Guns

[Tornado]

Fact: Irony is subtle and not everyone gets it.

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

Fact: If you're so intent on digging yourself a hole, a backhoe is generally the fastest way to do it.

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.

Thanks for the information. It's too bad you're still pointing out irony where it doesn't exist. Since, you know, Schwartz was originally responding to a point made by the person who posted the statistics, rather than the point Piers Morgan made with them. I'll quote the point again:

Piers Morgan's show said there was something like 100k gun shops and only 40k grocery stores in the US. Overall there is definitely a lot of wrong priorities going on in the US.

So, in this situation, making it known that those statistics are wrong to the extent that the point made was incorrect ("Since there are more places to buy guns in America than groceries, America as a country has skewed priorities" ceases to be a valid point based on the information given if there are not, in fact, more places to buy guns in America than groceries) doesn't become ironic just because they are still high. No one was arguing that they weren't high, only to turn around and use statistics that say they were. Then it would, in fact, be ironic.


But hey. I'm really happy that you are able to read reference books. Congratulations.

 

[NotThePrez]

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.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but people have lost their lives over less.

It's somewhat difficult for me to gather all my thoughts together, but I definitely believe that people should be able to legally own firearms. Sure, there are nutters here and there, but there are far more civilized owners out there with weapons.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The irony of trying to teach someone about irony, who continuously points out factual mistakes that I have already acknowledged several times, is even more ironic. It's probably even more ironic that I continue to try and teach irony when that person obviously doesn't get it...

 

[Zenith]

 

[MatskiMonk]

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?

I can imagine quite a lot. Things is, you/your friend as a victim has no idea what the intruders intentions are, or if he's armed. The intruder does not know if you are armed. There are a hundred different ways that situation can end, and at the point where you have a gun in your hand you do not know what it is going to happen next. The point I'm making, is that by drawing a weapon on an intruder you are escalating the situation to the stage where both parties may have to decide to kill to defend themselves... if the intruders original intention was to kill you anyway then fine, no loss, but for all the other reasons he may have been there... you've potentially just made it a lot worse. It all comes down the scenario I guess, but again, I live in the UK, we don't have guns with which to defend ourselves, and yet we're not all getting murdered in our sleep.. so I'm unlikely to feel the need for a tool that's purpose is to kill at short to long range in my house.

 

[priesty_lfc]

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.

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.

So the law bought in to protect the Americans is the same one that is actually killing hundreds of innocent children? And then According to yourself the law is actually being broken by the government by 'overextending' their power so effectively give's people the right to use them against the government??

So again, how does that make sense??

 

[David]

.

 

[Sam48]

So the law brought in to protect the Americans is the same one that is actually killing hundreds of innocent children?

It's more than a law, it's a right. We have the right to bear arms. If you think that all law abiding citizens should not have guns, guess who's gonna be the only people with guns?

And then According to yourself the law is actually being broken by the government by 'overextending' their power so effectively give's people the right to use them against the government??

No. The government is overextending itself in other regions. Guns are out last defense/resort when we've decided we've had enough.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Easy solution. Don't steal **** from my house. Again, guns aren't to blame.

That solution is not within your control, not having a gun to pull in a panic situation is. I was not so worried about the robbers life ending, but what if he had a gun and was a better shot? You just pulled a gun on him, now he has to decide what to do. Would he kill to steal a laptop? probably not, would he kill to stop himself being shot, I'm betting he would.

Guns are out last defense/resort when we've decided we've had enough.

Guns also appear to be a very effective offence when an individual has decided they've had enough.

 

[NotThePrez]

That solution is not within your control, not having a gun to pull in a panic situation is. I was not so worried about the robbers life ending, but what if he had a gun and was a better shot? You just pulled a gun on him, now he has to decide what to do. Would he kill to steal a laptop? probably not, would he kill to stop himself being shot, I'm betting he would.

It doesn't matter. If a dude who has no business being in your home decides to break in, you have the right to protect yourself. For example.

If anything, trying to play the "What if" game would be even more risky.

 

[Sam48]

Guns also appear to be a very effective offence when an individual has decided they've had enough.

And we would have thousands more dead if we decided to let our government do as they wish and become tyrannical, rather than defending our freedoms.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It doesn't matter. If a dude who has no business being in your home decides to break in, you have the right to protect yourself. For example.

If anything, trying to play the "What if" game would be even more risky.

I've never mentioned rights at all, just that IMO you're a lot more likely to get shot or killed yourself if you start waving a gun around.

And we would have thousands more dead if we decided to let our government do as they wish and become tyrannical, rather than defending our freedoms.

Not sure I follow you, how does owning guns in order to defend yourself from your own government prevent individuals who have flipped out from walking into a school and shooting children... also, again, guns really aren't common place in the UK yet I wouldn't say we were under tyrannical rule... ?

 

[priesty_lfc]

It's more than a law, it's a right. We have the right to bear arms. If you think that all law abiding citizens should not have guns, guess who's gonna be the only people with guns?

No. The government is overextending itself in other regions. Guns are out last defense/resort when we've decided we've had enough.

Surely if there doing it in other reasons that still give you the fight to fight back? You either abusing power or your not.

And we would have thousands more dead if we decided to let our government do as they wish and become tyrannical, rather than defending our freedoms.

What exactly is the reason you feel the need to have a gun to protect yourself from the government??

I just don't get it.

 

[BongRipz]

So the law bought in to protect the Americans is the same one that is actually killing hundreds of innocent children? And then According to yourself the law is actually being broken by the government by 'overextending' their power so effectively give's people the right to use them against the government??

So again, how does that make sense??

I like how every time there is a school shooting this sort of argument is brought up. Does it ever cross anyone's minds to blame the 🤬 parents? 💡

 

[Joel]

I have to admit that I find the justification of gun ownership to protect against a tyrannical government is a bit rich in this day and age. I find it hard to believe that were the US to become a police state and the Army were to be aggressively occupying the country, that guys with AR-15's and shotguns could repel APC's, tanks, and aircraft. It did make sense in the 1700's when the armies and civilians largely had access to the same type of weaponry, but nowadays the difference in power is rather large. Any defense against a tyrannical US Army would require significant numbers of those forces defecting and aiding the civilians (not to mention the USAF).

The biggest justification IMO for private gun ownership is self defense. If a 200 pound man trained in martial arts breaks into a 60 year old woman's house, the only feasible way for her to repel that attack is with a gun. To me, that's all the justification there needs to be.

 

[Schwartz]

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.

His argument is completely irrelevant in the first place. You talk about "One authorized gun dealer for every 2,400 citizens" as if it's some appalling, hardly believable statistic. Who honestly cares how many places there are to buy a gun? Someone who needs a gun isn't going to say "The closest place is a whole half hour away? Forget it, I don't want a gun anymore." If you want a gun, you'll find a place to buy a gun, regardless if there are 15 gun stores within 5 minutes of your house.

Piers Morgan makes his point as if there is a gun shop on every corner, and then he uses false statistics to back it up. Then these statistics are being used as if there are some priority problems in the US, when there really aren't, as I gave evidence for.

 

[Sam48]

What exactly is the reason you feel the need to have a gun to protect yourself from the government??

I just don't get it.

 

[MatskiMonk]

So you're saying you need a gun so you can shoot your way out of trouble if the black helo's turn up in the middle of the night to whisk you away and torture information out of you?

Or, that if you disagree with this law you can march on Washington, put a gun to their heads and tell them to Stahp!?

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

If you have never been in combat / gun fight / victim of any violent crime I don't think you should have ANY say in ANY law with ANY regards to gun control.

Imagine the unanimous support for gun rights.

 

[Exorcet]

I can imagine quite a lot. Things is, you/your friend as a victim has no idea what the intruders intentions are, or if he's armed. The intruder does not know if you are armed.

Yes, and it remains this way until the gun is drawn, or you are incapacitated by the robber.

at the point where you have a gun in your hand you do not know what it is going to happen next. The point I'm making, is that by drawing a weapon on an intruder you are escalating the situation to the stage where both parties may have to decide to kill to defend themselves

Guns don't fly into people's hands. The hands have to reach for the gun.

Having a gun means you can choose between using it or not using it. Not having a gun limits your options. Having a gun doesn't actually have to change a single thing.

but for all the other reasons he may have been there... you've potentially just made it a lot worse.

Or a lot better. Crime is a risk-reward game. The risk for breaking in and stealing is jail time. The risk for breaking in and stealing and then killing someone is more harsh. The criminal more often then not knows this, especially if he's not crazy.

It all comes down the scenario I guess, but again, I live in the UK, we don't have guns with which to defend ourselves, and yet we're not all getting murdered in our sleep.. so I'm unlikely to feel the need for a tool that's purpose is to kill at short to long range in my house.

Last I checked, getting murdered in ones sleep wasn't epidemic in the US. And the last time a mad gunman showed up in the UK, no one could do much about it.

 

[Sam48]

So you're saying you need a gun so you can shoot your way out of trouble if the black helo's turn up in the middle of the night to whisk you away and torture information out of you?

That's a bit exaggerated, but do you have a better idea?

Or, that if you disagree with this law you can march on Washington, put a gun to their heads and tell them to Stahp!?

*Points to Benghazi/Middle East in general*

 

[Zenith]

I've never mentioned rights at all, just that IMO you're a lot more likely to get shot or killed yourself if you start waving a gun around.

Incorrect.

Some use of a gun is the best way to defend yourself from almost all forms of attack.

I can imagine quite a lot. Things is, you/your friend as a victim has no idea what the intruders intentions are, or if he's armed. The intruder does not know if you are armed. There are a hundred different ways that situation can end, and at the point where you have a gun in your hand you do not know what it is going to happen next. The point I'm making, is that by drawing a weapon on an intruder you are escalating the situation to the stage where both parties may have to decide to kill to defend themselves... if the intruders original intention was to kill you anyway then fine, no loss, but for all the other reasons he may have been there... you've potentially just made it a lot worse. It all comes down the scenario I guess, but again, I live in the UK, we don't have guns with which to defend ourselves, and yet we're not all getting murdered in our sleep.. so I'm unlikely to feel the need for a tool that's purpose is to kill at short to long range in my house.

That solution is not within your control, not having a gun to pull in a panic situation is. I was not so worried about the robbers life ending, but what if he had a gun and was a better shot? You just pulled a gun on him, now he has to decide what to do. Would he kill to steal a laptop? probably not, would he kill to stop himself being shot, I'm betting he would.

Every single time the UK enacted gun control measures crime went up. Almost every time a US state enacts measures that lessen gun control, crime goes down.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

You keep applying your intuition to situations involving firearms. This intuition disagrees with statistics and the results of millions of concealed carry and home invasion shootings. How much experience do you have with firearms? You seem to think that being utterly defenseless in an assault situation is better defense than owning a gun.

So the law bought in to protect the Americans is the same one that is actually killing hundreds of innocent children? And then According to yourself the law is actually being broken by the government by 'overextending' their power so effectively give's people the right to use them against the government??

So again, how does that make sense??

The law didn't kill anyone. People did.

Stop acting like more guns = more violent crime and that we're arguing that gun rights are "worth" the loss of life. The opposite is true. Having the means to defend oneself from criminals has proven time and time again to deter and respond to criminals. Disarming law abiding citizens has proven to increase the power of criminals and lead to more crime.

Your country is testament to that. So is Chicago. So is Washington DC.

snip

Why have we been fighting goat herders with rusted Soviet weaponry for over a decade then? Surely that would be a crushing defeat. Might does not win wars anymore. Not since Vietnam.

 

[Ibonibo]

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.

So why aren't Us citizen wielding their guns at Washington after all your basic liberties got cut after 9/11 (patriot act, Ron Paul video,...)?
You have your tyranic gov in place. Nearly half of the citizen don't want that president or goverment. So why don't you apply your 2nd amend.?

Because nobody would do it, it's just that that ammendement easily justifies an egoistic human trait. Power! And in it most inefficient and laziest way. Spend a few bucks have a gun and feel the power in your hands.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

So where does it state individuals. Your states are not free anymore. So?

Okay you will come up with this:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[

Nice!
Just like this ruling:
Dred Scott v. Sandford

Those jurisdictions are made by humans and are not universal.

So if we took it word for word by today international law. Guns would be allowed to state troopers, not the average Joe.

Also referring to a more than 200 year old amendement, and keeping it at all cost, while other laws are deemed outdated just shows, that it is not rational decision but egoistic decisions pushed by lobbies.

I find this subject the perfect exemple of lobbyist brainwashing people and countries. More weapons = more safty. If the teachers would have weapons this would not have happend, guns don't kill people,...

All claims pushed by the gun lobby.

Yet an armed teacher doesn't mean a trained gunner.

Guns do kill people, you don't have to slice someone throat or bash his skull in with your bare fist. You just point and squeeze a trigger.
The scale of Stone clearly takes this into account, but what do high acclaimed scientist know about, liberals you know...


And the argument it isn't the guns, it crazies that snap. That leaves only a few options than. Either the US is filled with a huge amount of anormal crazies as you have the highest gun kill count in an non wartorn county in the world. Or it's your gun politics.

I can fill a whole page against gun publicly available, but only very few well founded criteria for it.

EDIT:

Stop acting like more guns = more violent crime

http://www.sp-ps.ch/ger/Medien/Comm...-setzt-desto-weniger-Schusswaffentote-gibt-es

Just translate the title...

Disarming law abiding citizens has proven to increase the power of criminals and lead to more crime.

Yeah, because the rest of the industrial world is utter chaos and anarchy because of not beeing armed to the teeth. We kill for chewing gums over here :S

also the just facts link, most references are from the US and US goverment which are under the direct influence of the gun lobby and of all the incomes that come from this activities.
I bet Irakies studies also showed how happy the citizen where over there... :S


I know that visions on this subject are pretty much rooted on both parties dicussing it, and everytimet he subject is aborded, it seems like wasted time. But I hope for your countries sake that it doesn't need a disaster to make your country change. But I suspect it does, sadly.

 

[Zenith]

Because nobody would do it, it's just that that ammendement easily justifies an egoistic human trait. Power! And in it most inefficient and laziest way. Spend a few bucks have a gun and feel the power in your hands.

Ah yes, this old gag. Are you going to start insinuating that we have inadequacies in our pants next?

Yet an armed teacher doesn't mean a trained gunner.

Not necessarily. Often times it does. More importantly, an unarmed teacher is a defenseless one.

Guns do kill people, you don't have to slice someone throat or bash his skull in with your bare fist. You just point and squeeze a trigger.
The scale of Stone clearly takes this into account, but what do high acclaimed scientist know about, liberals you know...

And cars just press a gas pedal.

And bombs just press a button.

I can fill a whole page against gun publicly available, but only very few well founded criteria for it.

I have given you plenty of data that you have ignored. You keep claiming that you have data yet you post none. The only data that has been posted in favor of gun control has been so poorly done that it has been dismissed in a single post.

I know that visions on this subject are pretty much rooted on both parties dicussing it, but I hope for your countries sake that it doesn't need a disaster to make your country change. But I suspect it does, sadly.

Of course things have to change. Your way is just wrong and has been proven to be wrong.

@Edit

I see hardly any data. The entire article is a paragraph long. This is practically nothing compared to what I have posted. Google "Harvard Gun Control". It's long, but worth a skim.

Second Edit! You took that from a website that has liberal bias pouring out of every seam!

Today many special interests and lobbying concern in determining the council chambers. But if we want a society in which all have a permanent place, a say in all equal and all have the freedom to shape their own lives.

It is a belief in a better future and our will that have brought this country has always forward. Are seniors, women's suffrage, maternity insurance and many other achievements of modern Switzerland is only thanks to the SP.

For all instead of a few. Because we want a better future for all is possible, and not only for a few privileged people.

 

[Michael88]

Seems like Americas ''war on drugs'' was so unsuccessful they now need a new war within their borders, a ''war on guns''. Its pathetic how politicians always need to make up simple enemies in troubled times so they don't appear as weak and powerless. But it works and has always worked for the mindless masses.

I wish politicians would rather show the same passion when fighting environmental pollution (They wouldn't because they'd bite the hand that feeds them), tell me, how many people-children- die of environmental illnesses like cancer each year? Hundreds of thousands MORE than in all the shootings combined.

And the truth is that nobody really cares about that, not even the people that throw their hands in the air and cry for gun bans whenever some shootings happen. Its pathetic how they use such events to preach their Utopian agendas to feel morally superior when they hardly care about the people involved in those tragic events.

About a ban: Would making guns illegal work? No. Drugs have been banned and we all know how well that went.
I'm not denying that there is a serious problem but I think that simply outlawing the tools that have been used in the recent tragic events is the wrong way to battle it, its just an easy way out to please the masses curing only the symptoms (very ineffectively).
Mentally deranged have a million more tools available that could seriously harm and kill people, in the end we would need to outlaw many more things than just guns. (Cars, fuel, all kinds of knives and swords, planes...)

I'm a gun owner.

 

[Sam48]

So why aren't Us citizen wielding their guns at Washington after all your basic liberties got cut after 9/11 (patriot act, Ron Paul video,...)?
You have your tyranic gov in place. Nearly half of the citizen don't want that president or goverment. So why don't you apply your 2nd amend.?

Who said we aren't? Also, have you noticed that whenever protests occur and the protesters are armed (Such as the tea party), it's actually quite peaceful, were as when the protesters are not armed (Such as occupy), the police take advantage and over extend their authority by trampling the peoples rights (While using excessive force)

The point were we actually begin taking down public officials is still a ways off, but when that time comes, we'll be ready to take our country back.

 

[Ibonibo]

Ah yes, this old gag. Are you going to start insinuating that we have inadequacies in our pants next?

No, that's called basic psychology and applies to every human not only US citizen.
Did I say US citizen or human trait ?

Not necessarily. Often times it does. More importantly, an unarmed teacher is a defenseless one.

And armed teachers are immune to having depressions, or lifechanging circumstances that makes them snap? And what a great way to teach kids about how safe they should feel in between us in our society


And cars just press a gas pedal.

And bombs just press a button.

And still, cars used as weapons are extremely rare. Bombs even more... What about nukes. easy too, should we allow them too by that logic? The more distance between you your victim, the easier it gets. That's also why the whole drone warfare is morally doubtable. That is not war anymore. That's a sick video game. Remember the comments of the attack helicopter cutting trough internation press reporters. And then killing everybody wanting to help. Hell yeah that was fun. :S


I have given you plenty of data that you have ignored. You keep claiming that you have data yet you post none. The only data that has been posted in favor of gun control has been so poorly done that it has been dismissed in a single post.

all data coming from the US. Go to WHO or international site. I also don't trust European documents stating how good everything is working. Reliable sources rarely come from within.

And the missing links. I gave the names, do I need to do the research too.
Google the Stone scale of Evil. Clearly shows that a knife kill is harder to do mentally than with a gun...

Also the part you quote. Readers are in advantage. I said "I" can fill a page. Never said anything about data or being objective. I said I for myself can...


Of course things have to change. Your way is just wrong and has been proven to be wrong.

At least we agree on that. And that is the most important part. I don't care how the changes happens, it's "your" country. But as long as it happens it's good.

@Edit

I see hardly any data. The entire article is a paragraph long. This is practically nothing compared to what I have posted. Google "Harvard Gun Control". It's long, but worth a skim.

I will do it later, but I will.

 

[Slash]

Guns laws aren't the problem...

 

[Ibonibo]

^yeah it's the guns

@Micheal: You have a gun, yet you are in Europe.

I think more control in US would be good, nearly nobody asks for a complete ban, but rather a bit more control in who gets one.
You probably had to prove to your goverment and police that you're a capable, responsible human being in order to have your lisence. Did it bother you much in retrospect?
The much cited law abiding citizen should have no problem in showing he is responsible enough to do so. And that is not a freedom beeing cut or as much as is your tax report an infringement to freedom.

 

[Exorcet]

Yet an armed teacher doesn't mean a trained gunner.

You just point and squeeze a trigger.

I guess that's not a problem then as guns are fool proof.