Guns

[Tornado]

... In my perfect world nobody would have a gun.

I imagine in that perfect world there would be no violence, then. Or everyone would be karate experts. Or something to balance out inherent differences in physical strength and how that concept relates to self-defense.

 

[Keef]

In my perfect world everybody would have two guns. They would leave one at home, wear the other on their belt, and be able to split a playing card with either. There would be no violence.

 

[Lasdul]

In my opinion, I think Canada's gun control is spot on. Is it really a good thing for people to be able to kill each other, even in retaliation? I think that taking martial arts courses is a more healthy way to protect yourself rather than killing. It's the unapologetic "Eye for an eye" attitude that I don't think is good. Honestly, we need less violence in the world as it is, arming everyone with a gun does not help further anything. As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
That being said, I don't think it's wrong for people to carry guns in self defense, nor do i think people shouldn't be able to go to ranges. I just think it should be hard to obtain a gun, especially a concealable handgun. I support strict gun control.

 

[Tornado]

Is it really a good thing for people to be able to kill each other, even in retaliation?

Yes, because the threat of that retaliation makes the actual need for retaliation less likely.

 

[Keef]

As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.".

As Ghandi said, "Let's see how many bleeding hearts jump on my bandwagon."

That phrase you quoted doesn't take into account what the simple threat of "an eye for an eye" will have on the taking of an eye in the first place. For example: If a burglar knows I have guns with which to defend my home, he's probably not going to break into my home. His eye-taking scheme has been foiled, therefore I don't have to take his for myself, and we all live happily ever after.

 

[Dapper]

Yes, because the threat of that retaliation makes the actual need for retaliation less likely.

That is wrong. The chemistry in the brain of a drug addict, or kleptomaniac, is such that retaliation is not a concern.

As Ghandi said, "Let's see how many bleeding hearts jump on my bandwagon."

That phrase you quoted doesn't take into account what the simple threat of "an eye for an eye" will have on the taking of an eye in the first place. For example: If a burglar knows I have guns with which to defend my home, he's probably not going to break into my home. His eye-taking scheme has been foiled, therefore I don't have to take his for myself, and we all live happily ever after.

The term "eye for an eye" is only used in the context of revenge. "Eye taking scheme" is theft not revenge.

Edit- Here is the ad for WV's senator:

 

[Tornado]

That is wrong. The chemistry in the brain of a drug addict, or kleptomaniac, is such that retaliation is not a concern.

Except nowhere near all criminals have abnormal brain chemistry, so that statement carries no weight in response to what I said. I specifically said "less likely." Not "definitely won't happen."

More importantly, in the context of his original argument ("Why can't we just not be violent?"), such a distinction is completely meaningless: We have a criminal who is willing to kill/harm in the process of performing crimes (theft, drug use, whatever). What exactly does strict gun control do to prevent that violent crime from happening in the first place? Particularly in comparison to more "open" gun control laws, where there is at least a chance that the would-be criminal will think twice before performing the crime?

 

[Dapper]

Except nowhere near all criminals have abnormal brain chemistry, so that statement carries no weight in response to what I said.

I think most people that commit extreme crimes are usually a little off in some way in the brain.

 

[Solid Lifters]

It's mostly foreigners who don't understand the situation here in the USA about firearms. They believe anti gun laws work for them, when they really don't, and so they believe they should work for us. We tried that, and it failed miserably. Our country hopped on that anti bandwaggon in the late '60s and early '70s and it failed us. Crimes, mostly violent crimes, across the nation when through the roof.

For the past 15-20 years, individual states here in the USA have significantly lower or dropped restrictive gun control laws. All states that have done so have seen significant drops in both serious and petty crimes and a rebirth of new business, tourism and new home settlers coming into the state.

All the states that haven't lowered or dropped restrictive gun laws have seen increases in violent, serious and petty crimes. States like mine have seen no significant drop because of the equalization of dropped gun control laws and new gun control laws.

Why anybody, without a serious mental disorder, would still even suggest strict gun control laws to secure society from harm is mind boggling. I strongly feel they've been brained washed since birth by either a mother of father to feel that way. Playing on fears and ignorance to conform a child to your level of thinking or opinion is the most disgusting thing another human being can do to another, above all your own child.

For those that have been brainwashed by a close loved one or relative, just switch off what they've done to you and research the topic yourself. You'll come around if you do, I'm sure. Unless you have a serious mental disorder (liberalism). And if you have a serious mental disorder, you do not have the right to tell me how I can defend myself, my life and my loved ones. You're suffering from a mental disorder! You're not mentally well enough to have any such control over my life, well being or my family's life and well being.

 

[Joel]

Lol can I change my vote? I voted strict control like 2 years ago

 

[Tornado]

I think most people that commit extreme crimes are usually a little off in some way in the brain.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they lack self-preservation.

 

[Keef]

The term "eye for an eye" is only used in the context of revenge. "Eye taking scheme" is theft not revenge.

You're right. Which makes me wonder why Lasdul used the term "retaliation" and "eye for an eye". Does he think we Americans are crazed lunatics out to get anybody who has done us wrong? Why did he speak of "retaliation" instead of self-defense? We happen to have a system of laws in this country that deter your average citizen from "retaliating", but we do typically promote self-defense.

Whenever I have a discussion about guns, somebody inevitably talks about retaliation or some crazy thing. Truth is, it never even crosses my mind, or the minds of the vast majority of gun owners and users. That's because it's a crazy idea, and frankly I consider anyone who assumes that is what goes on here just as crazy.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they lack self-preservation.

Whether or not mentally unstable criminals actually consider their life before committing "extreme crimes", these crimes will inevitably happen. So while my guns might be deterring the relatively sane criminals, I might actually have to use them on the crazies. Either way, it helps to protect my law-abiding self and is wholly good.

It's mostly foreigners who don't understand the situation here in the USA about firearms. They believe anti gun laws work for them, when they really don't, and so they believe they should work for us. We tried that, and it failed miserably. Our country hopped on that anti bandwaggon in the late '60s and early '70s and it failed us. Crimes, mostly violent crimes, across the nation when through the roof.

For the past 15-20 years, individual states here in the USA have significantly lower or dropped restrictive gun control laws. All states that have done so have seen significant drops in both serious and petty crimes and a rebirth of new business, tourism and new home settlers coming into the state.

All the states that haven't lowered or dropped restrictive gun laws have seen increases in violent, serious and petty crimes. States like mine have seen no significant drop because of the equalization of dropped gun control laws and new gun control laws.

Why anybody, without a serious mental disorder, would still even suggest strict gun control laws to secure society from harm is mind boggling. I strongly feel they've been brained washed since birth by either a mother of father to feel that way. Playing on fears and ignorance to conform a child to your level of thinking or opinion is the most disgusting thing another human being can do to another, above all your own child.

For those that have been brainwashed by a close loved one or relative, just switch off what they've done to you and research the topic yourself. You'll come around if you do, I'm sure. Unless you have a serious mental disorder (liberalism). And if you have a serious mental disorder, you do not have the right to tell me how I can defend myself, my life and my loved ones. You're suffering from a mental disorder! You're not mentally well enough to have any such control over my life, well being or my family's life and well being.

QFT, the evidence for less-strict gun control actually lowering crime rates around the country.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

My vote was for illegality, more of a personal thing but it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure that if I ever need to, I could carry maybe a taser? In case anyone attacks me. Truthfully, it doesn't matter, but all of your "crazed maniac" ideas above, have you ever actually been attcked by one? It's not seldom but also not a major occurence that crazed people just run around shooting. I could be more than 50% sure that Keef isn't going to have his place broken into, which means it happens less than you think. Or at least what I think.

 

[Azuremen]

In my opinion, I think Canada's gun control is spot on. Is it really a good thing for people to be able to kill each other, even in retaliation?

You seem to think a gun is required to kill someone...

People managed to kill people all the time before guns were around. And they'd manage to do it without guns if they really wanted to. Basically, you are using the argument "guns kill people" which is so hopelessly flawed it isn't even funny.

My vote was for illegality, more of a personal thing but it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure that if I ever need to, I could carry maybe a taser? In case anyone attacks me. Truthfully, it doesn't matter, but all of your "crazed maniac" ideas above, have you ever actually been attcked by one? It's not seldom but also not a major occurence that crazed people just run around shooting. I could be more than 50% sure that Keef isn't going to have his place broken into, which means it happens less than you think. Or at least what I think.

The fact is almost no one would break into a home in the area I live in because most everyone owns guns. It was such a minor issue that we didn't even lock our doors at night. Also, please don't just make up "well, it doesn't happen seldom but it doesn't happen often" fuzzy points to make you "point." It just looks bad.

 

[arvore]

You seem to think a gun is required to kill someone...

It's just a little bit more effective than Karate...

People managed to kill people all the time before guns were around. And they'd manage to do it without guns if they really wanted to. Basically, you are using the argument "guns kill people" which is so hopelessly flawed it isn't even funny.

Mankind also managed to do wars before nuclear era,do you conclude that nuclear warheads killing people is also a flawed argument?

The fact is almost no one would break into a home in the area I live in because most everyone owns guns. It was such a minor issue that we didn't even lock our doors at night. Also, please don't just make up "well, it doesn't happen seldom but it doesn't happen often" fuzzy points to make you "point." It just looks bad.

Sure the gangs are afraid of those grannies with their 9mm...

 

[Dapper]

The fact is almost no one would break into a home in the area I live in because most everyone owns guns. It was such a minor issue that we didn't even lock our doors at night.

I never locked my doors the first 17 years of my life and we never had a gun, then we moved...

Therefore, locked doors have no correlation with a gun being in the home. Which leads to no correlation between guns in the home and house break-ins.

 

[Lasdul]

You know what, maybe you guys are right in your case. We live in different countries. But it shows that there is a more vulgar underbelly in your country if people feel the need to arm themselves with guns.
Nothing against Americans, It's just the fact that in most places in Canada, our gun control is pretty tight. Also, we have a lower crime rate. Therefore something is being done right.

 

[Joel]

Nothing against Americans, It's just the fact that in most places in Canada, our gun control is pretty tight. Also, we have a lower crime rate. Therefore something is being done right.

Nothing against us Canadians, but it's just the fact that in most places in Switzerland, gun control is really loose. Also, they have a lower crime/ murder rate. Therefore something is being done right.


See what happens when you try to bend statistics to support your view?

 

[Dapper]

Must be the weather.

 

[Lasdul]

This is because of the people living there. What my main point is, is that I don't feel I need, or even want a gun to keep myself safe. But it's truly a moral argument, is it ever right to kill to save the lives of others?
I definitely think it's right, especially if you will save the lives of many. This is why I support Afghanistan.
I just don't think it necessary that people carry guns on their person all the time. For instance in AZ and some other states they now let people carry guns in bars. Smart idea?
EDIT: Also, that doesn't stop Canada from having a pretty low crime rate regardless of comparisons to lower crime rates.
EDIT EDIT: This is a fight that I can't win. You people are pretty good at debating, kudos. However the reality is that no matter how strict the control is, some people will always find a way to obtain guns. But I see a paradox in your arguments. IF gun control is stricter, that will make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain guns in the first place, thus eliminating the need for people to carry guns on their person.
Strict gun control still lets people who want guns have them, it's just not easy. And people really don't need stopping power on them.

 

[Teh_Loserer]

IF gun control is stricter, that will make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain guns in the first place, thus eliminating the need for people to carry guns on their person.

So it's your contention that criminals are lawfully obtaining firearms? Do you also propose that they lawfully obtain drugs?

 

[Tornado]

IF gun control is stricter, that will make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain guns in the first place

Never been proven ever, as far as I am aware, for reasons stated directly above.

And people really don't need stopping power on them.

I was unaware that it was acceptable for the government to take things away from citizens because they "really don't need them."

 

[Keef]

I never locked my doors the first 17 years of my life and we never had a gun, then we moved...

Therefore, locked doors have no correlation with a gun being in the home. Which leads to no correlation between guns in the home and house break-ins.

There's a general consensus in this country where it's understood that the person next to you probably doesn't have a gun. I find that very sad. If it was generally understood that the person next to you has a gun on his belt, right here in the mall parking lot, it's unlikely he's going to get mugged. He has a gun. I can see no reason a person with even a whisper of sanity would ever consider mugging somebody who has a gun. Crime would take a nose dive if everybody was strapped because the robber and the victim both have the same ability to kill each other.

I can only hope that if I were approached by somebody wielding a weapon with an intent to harm me, I would think clearly and be brave enough to defend myself by all means necessary. If that means pulling out my licensed and concealed pistol and killing him before he kills me, than that's what it means.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Mankind also managed to do wars before nuclear era,do you conclude that nuclear warheads killing people is also a flawed argument?

Nuclear warheads don't kill people; people kill people.

 

[arvore]

Nuclear warheads don't kill people; people kill people.

Obviously,people kill people(with guns,warheads,bare hands,knifes,etc),my point was that some tools are so much more effective than others...

 

[Nicksfix]

IF gun control is stricter, that will make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain guns in the first place

No,not quite.

Have you ever heard of the "black market" ? Where do you think criminals get the majority of their guns ? (black market or stolen in most cases).Do you think a criminal will go out and buy a new gun,have it registered ,then go out and use it in a crime ? You can get anything you want in the black market,it is so easy to do,if you have the connections.The criminals are the ones who have it made when it comes to obtaining a gun.Us NRA members and the innocent civilians are the ones who take it up the 🤬.

 

[Keef]

Obviously,people kill people(with guns,warheads,bare hands,knifes,etc),my point was that some tools are so much more effective than others...

Right, and a screwdriver is more effective at driving screws than a hammer is. In fact, people can use screwdrivers and hammers to kill people. How is that fact relevant to the discussion at hand, unless you're craftily avoiding the repercussions of a terribly flawed argument?

 

[Joel]

IF gun control is stricter, that will make it significantly harder for criminals to obtain guns in the first place, thus eliminating the need for people to carry guns on their person.

Two things here, just because a criminal doesn't have a gun, doesn't mean I don't need to have one. I'm 5'10", and not very strong (I brought up the example of the 5'4" 120 lb girl earlier). Up against a bigger/stronger assailant, I'm toast. Also, gun control really hasn't helped make it tougher for criminals to get guns, they're already breaking the law, so they break gun laws too, just like Teh_Loserer said with the drugs (although I don't think they should be illegal either).

 

[Lasdul]

I never said guns should be taken away, just harder to obtain. I clearly said that I knew people who wanted to obtain guns could.
Why is everyone in this thread completely ignoring the fact that police exist.
It's not as if the police does nothing to stop criminals. I'll tell you why people don't need guns, and it's because of prevention. The way I see it, if you have tight gun control in a country you also need good gun crime prevention. I guess your government wants less on their hands and instead lets citizens defend themselves.

 

[tyl0r_r]

I imagine in that perfect world there would be no violence, then. Or everyone would be karate experts. Or something to balance out inherent differences in physical strength and how that concept relates to self-defense.

1) Small teen girl mugged in dark alley. Gives up wallet/property, villain leaves with it - maybe gets away, maybe gets caught. Girl alive.

2) Small teen girl mugged in dark alley. Pulls gun at approaching assailant. Kills him.

3) As above... Pulls gun on assailant, assailant does same - kills her.

4) As above... Doesn't have a gun to pull. Assailant wants more than money. Terrible things / death to the girl.

I don't see having a gun without the guarantee the other fellow doesn't have one too as a significant factor to make that balance. I think the sense of security it would offer would be largely false. I also think human error on the part of most of the feeble people who would presumably benefit the most (i.e. the elderly, the young and frail) would come close to cancelling out the benefit.

The closest I can come is thinking really strict gun control to the point where we can actually guarantee only the people who "need" them have them. This is basically impossible, I think. So I'm back to my perfect world where nobody has them, and things are just as imbalanced as if they were freely available - only with less bullets flying.