
The shopkeeper reluctantly puts away the Crossbow. "Are you sure? With a gun, it's so...boring, just pulling a trigger. And it's unfair to the animal, with this you give the deer a chance and have to chase it for up to an hour, just like the Native Americans did back in the day! Unless of course..." He fails to finish his sentence, as the pissed off customer has left in a huff.
Later, a third customer walks in. "Hi, I'd like to buy a gun." he says.
The shopkeeper holds his pen at the ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
The customer glares. "I dont need a reason, read the god **** second amendment "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS." It's in the constitution you idiot!
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "Of course, I have the perfect thing for you. This gun is covered under Second Amendment laws, guaranteed!" And he holds up a 200-year-old, civil-war-era musket, complete with rusty bayonet.
The customer shrieks. "No, man! I want a Glock, a shotgun, something better than that civil war crap!"
The shopkeeper merely smiles. "I'm sorry sir, please come back when they update the second amendment to include those types of guns. Here, i'll even give you a discount..." the shopkeeper holds out a discount to the enraged customer, who tears it in half and leaves.
Fourthly, another Customer walks in. "I really need a gun, now." He says.
The Shopkeeper holds his pen and application form ready. "For what reason, sir?" he asks.
Instead of stating his reason this time, the Customer snatches the application form and looks at it. There, in the spot titled "Reasons" is a circle for "other".
"Other! That's my reason!" the Customer declares triumphantly.
The shopkeeper shrugs. "Very good answer sir." he says, while pressing a button under the counter. Two cops arrive at the shop in less than a minute and cuff the Customer.
"Hey! What the *PROFANITY* ARE YOU *PROFANITY* GUYS DOING? I'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG!" He yells, almost breaking the glass of the windows.
"Actually, you have." The Shopkeeper begins. "the "other" reason, by exclusion of the other reason, can only include wanting to kill or rob someone. Therefore, you were thinking about commiting a crime when you selected "Other" as your reason. Caught you red-handed, trying to buy the tools necessary to commiting a crime. You confessed to it when you selected "Other"! Take him downtown, please." The cops nod and take the Customer away. The last thing he hears from the Shopkeeper is "Oh, and I knew it was you all those times!"

Moral of the story: You do NOT need a gun for a particular activity. In any given activity (And I challenge you to give me a valid, legal activity for which you would need to personally own a gun), there are many other options. Why buy a gun for personal protection when a Riot Shield blocks shotgun shells? Why buy a gun for hunting when the point of hunting (and every other sport) is satisfaction, and since you get more satisfaction with more challenge, and since a crossbow offers more challenge than a gun, you'll get more satisfaction with the crossbow. Why buy a gun based on the Second Amendment when the Colonial-age guns were either giant cannons or black-powder, muzzle-loading Muskets? Did the Founding Fathers have AR-15's, and SPAZ-12 shotguns,And AK 47s, not to mention all the accessories like laser scopes and hollow-point bullets? I dont think so!

The only way you can disprove my argument is to give me a valid, LEGAL activity which requires you to personally own a gun. This excludes Skeet-shooting, because the facility can and should/will provide the gun. Until anyone can do that, YOU DONT NEED A GUN, NO ONE NEEDS GUNS! They're WAY too dangerous and make it too easy to kill someone! Why have something you dont need?

  • 1,091 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

Almost all of those are already in place for gun owners.


It is far, far harder to obtain a driver's license than purchase a handgun.

However, people don't buy guns (I am speaking of the average citizen that purchases a gun at a show or from a retailer legally) to kill people.


People don't buy cars to get into accidents with them either. We still require regulation over who drives them, and take away that when they cause other trouble.

Also, a majority of PEOPLE live in urban centers, where all firearms are banned. Apartments, condos and some neighborhoods have a zero-tolerance policy on firearms.


Your point? There is no reason why one would need to keep an assault rifle in their house in an urban area. Sure if you own land and can shoot on it safely. But not everyone does.

I was speaking of invasions when the homeowner was present. Sorry for not clarifying, I thought it was assumed


When a person pulls a gun, they are something around five times more likely to be injured than otherwise. I know there's a source Nichodemus brought up a while back. Though I pulled this out of Nerdsoft's post a few pages ago.

Gun homicide rates vs gun ownership rates

When your home has been invaded by an armed man, you are in a confrontation as soon as he sees you.


I do wonder about that. How many burglars would just turn tail and run? They're there because they want your stuff - they don't want to start a manhunt or get caught.

How would you go about stopping an intruder, assuming both of you were armed and you knew he was indoors?


I would call the police and wait, avoiding a confrontation. If it became likely, I would shout out before they knew where I was that I had called the police and they had better get moving.

In every situation, a disrespectful or rebellious student has come from a broken home.


Exaggeration/hyperbole. I'm aware of the statistics on fatherless homes btw. Children from them are 70% more likely to have behavioral problems. That does not translate to every child who misbehaves coming from a broken home. Nor does that even say 70% of them are from fatherless homes. It's just that they're 70% more likely than, if all other factors are held constant, than a home with a father.

Even if your assertion was true, your logic is that of ice cream sales cause shark attacks, because obviously the ice cream is making the beach goers, who are hot and only go in the summer, that much more appetizing to the sharkies.

Um...that was basically a rant. I never claimed any of those things.


I know you didn't. I was referring to those who do claim those things. You know, the gun nuts who can and do get guns and think like that. Then we wonder why the hell we have these shootings.

I've heard of the suggestion that all firearms in home should be unloaded, locked in a secure location and incapacitated, i.e. slightly disassembled. That defeats all purpose of having a handgun for self-defense, which is why people buy them.


The problem with these kinds of blanket statements is they don't address individual cases. If you live alone, I see no problem with keeping a loaded gun in your bedside drawer. If you live with children, that's a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE idea.

Where do you draw the line to where guns are impossible to steal but also able to serve their purpose?


At the ownership level, teaching people to own them responsibly. Not just saying, "Welp! You haven't ever tried to murder someone or been cited for drug abuse! Here's your lethal weapon! Have fun!"

I have never had and never needed an evaluation (and I'm not going to take one), crimes from family members cannot prove anything about my character or actions, and legal citations would either appear on police records (if severe enough).


A psychological evaluation should be mandatory. There's a heavy stigma about going to a psychologist/psychiatrist when there should be.

The reason for family members is because if you live with one who has committed a crime, that's a risk because they then have access to YOUR gun. Likewise they can visit your home. Things like that should be inquired into and the people buying the gun should be made aware of that risk and taught how to reduce it.

Further, citations you receive from your place of employment for unruly behavior don't always go to the police. There could be signs allllll over that someone idiot who's irresponsible and prone to anger should have a gun that goes overlooked because they've never been cited by the police.

You can't prosecute a gun owner for property that was stolen from them and misused or used for illegal activity.


They should, if it was located in an easy to get spot. It's called negligence. Parents who have their guns stolen by kids that use them to go on shooting sprees are entirely responsible, both for not noticing their kid was having trouble and for leaving a lethal weapon within their reach.

My dad has a handgun because he's an airline pilot. It is kept hidden in his room, unloaded inside a locked bag, apart from the ammo. That's a safe gun. Inside a glass cabinet stored with the ammo is NOT.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.


Then why do we have laws? Hmm? If criminals are just going to break them anyways? Do you realize how ridiculous the argument is, "well, dem criminals are just gonna get guns anyhowz, so let's make guns e-z to get!"

It's asinine, to say the least.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk.

That's like saying "If you fight against a rapist they might hurt you more." Trying to avoid further escalation when they've already violated your rights doesn't mean they won't violate more.

Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms.

"on even terms" IS infinitely safer than being a puppet.

That's a gross exaggeration and sexist to boot. Not all kids who misbehave or disrespect authority are from "broken homes without a father."

"All Apple products I've owned are broken" =/= "Every Apple product is broken"
You're trying to bring personal experience to mean he's saying it applies to the world.

relatives who have committed crimes

If one of Obama's relatives was a terrorist, would that mean he's not fit to be president (more specifically Commander in Chief, in charge of our nation's entire military arsenal)?
Familial restrictions would apply to other tools. "Your uncle was arrested for drunk driving. You can't buy a car."
When someone is arrested, why isn't their extended family also locked up?
Individuals rise and fall independent of relation.

When a person pulls a gun, they are something around five times more likely to be injured than otherwise.

Which is why he said better training.

They're there because they want your stuff

Or to rape/torture/kill you and your family. Or to strap an explosive to your neck and force you to rob a bank for them. You don't know. Once you're under their thumb, they can do anything they want.

- they don't want to start a manhunt or get caught.

And the best way is to not leave any witnesses.

They should, if it was located in an easy to get spot. It's called negligence.

"Someone stole your car and ran someone over. Why did you leave it in a parking lot when you know that people steal cars sometimes? You're going to jail or getting a fine."
My kitchen knives aren't inaccessible, and I'm sure they're not at restaurants either. If I run into the kitchen at my local Outback and start stabbing with one of their knives, is it their fault for not keeping their knives in a vault?

Do you realize how ridiculous the argument is, "well, dem criminals are just gonna get guns anyhowz, so let's make guns e-z to get!"

Why not restrict everything else that can be used to kill people as well, such as pressure cookers?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

That's like saying "If you fight against a rapist they might hurt you more."


No, it's like saying you know there's a rapist around the corner that doesn't know you're there, and instead of calling for help you go confront them. By all means, defend yourself, but don't seek the conflict.

on even terms" IS infinitely safer than being a puppet.


Except it's not in this case. Those with a gun are far more likely to be shot, because the robber will see them as a threat. They almost certainly are not there to hurt you. It's not their desire to hurt you. Even if they encounter you, if you do not attack them, they'll probably run or threaten you, but not attack.

What we're balancing here is the value of your possessions vs your life. Is the risk to your life worth the money? I won't put a price on it, but that's the real question here. If the robber outright attacks you, of course you defend yourself. You don't let them hurt you if you're able.

You're trying to bring personal experience to mean he's saying it applies to the world.


MattEmAngel, do you believe that all problem children come from families with broken homes? Or at the very least, the vast majority of them?

If one of Obama's relatives was a terrorist, would that mean he's not fit to be president


That's not what I meant. Allow me to clarify.

A relative who has commit a crime should be seen as something to investigate. What was the crime? Who was involved? What contact do they have with the person seeking ownership of the gun?

If it's found, for example, that many of their relatives have been involved in these actions and that they are closely placed to them, this should be considered a risk factor. Not a decisive factor, but something to be thought about.

Would you keep a gun in the same house as a schizophrenic who has violent episodes? Well, if the gun was stored safely then it probably wouldn't be an issue. But it would be prudent to, before issuing the gun to the person living with the schizophrenic, ensure they have a way to safely store it. Ie, require a certain standard of safety.

Which is why he said better training.


Of which none is required at all currently to purchase a gun. Do you see the problems yet?

Or to rape/torture/kill you and your family. Or to strap an explosive to your neck and force you to rob a bank for them.


Extraordinarily unlikely and paranoid. I'd imagine someone coming to do that would have made a plan of attack in advance and come at a time when it's extremely unlikely you'll be able to defend yourself or have a weapon on hand. That's a premeditated intent to harm. Unless you never go to sleep and are always holding the gun at the entrance, I seriously doubt you could do much to protect yourself if you were unaware of this person's intent before the incident began.

And the best way is to not leave any witnesses.


Are you serious? Killing someone invokes a manhunt. Robberies of electronics and jewelry starts an investigation and watch. The police won't stop until they find the killer, but a robber isn't nearly as high priority.

"Someone stole your car and ran someone over. Why did you leave it in a parking lot when you know that people steal cars sometimes? You're going to jail or getting a fine."


Unless that car was unlocked with the keys in the transmission and in front of a prison, I wouldn't consider the car owner to be blamed. This is a completely inapplicable analogy. A gun is made to kill people - one steals a gun to harm or threaten others. A car is a method of transport - one steals a car to profit. Cars are also LOCKED and DENIED ACCESS OF USE (bullets) by requiring a key. Yes, you can break in and hotwire, but that's going beyond the analogy.

My kitchen knives aren't inaccessible, and I'm sure they're not at restaurants either. If I run into the kitchen at my local Outback and start stabbing with one of their knives, is it their fault for not keeping their knives in a vault?


Yeah, because that happens. We can invent as many hypothetical situations where someone takes an item not intended to be a weapon and causes harm with it. That's just completely ignoring the issue.

Why not restrict everything else that can be used to kill people as well, such as pressure cookers?


Because those "everything else" aren't used often enough or are deadly enough to justify instituting a control on who has them.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

What we're balancing here is the value of your possessions vs your life.

No, it's the value of the right to ultimately control your own property (including yourself) freely vs your life. If they see you and tell you "don't move or I'll kill you" and you stop, you're putting yourself under duress by physical coercion in this case. If you comply, they own you.

If the robber outright attacks you, of course you defend yourself. You don't let them hurt you if you're able.

Don't fight back until the threat is carried out? Really?

Are you serious?

Yes. If you're in a desperate situation where you're already expecting life in prison if you're caught, you certainly don't want someone to be able to pick you out of a lineup.

Unless that car was unlocked with the keys in the transmission and in front of a prison,

Why would you blame the victim under those circumstances? Does being naked and unconscious count as sexual consent?

Yeah, because that happens. We can invent as many hypothetical situations where someone takes an item not intended to be a weapon and causes harm with it. That's just completely ignoring the issue.

Every object is a tool. Something being a weapon is dependent on what is done with it, not the manufacturer's intent.

Because those "everything else" aren't used often enough or are deadly enough to justify instituting a control on who has them.

So it's only a problem after (#) of people are killed? Why isn't the focus on prevention of further actions?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

No, it's the value of the right to ultimately control your own property (including yourself) freely vs your life.


You have the right to control your own property. That's what we call ownership and why theft is a crime. You also have the right to protect your property. However, as I have been trying to point out, you are placing a far greater risk upon yourself by engaging in the conflict directly, even if you do come armed with a gun. It is NOT safer to have a gun, unless the person intends to harm you anyways. That is the point.

I've said this before. I support gun ownership and concealed carry. I think people have the right to defend themselves and others. I do not, however, support idiots without training obtaining lethal weapons on the premise that they're safer with them, when really, they're just a danger to themselves and others. If you want a gun, know how to use it and responsibly own it. That's all I'm saying. It's crazy how absurd that idea seems to be to everyone though.

If you comply, they own you.


Not necessarily. Momentarily complying while waiting for help to arrive (assuming you've called the police) is a strategic move. Of course, if they try to put you in a position of utter vulnerability, or appear as if they intend harm (for example, it's a man and you're a woman and think he might rape you if you drop your weapon) then it would be a bad idea to take that course.

They only 'own you' as much as you let them. Shooting them in the face and letting them beat you to death is a false dichotomy you're presenting. There are so many other options that you can take to prevent them from taking your stuff that DOESN'T involve killing them.

Don't fight back until the threat is carried out? Really?


No. Don't engage in violence until it's unavoidable. If the robber doesn't know you're there/awake, calling the police and waiting is the best thing to do. Not grabbing your pistol and running down the stairs, where you place yourself in unnecessary danger and potential legal trouble, not to mention it might not even be a robber. There are those cases where it's a family member who's mistaken in the night.

If you're in a desperate situation where you're already expecting life in prison if you're caught,


Robbery isn't exactly a life sentence.

Why would you blame the victim under those circumstances? Does being naked and unconscious count as sexual consent?


I consider gross idiocy punishable. If you strip and go to sleep in the middle of a back alley, then get raped, I have no sympathy. The rapist is at fault for committing the crime, but you're a **** moron. Except in this case, the harm from negligence was done onto the person being negligent, so there's no reason to punish.

I'm pretty sure most police would view leaving an untended car running next to a prison as at LEAST worthy of citation. Likewise, if you leave a weapon within each reach and someone steals it to commit a crime, you're responsible in part.

Every object is a tool. Something being a weapon is dependent on what is done with it, not the manufacturer's intent.


And some tools are better for certain tasks than others. I can use a wrench as a can opener. Should I call the wrench a can opener? You're arguing that a kitchen knife is equivalent to a gun. It's not. You're arguing that a random object improvised as a weapon is used as extensively as a gun. They're not. You're arguing that if we banned guns (which I'm not saying we even should, yet again addressing this ridiculous strawman) people would just use different objects in the same proliferation as guns. EVEN IF THEY DID, those other objects are almost certainly not as dangerous or life threatening as a gun.

So it's only a problem after (#) of people are killed? Why isn't the focus on prevention of further actions?


It's only a problem when it's a problem. I should think that's obvious. You don't go around banning everything because you can imagine ways in which it could be misused. You address what the problem is.

The focus SHOULD BE on prevention of further actions. THAT'S WHAT GUN CONTROL IS. Making sure those who have guns will use them responsible, and taking them away from those who do not have them legally.

What do you call surveillance? People whine about being 'spied' on without realizing how they're being protected by it. OH NOE THE GOVERNMENT READ MY FACEBOOK STATUS AND LEARNED I HAD PASTA! Yeah. They don't care.

I'm disappointed EmperorPalpatine. I had thought you were more reasonable than this, but you keep resorting to sweeping fallacies and paranoid hypotheticals while (perhaps not intentionally) misrepresenting my words.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

I do not, however, support idiots without training obtaining lethal weapons on the premise that they're safer with them, when really, they're just a danger to themselves and others. If you want a gun, know how to use it and responsibly own it. That's all I'm saying. It's crazy how absurd that idea seems to be to everyone though.

I agree with training, education, and responsibility, even as mandatory requirements. But considering that even the people who get the most rigorous training (law enforcement, military) sometimes abuse their power regardless of their qualifications, what amount is enough?

No. Don't engage in violence until it's unavoidable. If the robber doesn't know you're there/awake, calling the police and waiting is the best thing to do. Not grabbing your pistol and running down the stairs, where you place yourself in unnecessary danger and potential legal trouble, not to mention it might not even be a robber.

I'm not advising to run at them. What's wrong with calling the police and waiting with a weapon just in case? Could an unarmed person who knows Krav Maga stand by their door and wait instead of laying on the floor with their hands on their head? Yes, they could be putting themselves in more danger, but is that not their right?

There are so many other options that you can take to prevent them from taking your stuff that DOESN'T involve killing them.

Yes. As you said before, the aim is to stop the threat, not to necessarily kill. So what's wrong for a homeowner with proper training to aim for an appendage?

Robbery isn't exactly a life sentence.

I meant past crimes beyond the current incident.

And some tools are better for certain tasks than others.

I never said that all tools are equal, but where should the line be drawn for "harmful enough to need restrictions"?

It's only a problem when it's a problem. I should think that's obvious. You don't go around banning everything because you can imagine ways in which it could be misused. You address what the problem is.

Pressure cookers have been used as explosive devices and have caused hundreds of deaths. Should there be public restrictions on them? Or should we wait for more attacks?
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

"I would go as far as to say a majority of the criminal population comes from irresponsible parents. A man I personally know teaches public education at an elementary school. He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes"

The students being a reference to the students he interacts with, i.e. an entire elementary school. In an elementary school in Maryland, which enforces some of the strictest gun laws in America, 100% of the &quotroblem students" came from broken homes. That is a fact.


As you're restating what I've already read and not answering the question, I'll hold to my previous conclusion.

Regardless of whether you intend to ever draw your firearm, it is better to have one than to not have one.


I'm not arguing that one is more able to defend themselves with a gun. That was never my point at all. My point was, as I've stated multiple times, that having that gun does not make you less likely to be harmed. It makes you more likely.

...seriously? You saw "naked and unconscious" as THAT? I'm fairly certain he meant a woman who had been knocked unconscious and stripped naked.


That wouldn't really fit with the context of what he had been replying to. Of course someone who was assaulted and left somewhere isn't responsible for what happens after that.

We've been mature enough to avoid using them on you.


*All uses of 'you' were to the contextual person in my example, who willingly stripped off their clothing and slept in an alley. I did not mean to refer to anyone posting here.

He mention the knives being locked in a vault, not banned.


Knives in the kitchen aren't an object people commonly pick up to harm other people with.

Or tell me, do you see a gun on the counter as harmless as a knife on the counter?

YOU keep dragging this single point (that I made only once and never used as material since)


You've only explicitly stated it once. You've used it multiple times, and I pointed out each time. EmperorPalpatine has used it far more than you.

I'm not talking about bans, and neither was he.


One by one then, here we go.

I believe people have a right to own guns. Not only is it constitutional, it's a part of capitalism. The flaw is that those against guns constantly ask the same question: "Why do you NEED this? Why do you need a 30-round magazine, fore grip, scope, etc."


Page 96. Implying that the other side is against ownership of guns.

Gun bans to reduce crime:


Page 96. Explicit strawman of gun control to mean the same as gun ban.

Gun bans will not stop gun violence to any useful extent.


Page 96. Explicit strawman that the argument is about banning guns.

I didn't say "gun control" because I wasn't talking about gun control. I was talking about literally banning guns entirely, i.e. outright denying firearms to the public. I mentioned gun control afterwards. Gun BANS are indeed an issue because some believe that no one should ever own a gun at all. I was arguing against that, not control.


Page 97. Do I really need to explain how this is a strawman of the argument on gun control?

No, but people ARE arguing it, and I was arguing against it.


Page 97. Admitting that you were arguing against gun bans, not gun control. The definition of a strawman when the topic is gun control.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.


Page 97. Classic front for the "gun ban won't work" argument, which is a strawman in this case.

These are all from you Matt. Don't tell me you aren't using it, when it's been in every single one of your posts.

Morals, discipline and responsibility are to blame, not guns.


The sad thing here is you're almost correct. It's a change in our society to blame. That's the pitiful part of the catechism, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." That's true. Except entirely missing the point. Guns are being using to kill people.

Society is to blame. Guns are objects, they are not inherently good or evil. It is how they are used that determines what they are. Currently, in our society, guns are being rampantly used for evil. We could reduce that if we wanted to.

Controlling guns is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable. People will still die.


Prosecuting criminals is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable result of criminals committing crimes. They will still commit crimes.

Yet we still do it. Do you think we should not?

But considering that even the people who get the most rigorous training (law enforcement, military) sometimes abuse their power regardless of their qualifications, what amount is enough?


That would be something for experts in training to decide. I'm not qualified to say what's a safe level of training. Yes, we can't ensure that the guns won't be misused, but we can take steps to ensure less are misused.

What's wrong with calling the police and waiting with a weapon just in case?


Nothing at all. That's exactly what I've been saying to do all along. Take measures to protect yourself, avoid the conflict, and defend yourself if necessary.

Yes, they could be putting themselves in more danger, but is that not their right?


It is their right, and I've said as much. I was arguing the idea that having a gun makes you less likely to be harmed. That simply isn't true unless the person has prior intent to harm. A robber wants your things, not to hurt you. They almost certainly aren't going to try and hurt you unless you threaten them. Pulling a gun out and confronting the robber could be the difference between getting shot yourself and having the police arrive a few minutes later.

So what's wrong for a homeowner with proper training to aim for an appendage?


Nothing at all. I said the exact same thing earlier, and I quote, "You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to incapacitate as much as possible. These gun maniacs think it's justified to shoot a dozen rounds into a guy's chest because he threatened to take their wallet."

I meant past crimes beyond the current incident.


I'm not familiar with sentencing rates for burglars with a loooong record. Once or twice won't be more than a few years though, unless they hurt someone too. All the more reason for the burglar not to hurt the person.

I never said that all tools are equal, but where should the line be drawn for "harmful enough to need restrictions"?


I'd say, 'made to kill things' is a pretty obvious line. A knife, unless it's a combat knife, is made to cut food. I don't know whether combat knives are require some kind of license to buy. Likewise, pressure cookers are not made to be weapons.

As for when these things not made to be weapons should be restricted, I would say when it becomes a problem. If we're constantly seeing pressure cooker bombs, it's an obvious move to restrict the sale of pressure cookers. If they aren't being used to cause trouble often, there's no point.

Should there be public restrictions on them? Or should we wait for more attacks?


A dozen incidents. We see thousands of instances of gun violence every year. See the difference? Pressure cookers aren't being used nearly often enough to justify requiring checks on who they're being sold to. They aren't a problem. This seems common sense to me.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

I believe a majority of irresponsible and rebellious people come from broken homes.


Which is what I had gathered. That you believe these people are 'irresponsible' and 'rebellious' due to a father not being present is sexist. There are far more factors at play than the lack of a male figure in the home. Correlation does not equal causation.

A kitchen knife, as far as offense goes, is probably second only to a firearm.


For day to day items perhaps. Even still, it's far below the lethality, range, and stopping power of a gun, and it requires strength to use.

A knife and a handgun could sit on a kitchen counter until the world ended and would never harm anyone


Then please explain why it is not responsible to leave a gun sitting on the counter.

You quoted me as saying "I'm not talking about gun bans." That is present-tense.


I also quote sexists and racists saying they aren't sexist and racist. That doesn't make it so. You said you weren't, but you built your arguments around the assumption that you were talking about gun bans in the areas I quoted.

Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done literally says NOTHING about gun bans.


Yes, and saying cigarettes kill people literally says nothing about how. It's implied in your statement that "bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done" is in reference to how, if all guns were banned, there would still be violence. That is the central idea of your statement. It is the most common argument against gun bans.

I'd like to hear your response to this part below.

I'm not arguing that one is more able to defend themselves with a gun. That was never my point at all. My point was, as I've stated multiple times, that having that gun does not make you less likely to be harmed. It makes you more likely.
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,692 posts
Scribe

I'm not on my computer, so forgive the brevity and disjointed style.

- You'd need to be near dead to fail in using a kitchen knife as a weapon. It's balanced, sharp, has a point. In case you forgot--people are squishy. Although it may lack the range of a firearm, it is quite literally a household item. I'm fairly certain I read that kitchen knives were used in a surprising amount of crimes/attacks. I'll look for it when I get on a computer. Regardless! Man has been using knives of some sort to kill each other for bloody ages for a reason. They're cheap to make, easy to use a good at what they do.

- You totally missed the context and poit behind the counter situation. He was saying that without human interference, neither one will do anything. If you put a pen in the hand of a determined person they -will- kill.
As a side note: You shouldn't just leave a kicthen knive on a counter unattended. That can go wrong really fast.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

- You'd need to be near dead to fail in using a kitchen knife as a weapon. It's balanced, sharp, has a point. In case you forgot--people are squishy.


Yet knife wounds are far less often fatal. They also require someone to be close. You can run from someone holding a knife. Not so much with guns, that punch straight through your body doing massive damage to all surrounding tissues.

Regardless! Man has been using knives of some sort to kill each other for bloody ages for a reason. They're cheap to make, easy to use a good at what they do.


Yeah. But we use guns now, because guns are far better. Guns were the reason Europe could control so many different areas with so few soldiers. Swords and shields only went so far.

And knives have nothing to do with the fact that guns are being used rampantly in crime, and that we often see crimes that would have been easily prevented if the gun owner had been checked/been responsible in how they stored their gun.

He was saying that without human interference, neither one will do anything. If you put a pen in the hand of a determined person they -will- kill.


And you totally missed the point that a gun is far more lethal than a knife. I'm sure you've heard the cliche, "brought a knife to a gunfight." Who's going to win?
Devoidless
offline
Devoidless
3,692 posts
Scribe

If you're going to try and provide counter-arguments, you are going to need to do better than that. I expect better from you.

Let me get back on my computer and I'll respond. I'll delete this post upon getting on. This is simply a placeholder.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,579 posts
Scribe

It is NOT sexist. It is a fact


Yes, everything you said there is a fact. What's not a fact is that it's because the father is missing that the child is poorly behaved. The father missing is a consequence of other symptoms on the mother's side, such as not having time to spend at home due to work, divorcing probably due to relationship problems, having a child while not married and thus being a single parent without help, and so on.

The father not being present isn't why the child is often poorly behaved. It's a slew of other reasons which are heavily related to the father not being present, or to be more precise, there being only a single parent. It's hard to raise a kid, much less raise one alone. But it's sexist to say that a father is needed to make the kid behave when that isn't true at all.

and the answer is that neither is more harmless.


Inherently as an immobile object, yes. But the gun has a far greater propensity for violence.

The concept that "a criminal will more likely harm you if you have a gun" is not an absolution, as you keep insisting it is.


Higher Gun Ownership Rates Correlate With Higher Amounts of Gun Related Death (Duh)

Gun Owners Are Far More Likely To Get Shot

From the second link,
"Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."


Sorry, those last two lines should have been reversed: the first is a quote and the second is my response.


Oh. That would explain why I just spent 5 minutes scratching my head and thinking, "I don't remember reading this before..." while scrolling back through the posts looking for it.
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,934 posts
Bard

I believe that the necessity for firearms varies depending on the are where someone lives.
Example:

A person who lives in a relatively safe suburb won't in all likelihood need a gun for self defense although they may want to get one for legal activities like skeet shooting.

A person (perhaps a single woman) lives in a place like South Atlanta or East LA and is greatly concerned about his/her safety. He/she legally obtains a firearm in case he/she is attacked, but he/she has no desire to use it unless absolutely necessary. I see nothing wrong with this at all. I fact it seems highly sexist to say that a woman shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun to protect herself from being raped.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,045 posts
Archduke

"You don't need this" is, as I have said before, not a valid excuse.


Shortly before I explained how your counter argument is invalid.

A variety of martial arts (which all involve attacking an assailant) are labeled as "self-defense."


People suffering from scizophrenia are labelled as &quotsychopaths". This makes it true, right?

In fact, there is no other way to hunt some game besides using a firearm (known commonly as "big game&quot.


If we take that as our premise and examine the evidence, we have to conclude that the firearm was actually invented by Homo erectus.
See Here

I'm not going to leave my $1200 rifle in someone else's safe, especially if I want to practice before the event, and if you want to compete in competitions like 3-Gun, you do in fact need an assault rifle.


1 I think he means that they should provide the guns, rather than confiscate them. Not to say that it would be a very good idea either.
2 Therefore, everyone in Spain needs three banderillas and a sword because traditional bullfighting would be impossible without them. Do you see the problem with your reasoning here?

By this logic, you have the freedom of speech as you are allowed to say at least one word. How ridiculous is that?


Nearly as ridiculous as an argument from incredulity intended to refute an obvious fact via an erroneous reductio ad absurdum.

Besides, in NYC Administration Code 10-306b, you are not allowed to discharge a firearm under any condition inside the city.


If self defence is sufficient grounds to kill someone without conviction, I highly doubt this will still be enforceable under the same conditions.

You call that "bearing arms?" An unloaded rifle or shotgun capable of firing less than five rounds?


Technically, it is correct. Therefore, yes.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,450 posts
Scribe

2 Therefore, everyone in Spain needs...

Everyone in Spain is not a bullfighter.
He's not saying that everyone needs an assault rifle, just people who want to participate in specific competitions that require experience with one. But I agree that ownership is not essential for practice.
Showing 961-975 of 1091