Guns

[priesty_lfc]

Wow. Just wow.

Thanks for your helpfull input.

 

[Lain]

I voted "I support complete illegality of civilian ownership".

Sure there's the right to bear arms, and there's the argument of having them for self-defense, but IMHO those arguments don't really hold water.

Saying that something's right because it's the 2nd amendment is like saying that something's wrong because the law says so.

And while I'm sure there are cases where guns have been justly used in self-defense, I think the fact that they're so easy to use and have such lethal potential makes it more tempting/common to use them offensively. Especially if you get in a heated argument and/or aren't sober (common occurrences), your judgment could easily get cloudy and end up in tragedy. Cases where guns are necessary for self-defense are rarer in comparison, thus the net result tilts in favor of guns being outlawed, even if hardcore criminal types such as gang members could still occasionally get their hands on them.

 

[a6m5]

In what way will this current government go crazy? If you talking about America, the Republican party and the hillbillies affiliated with them then I take your point.

So you are not just taking a cheap shot, you do see where he is coming from.

What do you mean by "all things" you need to be much clearer.

"All things", probably because you could blame killings on countless things. From larger knives to concealable pocket knives, or from alcohol, rat poison to motor vehicles. At least I think that's the point he's making.

 

[ExigeEvan]

What do you mean by "all things" you need to be much clearer.

Like vans...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20012446

Gardening tools...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...to-court-for-carrying-work-scythe-in-van.html

Or things

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

Which is exactly what the British government have done.

 

[Lissa]

Like vans...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-20012446

Gardening tools...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...to-court-for-carrying-work-scythe-in-van.html

Or things



Which is exactly what the British government have done.

They haven't managed to completely ban everything. I still legally own a pistol crossbow, which could be just as lethal as a gun should I see fit to use it in that manner.

I have never shot any living thing with it, just target shooting, but make no mistake, it could and would kill.

 

[ExigeEvan]

They haven't managed to completely ban everything. I still legally own a pistol crossbow, which could be just as lethal as a gun should I see fit to use it in that manner.

I have never shot any living thing with it, just target shooting, but make no mistake, it could and would kill.

And you can still legally own a rifle, a revolver and a small cannon. But they are strictly for use at ranges and not for self defence or home defence*.

The law still states however, that anything is a weapon if you intent to use it for defensive or offensive means.



*While shotgun and rifle owners have escaped prosecution for using thier guns in self defence, they would not be granted a license for that purpose.

 

[Ardius]

Really? Because if they've got a knife, what have you got? Tin of beans? Pint of milk?

A knife attack is much more survivable for many reasons, not least because with a knife you need to be close and its effectiveness depends on the ability of the attacker.

With a gun, you've got some range and there is little you can do to disarm or avoid being hit. A gun is a much more powerful weapon for the average person than a knife is.

 

[ExigeEvan]

A knife attack is much more survivable for many reasons, not least because with a knife you need to be close and its effectiveness depends on the ability of the attacker.

Which is why they make a poor defensive weapon.

With a gun, you've got some range and there is little you can do to disarm or avoid being hit. A gun is a much more powerful weapon for the average person than a knife is.

Which is why it's ideal for the average person to defend themselves. Like my mum, or my nan, or my sister.

 

[Ardius]

A gun is ideal for attacking or defense, but thats a moot point. You were originally making reference to a knife attack, which I don't see as a situation requiring a gun to defend yourself.

I shouldn't need to defend myself in the first place, and I definitely should not need a weapon at any time....in an ideal world of course.

 

[ExigeEvan]

A gun is ideal for attacking or defense, but thats a moot point. You were originally making reference to a knife attack, which I don't see as a situation requiring a gun to defend yourself.

If you had a knife, and thought someone may have a gun, would you attack them?

I shouldn't need to defend myself in the first place, and I definitely should not need a weapon at any time....in an ideal world of course.

Which we clearly don't live in. So why on earth would even be a point of discussion?

 

[Ardius]

Because we, or at least I, live to ideals. Because society in general has been striving to that end. Otherwise why did we invent police forces? Why did we invent laws and punishments?
It is part of the discussion because we are talking about allowing guns or not - instead of relying on the police or society.

Now you're suggesting deterrent through fear of gun ownership? Does that really apply in the US though? You still get knife crime. You still get plenty of people that are defenseless.
I don't really see that as justification for owning a gun. Besides, I really don't want to be shooting people, even people that are threatening me. Its not a situation I intend to be in and would rather rely on society/police to ensure that I don't have to be in that situation.

I don't feel I can really give a fair and balanced opinion on this as I'm always going to be biased through growing up in the UK - never seeing guns except on police or the army (and my trips to the US). I've also never really been in the situation of having to defend myself or others. Whether that is then a naivety on my part or a result of being lucky I can't answer. Personally I take it as being lucky but also being fortunate to live in an area of low crime. But to me that also tells me that perhaps a focus should be on bringing down crime and improving support for the mentally unstable...rather than arming the populace.

 

[Johnnypenso]

His stated that Morgan inflated the amount of gun stores by including collectors (not gun stores) and deflated the amount of good vendors by only counting super markets as places to buy food. He was entirely correct and his figures prove that Morgan was outright lying.

Collectors are hardly gun salesmen. The number you're looking for is 1 store that sells firearms for every 6,000 people in America (300,000,000/50,000). Either number is perfectly reasonable especially when you consider how many Walmarts and Dick's Sporting Goods there are.

What is wrong with having many small businesses that sell a product? What is wrong with a business offering a wide variety of products?

No, the number is roughly 2500 people for every licensed gun dealer not 6000,and my point was that using that as a defense to say that Piers Morgan is incorrect with his ration is a bit ironic don't you think? Here in Windsor, I used to joke that we had one Tim Horton's restaurant for every 5,000 people and how crazy that was. In relative terms you would have twice as many places to buy a gun in Windsor as a coffee. That's not exactly a great defense to Mr. Morgan's assertion, as inaccurate as it might be.

It is, assuming that's what Piers Morgan actually said (I haven't looked it up). 100,000 gun shops to 40,000 grocery stores is simply not true and very misleading.

It may not be entirely true, but I don't think it's misleading at all. His assertion is that there is a huge number of places to buy a gun in the U.S. and that is true. I'd say one gun dealer for every 2500 citizens is a huge number.

 

[Northstar]

No, the number is roughly 2500 people for every licensed gun dealer not 6000

Did you read his post? Those numbers are not even close to representing the truth.

It may not be entirely true, but I don't think it's misleading at all. His assertion is that there is a huge number of places to buy a gun in the U.S. and that is true. I'd say one gun dealer for every 2500 citizens is a huge number.

It's not true in the slightest, Schwartz even posted links proving it, which are still off as it only counts supermarkets with at least 2 million in sales a year(which is rather high, there are a lot of small supermarkets in rural areas).

If you want to debate, please don't be a thoughtless sheep like those who bite everything someone on a talk show gives them and takes it as gospel.

 

[Sam48]

Why would you even think that would happen?

Yes it does/has in a third world country but America?

They love your kind, oblivious and accepting. You'd make a great slave. Some helpful input this time, America's government is overextending its power (To the point were they can now black bag its own citizens and not even give them trial). But that's a different topic.

 

[hogger129]

Guns did not cause this terrible crime. A nut did. He also stole the guns from someone who bought them legally. Please tell me what law would have stopped him.

 

[Sam48]

Guns did not cause this terrible crime. A nut did. He also stole the guns from someone who bought them legally. Please tell me what law would have stopped him.

No law sir. No law.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Did you read his post? Those numbers are not even close to representing the truth.

It's not true in the slightest, Schwartz even posted links proving it, which are still off as it only counts supermarkets with at least 2 million in sales a year(which is rather high, there are a lot of small supermarkets in rural areas).

If you want to debate, please don't be a thoughtless sheep like those who bite everything someone on a talk show gives them and takes it as gospel.

Fact: There are 129,817 federally licensed firearm dealers in the US (Source),

Fact: US population hovers around 311,000,000

Fact: Divide one into the other and you get 2,400 people for each authorized gun dealer

Fact: I didn't say Piers Morgan was accurate in fact I said he was not, more than once, my point was to accentuate the irony of having an authorized gun dealer for every 2,400 citizens as a defense against Mr. Morgans general assertion that there are a lot of places to buy guns in the U.S.

Fact: Irony is subtle and not everyone gets it.

 

[mr_geez]

This.

The founding fathers gave us the second amendment in order to give the people the power to defend themselves if/when their government overextends their power.

LOL

I love this argument.

So tell me what did the founding fathers thought about slavery in original United States Bill of Rights ratified in 1791? And do you think they were right?

 

[hogger129]

LOL

I love this argument.

So tell me what did the founding fathers thought about slavery in original United States Bill of Rights ratified in 1791? And do you think they were right?

Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to outlaw slavery right then and there but they couldn't get the support of southern states while fighting against England unless they turned a blind eye to it.

http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/FoundersAndSlavery.html

Thomas Jefferson even freed his slaves for crying out loud.


But that was then, this is now. I really don't see how slavery compares to gun ownership. One is a crime against humanity, the other is a natural means of defending yourself.

 

[mr_geez]

Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to outlaw slavery right then and there but they couldn't get the support of southern states while fighting against England unless they turned a blind eye to it.

http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/FoundersAndSlavery.html

Thomas Jefferson even freed his slaves for crying out loud.


But that was then, this is now. I really don't see how slavery compares to gun ownership. One is a crime against humanity, the other is a natural means of defending yourself.

Very good answer.

So lemme see. That was then, this is now. Don't you think few things changed since 1791 about the issue why do American society need guns (especially automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles) in their homes?

Defending yourself against who exactly? Russians? Mexicans? Canadians? Your neighbors? Transformers? Bloods and Crips?

Does not USA spend really large amount of money on Police Force and Military to do it in professional way?

Don't you think that maybe the whole attitude of panic about threats that surround you all the time are made by some parts of media/politicians/public figures because it is profitable for them since gun industry is financing them?

Don't you think it is all about money?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-13/for-gun-makers-nra-good-times-get-better

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2012

For the record. I'm not advocating complete ban of firearms in USA. It is completely impossible in country that owns 300 000 000 guns in their homes. But I really think it should me much harder to buy them. Psychological tests, background checks, expiration date on gun permits, etc, etc are things that can be done without much problem in 21st century. Don't you think that would make you feel much safer than a gun?

 

[Zenith]

I voted "I support complete illegality of civilian ownership".

Sure there's the right to bear arms, and there's the argument of having them for self-defense, but IMHO those arguments don't really hold water.

There are between 1.5 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. I can point you to dozens of examples where somebody having a gun was the difference that allowed them to get through the situation without their human rights being violated.

A place that sees an increase in gun ownership always sees a decline in violent crime. A place that sees an increase in concealed carry sees a dramatic drop in violent crime.

So do point me to how you got the impression that self defense "doesn't hold water".

Saying that something's right because it's the 2nd amendment is like saying that something's wrong because the law says so.

Nobody argues that we should have guns "because the Second Amendment says so". They argue that we need guns partially for the reasons outlined in the Second Amendment. Having the means to resist those who wish to violate your human rights is a human right.

And while I'm sure there are cases where guns have been justly used in self-defense, I think the fact that they're so easy to use and have such lethal potential makes it more tempting/common to use them offensively. Especially if you get in a heated argument and/or aren't sober (common occurrences), your judgment could easily get cloudy and end up in tragedy. Cases where guns are necessary for self-defense are rarer in comparison, thus the net result tilts in favor of guns being outlawed, even if hardcore criminal types such as gang members could still occasionally get their hands on them.

So we should ban things because they can be used to hurt people? See entire thread.

Because we, or at least I, live to ideals. Because society in general has been striving to that end. Otherwise why did we invent police forces? Why did we invent laws and punishments?
It is part of the discussion because we are talking about allowing guns or not - instead of relying on the police or society.

snip

So if you want to live in a world where nobody ever has to defend themselves, what's wrong with me wanting a gun for fun? I wouldn't use it to hurt anyone.

See, you think that we can create a society where nobody hurts each other by taking away people's ability to hurt each other. This is impossible unless you lock us all up in padded cells.

Pro-gun people want to create a society where nobody hurts each other by taking away people's desire to hurt each other.

Very good answer.

So lemme see. That was then, this is now. Don't you think few things changed since 1791 about the issue why do American society need guns (especially automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles) in their homes?

You don't think that the writers of the Bill of Rights envisioned that weapons technology might evolve?

Defending yourself against who exactly? Russians? Mexicans? Canadians? Your neighbors? Transformers? Bloods and Crips?

I need some sort of tool to defend myself against someone who seeks to violate my rights. As it stands the firearm is the best at doing this job, at least until the death ray is invented.

I also enjoy firing and building semi-automatic firearms.

Does not USA spend really large amount of money on Police Force and Military to do it in professional way?

Why should I be forced to rely on someone else for my protection? What if they don't arrive in time? What if I don't trust them? Why must my safety be put in the hands of someone else?

I have many reasons not to trust LE to protect me. They are slow, they often use the wrong tools (12lb handgun trigger in NYPD), and they might decide to put their own safety in front of mine and ditch me (Rodney King).

Don't you think that maybe the whole attitude of panic about threats that surround you all the time are made by some parts of media/politicians/public figures because it is profitable for them since gun industry is financing them?

Don't you think it is all about money?

Once again, my safety in my hands. Also my hobbies. I have not been fooled into wanting a gun. It provides me with things that I want. This is the exact same thing an anti-gun friend of mine was saying... Right before his house was broken into and his laptop stolen. Luckily he wasn't home. I asked him what might've happened if he was. He bought a gun.

Have you been fooled into wanting a car?

Don't you think that would make you feel much safer than a gun?

No.

 

[Ibonibo]

This.

The founding fathers gave us the second amendment in order to give the people the power to defend themselves if/when their government overextends their power.

If you think that the goverment does or is and you use that "power". I am pretty sure, you would be classified as an terrorist.
Many people think the gov. overextend their power, so go out and try you luck.

Look at the Arab countries. Even with weapon and valid reasons, civilian will get crushed by a goverment really wanting to opress

Seriously Wild West Mentality.

 

[Zenith]

If you think that the goverment does or is and you use that "power". I am pretty sure, you would be classified as an terrorist.
Many people think the gov. overextend their power, so go out and try you luck.

Look at the Arab countries. Even with weapon and valid reasons, civilian will get crushed by a goverment really wanting to opress

Seriously Wild West Mentality.

The US Government has been fighting a war with goat farmers using rusted and bent Soviet crap for over a decade. The US government has deployed tanks, drones, and fighter jets. I don't see any crushing defeat.

Wars are lost because of a lack of support, see Vietnam. How much support do you think a war on American citizens would have?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Guns did not cause this terrible crime. A nut did. He also stole the guns from someone who bought them legally. Please tell me what law would have stopped him.

No law sir. No law.

A law against the sale of fire-arms obviously. If the original owner of the gun, had never been able to buy it, he'd have never been able to steal it. Whilst the sale of guns is legal, there will always be a steady supply of guns for people who want to use them for bad things. The less guns and ammunition there are/is, the harder it will be for people to get hold of them.

I also don't agree with the deterent argument entirely.. if both sides of any situation are armed, it just gives both less time to think about using it. A burglar may well find an un-armed household easier to steal from, but he's a lot less likely to shoot anybody if he knows they are not shooting back.

Having spoken to a friend in Oklahoma who got shot, and a friend of his who helped chase down an un armed burglar with a friend who was armed, I get that when the argument for guns is coming from the mouth of a law-abiding citizen it can be quite compelling. But, I live in the UK, we are a society mostly without guns - certainly handguns, I don't think I've even seen a real gun for a couple of years, we don't live in fear of gun-toting murderers, robbers and rapists, it's just a fundamentally different way of life, and I really doubt an American and Briton will ever fully appreciate each other's point of view.

If it's not the gun that is the problem what is it, and why does it keep happening in America?

 

[David]

.

 

[Exorcet]

Defending yourself against who exactly? Russians? Mexicans? Canadians? Your neighbors? Transformers? Bloods and Crips?

Yes.

Don't you think it is all about money?

No. I'm sure someone is making money somewhere, but good for them. Gun ownership is mostly about security and recreation.


Would it be a good idea to change the regulation of guns? Possibly, but don't oversimplify things by assuming that the original reason for the Second Amendment is moot. It probably never will be. Will the US be invaded by Russia? Or Canada? I don't know. Most like no in the short term. The farther out you look, the less clear it is. Neighbors are a pretty obvious case. I'm sure most are good people, but there is always a chance you end up with bad ones. Being able to defend yourself against them should the need arise would be a nice option.

 

[Tornado]

Fact: There are 129,817 federally licensed firearm dealers in the US (Source),

Fact: US population hovers around 311,000,000

Fact: Divide one into the other and you get 2,400 people for each authorized gun dealer

Fact: I didn't say Piers Morgan was accurate in fact I said he was not, more than once, my point was to accentuate the irony of having an authorized gun dealer for every 2,400 citizens as a defense against Mr. Morgans general assertion that there are a lot of places to buy guns in the U.S.

Fact: You're still not grasping the difference between a licenced gun dealer and a gun retailer.

Fact: The reason Piers Morgan's show was brought up in this thread in the first place was because a point was made in the other thread that:

Overall there is definitely a lot of wrong priorities going on in the US.

Based on the information given by Piers Morgan's show.

Fact: As Piers Morgan's information isn't actually true, pointing out that that isn't the case with numbers that show that there are still a lot of places to buy guns from is not ironic at all; because Piers Morgan's original intent for bringing it up is irrelevant to the point the statistics were used to support.

Fact: Irony is subtle and often people say it applies in situations where it actually doesn't.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This is the exact same thing an anti-gun friend of mine was saying... Right before his house was broken into and his laptop stolen. Luckily he wasn't home. I asked him what might've happened if he was. He bought a gun.

Oh yes, because then the situation wouldn't have escalated into somebody, either your friend, the robber, or both, or possibly somebody else getting shot, maybe dying.. over a laptop, yeah, good call. Nothing like turning an unpleasant situation into a potentially life-ending one.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Fact: You're still not grasping the difference between a licenced gun dealer and a gun retailer.

Fact: Irony is subtle and not everyone gets it.

This might help you:

noun, plural i·ro·nies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: Eg. A television personality says we have a lot of places to buy guns in the U.S and they get the exact figures incorrect. but I use a statistic indicating there is a gun dealer for every 2,500 people to prove there aren't a lot of places to buy guns.

2. Literature.
a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

 

[Zenith]

Oh yes, because then the situation wouldn't have escalated into somebody, either your friend, the robber, or both, or possibly somebody else getting shot, maybe dying.. over a laptop, yeah, good call. Nothing like turning an unpleasant situation into a potentially life-ending one.

Que?

Let's assume my friend was home during the robbery.

What if the robber had attacked my friend? What if the robber was stronger or armed?

There are a great number of ways a robber can respond to confrontation. Maybe he would flee the moment he became aware of the presence of my friend. Maybe he would surrender.

The use of the gun is morally justified if the robber is attacking you and your life is in danger. Nowhere do I say that anyone should fire a gun at someone for robbing them.

It's not being shot over a laptop, it's being shot over attacking another human being. Can you not imagine that someone who breaks into another person's house might also be the kind of person that attacks people?