ForumsWEPRGun control in the US

1127 151191
theEPICgameKING
offline
theEPICgameKING
906 posts
2,175

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?

  • 1,127 Replies
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

The exact same description could be applied to motor vehicles.


Exactly. And note that we have strict laws on driving, how to drive, require that people learn how to drive, and obey rules. We test them before allowing them a driver's license and punish them for not obeying rules that are minor, such as speeding or failing to fix a brake light.

And they aren't even designed to kill people!

And I live on 14 acres of private property. There are plenty of things to shoot (usually 1-Liter bottles of soda and cardboard boxes).


Not everyone lives on land. Most people live in urban centers where a bullet could travel through a house and into someone, as you noted.

A majority of home invasions wake the homeowner.


The vast majority of home invasions happen when the homeowner isn't home. Your point of having a gun to stop the burglary is moot.

If you wake up, you are infinitely safer with your firearm than without one for one simple reason: YOU know what you do with a gun. You have no way of knowing what the "bad guy" will do. You will use your gun to stop the home invasion.


You are not safer. By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk. Even if the other party doesn't have a gun, having a gun doesn't make you invincible. Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms. All you're doing is placing yourself into a potential fight. That is not, in any way shape or form, safer.

There is literally no guarantee that the burglar will have mercy on you because you are unarmed


And there's no guarantee being armed will mean you win. I'm not arguing against self defense. I'm trying to get the notion into your head that the situation you're presenting isn't likely or realistic.

Actually, I was being overly dramatic. I hear a lot of gun-happy people talk like that.


Yes, and those gun happy people are the types of people who shouldn't have the guns at all. It's insanity to think that blasting multiple holes in an assailant's body far beyond the point they're able to run away or even live is self defense. Shooting to kill is intent to murder, even in self defense. 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.

He stated that 100% of the students who ignore or disrespect authority come from broken homes without a father,


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

Even parents who hate firearms should explain gun safety to their children.


Yes, they should. That's part of being a responsible parent.

Criminals very rarely purchase a firearm legally for several hundred dollars. Gangs have fully automatic weapons that cannot be purchased legally.


Any real gun control legislation will involve cracking down on the illegal guns too. America is gun proliferate. It's easy to acquire guns, because we have such poor controls on them.

I was talking about literally banning guns entirely


And no one is arguing that. You're debating a strawman.

but people ARE arguing it,


Some. Not many. The vast majority just want stronger controls. Then the Republicans just outright shoot down (figuratively) any legislation intended to do that based on a slippery slope fallacy and this strawman.

What other records do I have?


Psychological evaluations, relatives who have committed crimes, citations of anger problems from school or in your job immediately come to mind.

wait until they're old enough, spend a serious amount of money and go through a background check


They don't. They just swipe it from an irresponsible gun owner whom is a relative. We see it time and time and time and time and time and time again.

Background checks are just one part of it. Plugging a leak in the boat does no good if water is getting in elsewhere. Likewise, bailing is an effort in futility until the leaks have been plugged. America is a boat full of shotgun holes with people closing their eyes plugging their ears and screaming that they aren't sinking and it's the decay of morals to blame.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

Exactly. And note that we have strict laws on driving, how to drive, require that people learn how to drive, and obey rules. We test them before allowing them a driver's license and punish them for not obeying rules that are minor, such as speeding or failing to fix a brake light.

And they aren't even designed to kill people!


Almost all of those are already in place for gun owners. The ones that are missing (teaching how to use a gun, how to obey rules) come from responsible parenting. Ideally, anyway. As for guns being designed to kill people, I'll level with you and agree to some extent. Guns are the primary means of warfare. 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 buy guns to have fun. Shoot targets, compete for accuracy, make a lot of noise (it's expensive noise, but still) and, of course, hunt animals. Is it dangerous? Yes. But a lot of things people do for fun are dangerous, especially men.

Not everyone lives on land. Most people live in urban centers where a bullet could travel through a house and into someone, as you noted.


Okay...but my point still stands. 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. I live in one. My firearms are at home, on my farm, where I can access them.

The vast majority of home invasions happen when the homeowner isn't home. Your point of having a gun to stop the burglary is moot.


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

You are not safer. By entering a confrontation you place yourself at risk. Even if the other party doesn't have a gun, having a gun doesn't make you invincible. Likewise, they can also have a gun, and at best you're on even terms. All you're doing is placing yourself into a potential fight. That is not, in any way shape or form, safer.


When your home has been invaded by an armed man, you are in a confrontation as soon as he sees you. I already said that having a gun doesn't make you invincible and that one should be familiar with how to fire it. Besides, I would rather be on even terms than on the intruder's terms.

You seem to believe that, if I had a firearm, I would engage in a stand-off with an intruder and immediately be forced into a life-or-death gunfight. That's the last way you would want to fight an intruder. People often assume that the best way to stop the intruder is to run up to him and aim the gun in his face, like in a movie or heroic "blaze of glory" moment. How would you go about stopping an intruder, assuming both of you were armed and you knew he was indoors? You have no way of knowing how he will react and your only advantage is surprise. Confrontation is inevitable, as he is searching your house for valuables.

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


No, it's not. The man has worked in public schools for over 20 years, and it has invariably been that case because he tutors struggling students. In every situation, a disrespectful or rebellious student has come from a broken home.

Yes, and those gun happy people are the types of people who shouldn't have the guns at all. It's insanity to think that blasting multiple holes in an assailant's body far beyond the point they're able to run away or even live is self defense. Shooting to kill is intent to murder, even in self defense. 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.


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

Any real gun control legislation will involve cracking down on the illegal guns too. America is gun proliferate. It's easy to acquire guns, because we have such poor controls on them.


The problem is that such a legislation puts immense pressure on people that own weapons legally. 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. Where do you draw the line to where guns are impossible to steal but also able to serve their purpose?

And no one is arguing that. You're debating a strawman.

Some. Not many. The vast majority just want stronger controls. Then the Republicans just outright shoot down (figuratively) any legislation intended to do that based on a slippery slope fallacy and this strawman.


It was never intended to be an argument at all, and I'm not debating it. I was adding it to the list of opinions I have about guns. If you re-read my last post, I didn't add any new opinions to the topic: I just said it was a different topic.

Psychological evaluations, relatives who have committed crimes, citations of anger problems from school or in your job immediately come to mind.


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).

They don't. They just swipe it from an irresponsible gun owner whom is a relative. We see it time and time and time and time and time and time again.


This is criminal activity regardless of the responsibility of the gun owner. It's theft. You can't prosecute a gun owner for property that was stolen from them and misused or used for illegal activity. I firmly believe gun owners should be responsible and maintain control of their firearms, but in the end it is the criminal's fault for the crime. Not the owner, not the gun, not the government.

A martial arts student, perfectly capable of defending himself, was beaten to death with a tire iron from behind from a stolen car. He had been lured into examining the car by a man who claimed he couldn't get it to start and was stuck in the head repeatedly from behind. That is not the fault of the homeowner of the stolen car or the weapon, nor is it the student's fault for being unaware of the danger. Bad people will do bad things, regardless of how they get it done.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

If you're going to use probability terms such as "rarely" or "usually", you need to back them up with stats.

And to think, I was actually going to give my two cents. ._.

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

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
9,406 posts
2,680

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
5,602 posts
3,605

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
9,406 posts
2,680

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
5,602 posts
3,605

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
9,406 posts
2,680

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?
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

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


How about I go ahead and quote what I already said?

"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 "problem students" came from broken homes. That is a fact.

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.


There is no such thing as "momentarily complying." You either have control of the situation or you do not. Plus, you have offered a perfectly valid situation in which having a firearm is the safest course of action. The phrase "Better safe than sorry" comes to mind, and if an intruder is in your house you are not safe. Regardless of whether you intend to ever draw your firearm, it is better to have one than to not have one.

I don't dream about having someone break into my house and I kill them with my handy .357 revolver (I don't own one anyway). I hope I never have to use a gun on another person, but I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

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.


...seriously? You saw "naked and unconscious" as THAT? I'm fairly certain he meant a woman who had been knocked unconscious and stripped naked. Please avoid personal insults. We've been mature enough to avoid using them on you.

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.


You are the one who constantly argues this "strawman." He mention the knives being locked in a vault, not banned. YOU keep dragging this single point (that I made only once and never used as material since) on and on and on, like it's some kind of trump card. I'm not talking about bans, and neither was he.

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.


Absolutely correct.

THAT'S WHAT GUN CONTROL IS.


Wrong!

My uncle could bring a shotgun to high school 50+ years ago. It had an official gun club for students to compete with shotguns, rifles and pistols. They were never locked up, you didn't need special permission or a permit to bring one and no one was ever shot or shot at.

So what changed? Shotguns didn't change: a 12-gauge from then is the same 12-gauge in 2014. Control changed: no firearms of any kind are allowed on school properties, but people are being killed. If you want to address the real problem, it's people and society. Morals, discipline and responsibility are to blame, not guns.

A gun can sit on a cafe table in downtown DC and never hurt anyone. It is a lifeless machine. Guns as a whole have not changed: they have always been lifeless machines, and you will never be able to blame a gun, or ANY lifeless machine, for the actions of a human. The amount of access a human has to a lifeless machine is irrelevant, whether you like it or not. No one is under any obligation to pick up the gun and shoot a bystander any more than a person is obligated to rape a naked, unconscious woman.

It hinges on the will of man to do what he wants. THAT is the real, inescapable problem. You can delay it by making it harder to get firearms, but that will not actually solve the problem, and you clearly want to solve the problem. Controlling guns is nothing but a "stall tactic" to delay the inevitable. People will still die.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

"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 "problem 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.
MattEmAngel
offline
MattEmAngel
7,705 posts
4,240

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


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

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.


It's more reasonable to apply "naked and unconscious" to a person who has been attacked, not a person who, by choice, took off all of their clothing and passed out. But it doesn't really matter anymore.

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?


A kitchen knife, as far as offense goes, is probably second only to a firearm. And as for your question, I already answered it. They are lifeless machines (tools would probably apply better), and are equally harmless. A knife and a handgun could sit on a kitchen counter until the world ended and would never harm anyone.

Alright. Gun bans, once and for all. You quoted me as saying "I'm not talking about gun bans." That is present-tense.

Your first three are all from my first post, in which I was making an opinion specifically about bans because I wanted to go ahead and mention it, and only the second two are referenced to actual bans. The first was about the topic of capitalism and logic, not about bans.

In the next one, the only mention of "bans" was to say that I had already made a point about it, and it is past-tense. I was arguing against that, not control. Was.

No, but people ARE arguing it, and I was arguing against it. is, again, past-tense. I WAS arguing it, all the way back in Post 1, and I only brought it up because you brought it up.

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

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


It has been in every post because it has been in every one of YOUR posts, and my response in every case was "This was something I discussed previously, I have nothing to add." You've made your opinion on gun bans quite clear. Stop telling me I'm using it when I'm not actually using it. Besides responding to your responses about that specific topic, I've never so much used the word "ban" in any other sentence (minus mentioning urban centers gun bans. You must have missed that one). Feel free to go back and re-read all of them.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

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
3,723 posts
3,620

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
5,602 posts
3,605

- 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?
Showing 961-975 of 1127