Shelved by: Bambarger on 2012-07-18
Comment on This Post:
The difference between hurting yourself and hurting others...
That's silly man, come on you know better
Following the same train of logic, car salesmen are also at fault then for vehicular accidents.
Not really. A car is a form of transportation. A gun is a weapon designed to kill people. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
And a spoon is a tool designed to put food in your mouth.
A gun is a weapon designed for protection. Something like 40 % of gun owners have never fired their weapon. I, myself, think that guns are pointless and dangerous. Guns only exist at this point to fight off guns, but you can't blame guns for gun-related murders. Murderers cause murders.
But guns certainly make murderers much more effective murderers.
They may kill easier but also get caught quicker if they use a gun.
Spoons make me much more effective at eating!
Okay, lets use logic. It is incredibly easy to procure guns in the US. For Christ's sake, the Justice Department gives them to Mexican drug gangs. So gun laws effectively only prevent law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminal will get them anyway.
Well... gun laws prevent otherwise reasonable people from doing stupid things. The waiting period is specifically to avoid buying a gun for a "crime of passion." Say, a wife cheats on her husband; he can't immediately go buy a gun & kill her. He has to think about it for a few days and - hopefully - realize that's a stupid idea.
Limits on types of firearms: there's no reason, period, for your average civilian to own a fully-automatic machine gun, grenades, or an RPG. Those are for warfare, not hunting or home protection.
Of course, there are a lot of gun laws in place with the idea that they will stop determined criminals... and of course, criminals don't give a damn about gun laws. There should instead be harsher penalties for violent crimes, instead of hoping felons will abide by the extra laws that are unnecessary for average gun owners.
in switzerland when a person becomes an adult they are issued a handgun and trained how to operate it safely, switzerland has the lowest gun crime rates in the modern world
I like Tacos. Anybody else like tacos? 'Cause I do.
And a gun, by it's nature, is offensive, not defensive. Protection would be a security system, or a bullet proof vest, or a dog. I owned a gun, too, and I never shot it. My boyfriend at the time thought I should have it. I'm not even arguing for or against gun control, I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the argument depicted. It's an illogical, reactionary response (the guy in the post) caused by him feeling threatened.
How is a dog a different type of defense than a gun? It's still meant to harm someone attacking you.
Unless you mean a yappy little thing to "scare" people away or alert you. But if I were getting a dog specifically for security it would probably not be one of them.
A dog is a deterrent. A lot of people think twice about breaking and entering a property with a dog on the grounds. Even if someone does, guard dogs are (supposed to be) trained to bark at intruders and keep them pinned, not attack maul them unless they're instructed to.
Dogs are a different type of defence than a gun. And, actually, I'd say dogs were a better form of defence - no-one can use your own dog as a weapon against you.
I'm sorry, weapons are all designed to kill/hurt people. That's why they're weapons. A gun's primary usage is to harm another. Even if you fire it in defence, it's still an offensive weapon.
They're not designed for "protection". That's the excuse people tell themselves as to why they need them.
A shield is for protection. It's primary usage is to protect the user.
Regardless of design, the idea being projected is "the seller is responsible (in part, at least) for the consequences of the use of their product", which I think is... incorrect.
Absolutely agree with this.
I think it is correct. As a bar tender, it is your responsibility to not serve alcohol to hammered people (not only to protect that person from themselves, but more importantly to protect others from that person). If your product can be used in an extremely devastating way, you are responsible for selling it responsibly (yo dawg).
Obviously you can't completely control the actions of people. But you do have the ability to not sell your product to certain folks. And as a professional, it is your responsibility to make good decisions in this area.
The "car retailers are partially responsible for accidents" scenario fits, then, by your logic.
The difference is this: gun sellers do background checks, have the waiting period, and only sell to people with gun permits. Once all that clears, their responsibility is ended. They are not responsible for what a buyer does with a weapon, if they have no valid reason to suspect them of anything.
Of course car retailers are responsible for who they sell to.
If you are a car retailer, and you sell a car to a 14 year old, and that 14 year old goes out and runs over a bunch of people, you bet your ass you are partially responsible for those deaths.
I'm confused as to your point. I don't think your comment necessarily argues against mine...
And killing people is sometimes a legitimate need.
I will agree with that statement. I want to see the movie God Bless America. I think it addresses your statement, although I wouldn't use a gun.
a gun is a defensive/offensive weapon. a spoon is a tool to eat. a baseball bat is used to play a game. sometimes things made with the purest intentions are used for terrible misdeeds :p more often than not, it cant be helped.
Please enlighten me to the purest intentions with with guns were made? I'm not even arguing against them, as some chose to assume. I am trying to point out a simple, real fact: guns exist for one purpose~ to kill. Let's stop pretending they are some sort of happy foo-foo toy used to make rainbows and unicorns, and some BAAAAAD people misuse them for more nefarious purposes.
They are if they sell a car to someone who isn't legally able to drive. Cough gunshow cough cough.
A gun is a defensive tool. It can be used offensively as well, but I can also bash somebodies head in with a hammer.
It's much easier to kill with a gun than a hammer, and one is much less associated with their actions.
Blaming guns for violence or death is avoiding the real problem. Bad people. I am so tired of the anti-gun thing. If you don't want a gun then don't get one, This world went to shit the minute people got the idea that they could/should control people (so forever ago).
I agree with this, but at the same time I remember reading something about how places where the police officers do not carry sidearms, have fewer fatal incidents due to criminals not feeling a need for them. This was quite a few years ago though, so things may have changed.
I've read various statistics and topics on less gun control equaling less violent crimes. Criminals are less likely to attack somebody who may be armed. It is a deterrent.
Although we do have gun crime in the UK, it's very rare. The US have a higher violent crime rate than the UK does, and we don't get any incidents of kids going into school with guns and shooting their fellow students as an added bonus.
I think it's ridiculous that the US hasn't put in tougher gun laws. They're not a necessity, you don't need them and they are purely designed to kill people.
And please, no crap about it being a right. I don't buy that bullshit, it was said at the time of the War of Independence where there was a high risk of having soldiers kick down your door and rape, kill and pillage what was inside.
Yeah? Don't give me that crap about not having to worry about governments and soldiers running wild. It is a right, to defend yourself. Keep letting the governments take away your rights one by one. Until you are living in a country where women aren't allowed to speak and you can be executed for looking at somebody sideways.
Slippery-slope argument really?
I understand the huge amount of liberals on this site, Numbers don't make your opinion correct. Guns were made for defense., guns can be used to kill, so can a shield. The guns breed violence argument is nonsense. If somebody is a bad person and wants to kill you they will. I just hope you have a gun to stop them.
I wasn't stating my opinion on the matter, I was just stating how your slippery-slope argument was flawed. Also, not every liberal believes there should be stricter gun laws. You're generalizing too much. For example most issues I am tend to lean on the liberal side; however, on this issue I believe people should have the choice to own a gun as long as they go through necessary training and licensing. I myself own a gun.
Stephen, the numbers actually show that the conservative opinion is correct. There is less violent gun crime in states with fewer regulations, and the UK which banned hand guns in 1997 experienced an 89% increase in gun crime from 1998 to 2008.
I know, I agree with you, Maybe my last statement was confusing? Id you read one of my other posts, I stated something similar, I just lacked the actual numbers.
A gun was invented to make it easier to kill people
A shield was invented to make it easier to protect the user against attack.
A gun is offensive.
A shield is defensive.
If a bad person is really that set on killing me I doubt a gun is going to help! Like they're going to say to me "Oh, I'm going to kill you now!" at a distance where I can pull my gun out and 'defend' myself. No, they're most likely to attack from behind. Last time I checked, it's kinda hard to 'protect' yourself with a gun at close quarters when the assailant is behind you.
How is a gun going to save me, exactly?
Although, I do agree that guns don't make murderers. That's frame of mind.
I can't change your opinion. You can't change mine. Lets agree to disagree and move on to more lols.
Ah, but can you answer my question?
I know things aren't going to change unless something massive. Guns just get me irate.
Gun laws changed here because a man shot and killed primary school children
I'm sorry, is your question "How is a gun going to save me, exactly?".
If so, you stand a much better chance defending yourself using a gun against a man with a gun, than using some alternative defensive weapon. As the saying goes, Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
I don't intend on being in a gun fight but a fight for my life. It's different, IMO, as I highly doubt he'll attack me with a gun - statistics show that gun violence towards women is quite low, so I'm more likely to be attacked at close range and from behind. This being that most women can be overpowered by most men.
I was gonna find what would be the best form of defending myself, but everywhere says "ATTACK FIRST!" which is nice, but ain't the best technique in an attack you're not expecting.
I imagine a gun would probably be best if it's two men, two women (which rarely happens anyway) or a women attacking a man as the attack is most likely to happen at a distance.
The best defense in an attack you're not expecting would depend on the actual attack used. Sometimes it may be to distance yourself, sometimes it will be disarming, sometimes it might just be to punch somebody in the face. It is a very gray area. In any case, thats only half of my pro-gun argument. I'm just very pro-rights. I don't believe in the government having more than just enough control over peoples individual freedoms to keep society stable.
See, I don't equate the right to own a gun to freedom.
Freedom: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
I consider telling me what I can and cannot own a restraint.
Alas, I think the US should have tighter gun laws.
Then you wouldn't have nearly as many spree shootings.
I knew somebody was going to bring up the spree shooting. You can't punish the majority for the action of a few.
"The spree shooting"
You mean, you've only had one?!
Since 1997, I can only find record of one spree shooting in the UK. And it wasn't in a school or a cinema, or anything.
In the US, since 1997, gun crimes where innocent people were targeted who were not police, not caught in the cross fire or in any way associated with criminals... well
Please, tell me how guns protect you? Tell me, why does a civilian need an assault rifle to protect themselves?
Fact is, although the UK has gun crime we do not have it nearly on the same extent the US does. And, as I've said, our gun crime is almost entirely limited to gang wars - civilians hurt are usually caught in the cross fire, not targeted from the get go.
In the year 2009, we have had 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants. You've had 3 per 100,000 inhabitants.
From where I stand, I'm a lot safer in the UK without guns than I am in the US with a gun.
First of all, Once again, the actions of a few doesn't warrant the punishment or attack on the freedoms of the majority. Second of all, From what I've seen, the absence of guns only changes the tool used to committ your crime.
Ah, fine, it's alright people are murdered when they're doing nothing wrong in the world. Who cares about them? As long as you keep your guns, it's all fine. Spree killing? Oh, it doesn't matter. Guns still protect you! They keep you safe! Those incidents? Ahh, don't mind them!
You know, those countries with strict gun regulations that don't have spree killings? Oh, they're not actually living. Ignore the fact that less people die in them, they don't know what it's like to have guns!
GUN ARE WONDERFUL! THEY'RE FANTASTIC AND MAKE EVERYTHING RIGHT IN THE WORLD! sparkles Clearly, guns are just tools for defence, never mind those people who use them like weapons.
I'm sorry that you cannot see that guns don't kill people, people do. If we get rid of guns, What do we accomplish? These spree shooters are never running around with legal guns. They are using guns they bought illegally. Which will still be a thing happening if the laws are stricter or not. I'd rather have my gun. Maybe if the victims weren't living in such a fascist world they'd be allowed to own and carry and gun and somebody could have put those spree shooters down like the animals they are.
Most do actually. They use guns bought legally! Even in the UK, the Cumbria spree shooting was done with guns that were bought legally!
A lot of spree killing STOPS with tighter restrictions brought in.
This is because the majority of spree killers are people who have just snapped, not hardened criminals.
And, FYI, the spree shootings are happening in a country and states which allow people to own and carry guns.
So, tighter restrictions on guns would, essentially, stop a helluva lot of spree shootings from happening.
I know people kill, but the fact remains that LESS PEOPLE are murdered in the UK (1.23 per 100,000 people in 2010, and that was with our spree killer) than in the US (4.8 per 100,000 people).
Spree killers are random attacks by seemingly ordinary people, not planned criminal attacks. For example, the one that's just happened? He bought those across a counter!
If you get rid of guns, the majority of spree killings like this one, or the ones where students go into their schools and shoot other students would stop. That's what you accomplish. If that's not good enough then I'm sorry, but you have your priorities all wrong.
I'd much prefer giving up an unnecessary right than letting children and innocent people die. If people don't? Well, I think that just tells you what kind of people they are, frankly.
My priorities are personal freedoms and rights. You don't disregard one mans rights for the action of anothers. That is the problem with people today. Too willing to give up their rights for their false sense of security. Cops should do their jobs. Guns shouldn't be illegal, Knives shouldn't be illegal. We clearly have different views on the way the world should be, and it is tragic what happened here, Gun laws are strict enough as they are. Its nearly impossible to get guns in most states. Its interesting how those states have the most violent crimes.
Oh keep your eyes closed. I don't care any more. Keep your head in the sand and IGNORE everything around you.
I can't believe you can say it's tragic then go on say they're strict enough. If they're so strict how.did.he.get.an.assaultrifle?! From a shop, btw, not illegally. Why can you buy an assault rifle? What possible reason would you need an assault rifle?
I'd disregard rights if it protected a country worth of people. You're just selfish.
"I'd disregard rights if it protected a country worth of people. You're just selfish." This just saddens me. I am selfish? I am human. I care about others, and I care about myself. And I don't trust my government enough to willingly relinquish any rights to them. Especially the ones meant to protect me from them.
I think you're selfish. You want to own guns, so you're putting that want over lives, and they using "rights and freedom" as an excuse to hide that. That's selfish. Fact is, everyone has the right to live in a safe country, the US is not a safe country. Restrictions on guns would make it safer.
You're totally ignoring the fact that countries with very strict gun laws have almost no spree killings. This is because spree killers - particular spree shooters - are usually ordinary people, typically without any criminal past at all, who just snap and pick the weapon that will do maximum damage with minimum effort. Which are guns! They're not illegally obtained, they're lawfully bought by people with gun licenses, either before they snap or after they snapped.
I don't care if you think I am selfish. You say we'd be safer without guns. I say the government is a bigger threat than any spree killers any day. I'd the millions be able to defend themselves than the one douchebag with a gun being unstoppable.
I think you're over-dramatising the government to a ridiculous amount. Yeah, they could be dangerous - years and years ago. Now, with the media like it is and the internet, it'd be incredibly difficult for the US government to smother it's citizens without causing mass rioting.
Its a shame those riots would be pointless because the military would be only ones armed.
The military is mainly made up of people who were civilians. You don't forget your roots just because you're now in the military.
The Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown with the help of the army. Why? Because the majority of the army was made up by everyday people, peasants, not people with high authority. And these are people who had centuries of dictatorship. You really think that a army formed in times of democracy won't defend it's people?
Some will, most won't anybody who has seen what happens in boot camp knows those people are broken mentally and rebuilt to be one thing. Loyal soldiers.
I do think you're underestimating your own soldiers here. They're still men (and women)
Er... that seems a bit anarchist.
The government tells you what you can & can't do all the time. That's why we have a legal system, and why some things are classified as "crimes." Hell, if you've ever worked for someone else, you have to follow rules (or gone to school, had parent-like authority figures, etc.).
I know I may be making hyperbole out of your intended statement, but people have used that exact same sentiment to justify the white-supremacist "militias" in the South & Midwest, and to bomb government buildings, and a whole host of other atrocities.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, though, and assume an unspoken "within reason" at the end of that.
I thought it was implied. But I believe it should be up to the people as a whole to decide what is reasonable. I guess I am at the point where I realize that having representatives, who lie and don't follow through with the will of the people is a broken system.
You don't need a gun to defend yourself! Is your country so dangerous that if you don't have a gun you're life is in mortal danger? No! Don't be ridiculous!
It's not a damn right, it's a fricking privilege to own a gun! And you should treat it that way!
No, it is definitely a right. The privelege is not having to use it. I own a waffle iron, I barely use it, but its nice to have when I need it.
It really isn't. But very little point about arguing it with someone who believes it is.
Have you ever needed your gun to protect yourself? I've never once gone "oh, if only I had a gun" in regards to protecting myself. Okay, I've never needed to protect myself, but there have been moments when I've been in situations where I've been more than a little scared (my walk home from work goes through a route which has no light. At 11pm, this is scary). But I've not ever gone "oh, I'd feel safe if guns laws were loser" as all that would be in my head instead would be "what if they have a gun?"
Criminals don't obtain guns through legal means, they can be traced. They get guns through illegal means. They will not be affected by the stricter gun laws. The only people stricter gun laws will hurt is non-criminals.
But why do non-criminals need guns? I've never been attacked by a mad gunman, and those that have in this country would not have been saved by owning a gun either.
A 6 year old girl got shot in the spine by a bullet from a gang member that went through the shop window. The man who's twin brother just went mad and shot him couldn't have prevented it, no-one could have predicted the following random attacks shootings he then did. The policeman who was shot from behind had no warning so could not have protected himself, and the same goes for Raul Moate's victims - none knew he was there.
So people know, although we describe guns as being illegal in the UK, it's actually just strictly regulated. You must have a license, and you can only obtain that license if you have a valid reason to needing a gun (hunting and being a farmer counts). The issue is is that ex-military guns aren't included in those restrictions; it's legal to own one. However, they can be restored so they can fire again.
Thats an interesting point you make. And as I've stated, criminals having guns isn't exactly going to change with stricter laws. They're not exactly going down to the gunshop and registering for a firearm.
Nixie that's actually completely false. Gun crime rate in the UK actually went up when they outlawed hand guns. Why would we put tougher laws on here when it has failed so miserably in the UK?
And you don't give me that crap. In the US Constitution, a document I have supreme respect for, we have the right to bear arms. That is it. The right is not qualified, there are no regulations attached. And in case you don't believe me:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html. Handguns were made illegal in 1997. Since then, the rate of violent gun crime has exploded.
Gun laws just stop law abiding citizens from getting guns. Criminals will get them anyway.
I still think it's utter shit that people say it's a "right". It's not. You just have it in your head that it is because some piece of paper which was written up in a time which had just seen a violent war.
It's out of date. And should be changed.
It's not out of date. The statistics you keep ignoring prove it's not out of date.
I didn't comment on the news article as it cannot be found.
As to raising gun crimes - although there have been four in recent memory, the majority of gun crimes happen to within the criminal community (gang warfare).
I still think they're not a right though. And I think it's something that just used to placate people about how unfair the US is.
You can own a gun, great, but you're not entitled to healthcare. Frankly, I'd much rather be able to go to hospital and get saved than own a gun. But hey, obviously UK citizens priorities are off, we should totally be campaigning for the "right" to bear firearms rather than the right to get medical attention.
a huge flaw here is that your right to owning a gun doesn't mean the government is going to buy you a gun. It means that you have the right to own one should you have the means to afford one.
In this respect, you also have the right to healthcare. If you have the means to afford it.
Intelligence and common sense.............We should hang out
My two favorite features in a person...
Nixie you seem very sweet, however, naive. A simple proverb to explain: The Wolves do not care how many the sheep.
I'd like you to expand on how that proverb works with this.
OK. Lets look at it like this. A gun is the modern tool of self defense. By taking away my tool you leave me defenseless. Sheep are defenseless.
....................................In the world of the blind the one eyed man is king...............................
Do you have some sort of medical condition, or something?
I'm not defenceless but I don't own a gun. And I do believe that even though I'm a woman. You're never defenceless, there is always something you can do to defend yourself against an attack.
And most attacks you don't get enough warning to protect yourself with a gun anyway, so they're pretty pointless IMO.
I definitely respect your passion nixie. I hope this doesnt come across as a bad first encounter, nixie.
I just don't really like the idea of a nation which doesn't look after it's people. I'm not too fond of guns, true, but it's more I don't like the mind frame that comes with a lot of pro-gun US citizens. It seems that a lot of people push that it's for protection when you don't really see it being used in that manner. I get it can be, but there are other, less dangerous ways of protecting yourself than a gun, and - as I've argued before - you can't easily defend yourself against an assailant with a gun.
I also don't like the people that rip into people who are anti-gun much, and say things similar to "well, I hope you're attacked then"
Also, I think that they're used to keep the US peeps calm about just how shit things are for them in comparison to the other First World Countries and some Developing countries. You've got an appalling education and healthcare system, and it seems that no-one is willing to help each other.
I never wished harm upon you or anybody anti-gun. I've just stated my opinion and that I am pro-gun. I don't have anything against you personally or anybody who is anti-gun. We see the world differently.
No, you haven't, but you do get a lot of pro-gun which do go "I hope you're attacked"
There is a post on here somewhere of a guy with a sign outside his house saying how he's anti-gun. His neighbour had a sign up next to it essentially saying "this guy has no protection, go after him as I won't help" Or something like that.
Why? Okay, someone has an alternative view to you, but to wish them harm because of it? Bit out of order.
This is where we get into the problem of generalizing people again. Sure there are dickheads who are pro-gun. There are also the people who assume anybody is who is pro-gun is some kind of asshole who just wants to shoot people.
Gotta remember, the UK is generally not pro-gun. The times when it crops up, it's the arseholes that are making themselves heard more.
This is why the US has the stereotype of being overly religious, uncaring, idiotic bastards, even though they're not.
I just want to point out;
"The United Kingdom historically had one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world even before gun control legislation became stricter from the late twentieth century. In the United Kingdom in 2009 there were 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0, about 40 times higher, and for Germany 0.2"
Citation: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Homicides by firearm statistics.
But guns have a much higher potential for destruction than hammers do. Thus the need to regulate and handle them more responsibly.
And who is doing this regulation? I certainly don't trust the government enough to give them the power to decide who can have a gun. The government? I will let Thomas Jefferson handle this one for me.
Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."
I think it is safe for the government to regulate moderately. Not saying outlaw guns completely, just regulate with moderation.
It is regulated moderately. First of all it should remain and is currently a state decision. And most states require background checks and licenses. States like Alaska and such I see no reason for this because, there are very real threats in those places.
And I'm cool with that. I'm not necessarily asking for more regulation, I was just saying that regulation is needed.
Keep in mind that automatic weapons, grenades, and weapons of mass destruction didn't exist during Jefferson's time. And even back then, your average citizen couldn't just own a cannon. A militia could, but here's the thing: we have a milita. The US military & police. Their duty is to protect the people - even if that means protecting them from a tyrannical government.
If you do the research, you'll see that most military members will follow orders, even if it conflicts with their moral standing. It happened in Vietnam, it happened in Korea, and it is happening right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't think they'd all protect us from the government.
Watch "The Village" M. Night Shamalan
Ouch, right in the flawed logic :D
Same logic as blaming keyboards for all the argumentative comments here.
IT'S NOT MY FAULT MY KEYBOARD DOESN'T COME WITH A CAPS LOCK SAFETY!
So if people were killing each other with say spears? Would you be making the same argument about long sticks?
Heck, knives! Found in every kitchen and commonly considered a murder weapon.
Ban those, we'll eat our meat right off of the animal.
That would certainly be more civilized!
Toasters don't toast toast. Toast toast toast.
Haha love it!
I support gun control.
And I lol'ed.
Here is the best way to solve the argument, cock a loaded gun and set it on the table and back away. When it goes off on its own and kills someone, then guns kill people.
I also want to comment on this post
The US is going to become the wild west again...