Do you think people should be able to own guns

[Reilly]

The context makes no difference at all, I'm sure you would have made it aware if it did make a difference, rather then just mentioning it.

 

No you just don't get it, I was pointing out how strange it was that you needed to make us aware of exactly what you would do to a person if they broke into your house, I wasn't questioning your right to do so, or if you plan ahead that is absolutely fine, but it's such a strange thought that you felt you needed to express.

 

It's like being at a dinner party, and the topic of a neighbour being robbed comes up, and someone says "Well thats a shame- if someone came to rob me I'd tie them up and cut their ear off Reservoir style HAHAHA"

[NumbersGirl]

The context makes no difference at all, I'm sure you would have made it aware if it did make a difference, rather then just mentioning it.

 

No you just don't get it, I was pointing out how strange it was that you needed to make us aware of exactly what you would do to a person if they broke into your house, I wasn't questioning your right to do so, or if you plan ahead that is absolutely fine, but it's such a strange thought that you felt you needed to express.

Fair enough.

But I'm not really sure how that makes me evil (which you did say). At least, not sure how it makes me any more evil than someone who would openly admit that they might shoot someone that breaks into their house if it came right down to it. Me + bat = evil, but anybody else + gun = not evil?

 

It's like being at a dinner party, and the topic of a neighbour being robbed comes up, and someone says "Well thats a shame- if someone came to rob me I'd tie them up and cut their ear off Reservoir style HAHAHA"

No, it's not like that at all. Knocking someone down with a bat so they can't get up and run away (and then do the same thing to somebody else), so that the police can come and arrest them and they can face justice in the court of law; I don't see how that compares to your reference of tearing off body parts for fun. How could you think that?

[Reilly]

Fair enough.

But I'm not really sure how that makes me evil (which you did say). At least, not sure how it makes me any more evil than someone who would openly admit that they might shoot someone that breaks into their house if it came right down to it. Me + bat = evil, but anybody else + gun = not evil?

 

It makes you evil because you voiced this odd opinion when you didn't have to, so I'm saying you don't think of this as a last resort, but you enjoy the thought of it, THATS why it's a strange thought. I'd think the same thing if "anybody else + gun" had come in here to say they'd shoot someone in the face if they broke into their house, but nobody has.

 

No, it's not like that at all. Knocking someone down with a bat so they can't get up and run away (and then do the same thing to somebody else), so that the police can come and arrest them and they can face justice in the court of law; I don't see how that compares to your reference of tearing off body parts for fun. How could you think that?

 

Holy fuck are you actually serious? I was mocking you, I was pointing out how you over-stepped the mark, I wasn't trying to compare your reasonable act of defence to ripping someone apart, it was the point of bringing up either act in the first place.

 

In fact, just replace what I said about the Reservoir Dogs scene, and input your hilarious quip about beating someone with a bat until the cops come, and it has the exact same impact.

 

You keep missing the point and diverting to some other shit, it was weird that you needed to explain what you would do to a burglar, you did not need to do that.

 

I resorted to bold instead of caps, this is just unbelievable.

[NumbersGirl]

you enjoy the thought of it[/color], THATS why it's a strange thought.

What?!? Where did I say (or even imply) that I enjoy the thought of it? Why would you make that kind of assumption?

 

And as you indicated, you're saying that I don't think of it as a last resort; I certainly never did. Of course I would much rather bolt out the door or window if I was near one and could easily escape. Or in an ideal scenario, if I'm near my keys get in my car and go to the local police station. If those options weren't viable, maybe lock myself in a room with the phone to call 911. In the worst case scenario, if push comes to shove then I might have to resort to what I already mentioned (because I don't have a gun as an option).

 

So, I'm evil because I simply previously stated what I would do if a burglar was in my home and I didn't have a gun (guns are the topic of the thread) and used a different weapon instead of a gun. But wait... in the above paragraph I mentioned 3 more things I would do based on the situation. And since simply stating what I would do is odd/evil, according to that train of thought it would now make me evil x 4.

 

I'm not sure why you felt the need to latch onto something that I didn't even say (i.e., you made up that I would "enjoy it" thinking that nobody would notice) to make me look like an awful person. And there must be something eating away at you, because when I agreed with someone else about sporting activities related to certain guns you quipped, "This explains why you're so authoritarian, you want to snipe our heads off." Sporting has nothing to do with people (which you probably know), yet you felt the need to use it as a way to rip on me. And you indicate that you already thought I was "so authoritarian"; so you've obviously got some sort of beef with me, and latched on to things here to prove your "point" although I have a hard time saying that because any "point" you were trying to make is invalid due to the presence of inappropriate assumptions and outright untruths.

 

I'll try to just leave it there, because by now people will be able to see what's what, regardless of whether or not I've convinced you. I hope you don't try to randomly latch onto anything further and turn it into something it's not; there's no need to derail this thread any further.

[Reilly]

Such a big clump of that was a waste of time for me, sorry, but fine, you never said you'd enjoy it, I wasn't trying to say that you definitely had said that (This is ridiculous) but obviously I'm saying that I think you'd enjoy it, OK? That would tie in with how I think it's strange that you brought up (Why else would I say its strange?) my original point in the first place, and we've just been dragged all over the place since then. Just to make it crystal clear, I thought it was strange that you had to go into specifics about what you'd do, because you like the thought of it, to go back to my dinner party context, if we were talking about gun control and someone came out with "Oh I'd just bust his back or knee caps with a bat and wait for a cop to come" everyone would be a bit :wtf:

 

I think my fairly simple to understand opinion has been made clear a few times now, there's nothing we can do to convince eachother, so that is also the last I really need to say, unless it still isn't clear enough.

[a_face_of_light]

You're much more talented if you can use a sword:laugh3:.

[Cobalt]

Most worst misunderstanding of each other ever in that argument up there

[Kiame]

I'm unsure as to where I stand on the issue. I certainly think automatic firearms and heavy duty weaponry should be prohibited. There is no reason why a civilian needs an assault rifle or an armour piercing hunting rifle. I'm very certain about that, but I don't know if I think gun control should be in place or not.

 

I can see both sides I guess. I do think that ultimately culture and perception of community matters the most. Look at countries like Switzerland. They have huge gun ownership and crime is incredibly low but if an unstable populous had as many weapons then that may be an issue.

 

But perhaps a community should have the right to be as unstable as it wants? Perhaps governance should not have the right to regulate the possessions of its people?

 

Who knows. It's complicated and it's something that should be judged case by case. It's not a blanket issue.

 

However I don't believe that the average person is qualified to carry a firearm for self defence purposes. So many people are killed in the name of "self defence" that should not have been killed that way. This is because in the heat of the moment people can make rash decisions due to emotion. I don't think the average person has the right to decide that.

 

I'm sorry, but making guns illegal obviously wouldn't keep criminals from getting guns.

 

Gun control does stop most criminals from acquiring firearms. You're right it doesn't stop the criminals with connections and who are organised, but it does stop the run of the mill asshole who decides to rob a super market or break into someone's house.

 

In the USA petty criminals quite often have firearms. In countries with effective gun control in place petty criminals seldom have them. The gangsters and the real criminals still have them, but those people tend to kill each other rather than target the public.

[Prince Myshkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23691146

[NumbersGirl]

The title of that article is slightly misleading; at first glance it sounds like a teacher shot a student. Really, an instructor shot a teacher.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that it makes the situation okay; but (sadly) that's probably why I didn't hear anything on the news this morning.

 

 

 

edit: re: guns...

 

This was this.

I wasn't actually looking to buy it; we were on the range's site to research archery/clay target classes, when I looked at the online store and happened to notice the $0 price tag. Later that day they sent me an e-mail saying they canceled the order and fixed the glitch. It would have been simultaneously scary and lol if they actually sent it to me.

 

 

 

[Matter-Eater Lad]

You can't stop people from having what they want, be it drugs, alcohol or guns. If we want a more safe society we need to do something besides banning things to stop them.

 

I need to find the numbers. But I remember correctly after nations ban gun, usually crime goes up. And the places in the U.S. with high gun ownership rates have lower crime. I wish guns didn't exist, and if a law could make them disappear everywhere I think i'd like that.

[Prince Myshkin]

You can't stop people from having what they want, be it drugs, alcohol or guns. If we want a more safe society we need to do something besides banning things to stop them.

 

I need to find the numbers. But I remember correctly after nations ban gun, usually crime goes up. And the places in the U.S. with high gun ownership rates have lower crime. I wish guns didn't exist, and if a law could make them disappear everywhere I think i'd like that.

 

In the short term perhaps. Certainly not in the long term.

 

Guns are very different to drugs, in which you have a good argument there. But with drugs, you aren't going to get everyone loading up on smack because their neighbour just injected. It stops being as much about personal choice when you're forced into an arms race.

 

Damage limitation is the most important thing to go for, along with rehabilitation, and the studies show that in the long term a ban on guns is more beneficial to society. Organised criminals will always get their hands on them but it's rare that people get shot by organised criminals in countries without guns. The biggest danger to you isn't the organised criminals, it's the general public and those around you, such is the prevalence of guns in America.

 

But yeah, you guys aren't gonna give up your guns, so we'll just watch the turmoil from afar and bite our lips, otherwise we'll be seen as insensitive or wanting to take away your freedoms.

 

Actually, now is a good time for your country to have a gun debate, since it isn't international news right now. That's the time when the argument becomes about a specific event, or a debate on whether it is ok to discuss it at that time or not.

[Prince Myshkin]

The title of that article is slightly misleading; at first glance it sounds like a teacher shot a student. Really, an instructor shot a teacher.

 

Of course, I'm not saying that it makes the situation okay; but (sadly) that's probably why I didn't hear anything on the news this morning.

 

 

 

edit: re: guns...

 

This was this.

I wasn't actually looking to buy it; we were on the range's site to research archery/clay target classes, when I looked at the online store and happened to notice the $0 price tag. Later that day they sent me an e-mail saying they canceled the order and fixed the glitch. It would have been simultaneously scary and lol if they actually sent it to me.

 

 

 

What would you have done with it? Sold it on? Could have made a lot of money on that I imagine. Are you allowed to sell those things on I wonder?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

Guns are very different to drugs, in which you have a good argument there. But with drugs, you aren't going to get everyone loading up on smack because their neighbour just injected. It stops being as much about personal choice when you're forced into an arms race.

 

My point is you can't keep something that people want out of their hands, just like drugs or alcohol. As long as there is demand, the government can't stop it from being illegally obtained. That's the problem with outlawing anything that is small and available to the masses. It comes down to demand, not what is illegal. It may lower demand for law abiding citizens, but those arethe people who are never going to shoot anyone. The bad people that will use guns in crime, won't want them any less because they're illegal.

 

It would be different if it was possible to physically keep them out of the nation, but that will never happen.

 

Organised criminals will always get their hands on them but it's rare that people get shot by organised criminals in countries without guns.

 

Well here in 'Murica, we have a lot of criminals not in organized crime that will use them to kill lots of people. I feel our crime structure is much different than Europe. The punks that pulled a gun on me in my ow neighborhood would have had a gun if it was illegal or not. Well actually, I'd bet the gun they had was obtained illegally.

 

To me it's a society issue. I saw a chart a while ago of gun rates and crime in America for the last 100 years or so and lower gun crimes correlated with higher gun ownership rates. But if we could physically keep guns out, there wouldn't be any mass shootings, they'd have to come up with another way. It'd be harder to do a mass stabbing. BUT, governments without armed citizens can get away with more.

[Prince Myshkin]

My point is you can't keep something that people want out of their hands, just like drugs or alcohol. As long as there is demand, the government can't stop it from being illegally obtained. That's the problem with outlawing anything that is small and available to the masses. It comes down to demand, not what is illegal. It may lower demand for law abiding citizens, but those arethe people who are never going to shoot anyone. The bad people that will use guns in crime, won't want them any less because they're illegal.

 

It would be different if it was possible to physically keep them out of the nation, but that will never happen.

 

 

 

Well here in 'Murica, we have a lot of criminals not in organized crime that will use them to kill lots of people. I feel our crime structure is much different than Europe. The punks that pulled a gun on me in my ow neighborhood would have had a gun if it was illegal or not. Well actually, I'd bet the gun they had was obtained illegally.

 

To me it's a society issue. I saw a chart a while ago of gun rates and crime in America for the last 100 years or so and lower gun crimes correlated with higher gun ownership rates. But if we could physically keep guns out, there wouldn't be any mass shootings, they'd have to come up with another way. It'd be harder to do a mass stabbing. BUT, governments without armed citizens can get away with more.

 

People who aren't likely to shoot someone can end up shooting people accidentally. People having guns doesn't seem to stop people breaking into people's homes, it merely means they take their own weaponry too. And that doesn't end well.

 

I'm surprised you take this stance, considering the way I perceive your posts on getting rid of meaningless junk and how people fill their life with consumerist craps, and how that can be transferred to a stance away from something like 'if someone comes on my land then I should be able to shoot em up', which I wouldn't be surprised that you held given your views on this. It just seems a strange juxtaposition, alongside America being so religious and so sexualised at the same time. It's all extremes, even though it's the extremes that tend to be less healthy.

 

I concede that you cannot completely control guns, but the situation in other countries where there is still organised crime but there is a ban on guns is far more preferable to the American situation, which is like something from the 1800's. If you didn't have a gun (and that's presuming you do), how much will your life actually change? If somebody threatens you with a gun then give them what they want. They've got a fucking gun. And who cares what they want? What are they seriously going to take from you? Report it to the police and hope that they can be caught. Perhaps part of the problem is the insurance system? I don't know, but if it's anything like the health care you've had in the past, it seems generally people get fucked over.

 

Do you honestly believe that the British government gets away with more than the American government?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

People who aren't likely to shoot someone can end up shooting people accidentally.

People often, more than guns, accidentally hit people in their car, but we don't ban them. If it's about numbers, than they are more dangerous in that aspect.

 

You said "if someone comes in your house they can have what you want, you get it on insurance and you report it to the police"

 

Not when they come in while you're home. We have a lot of homicides, and simply reporting them or calling the police wont' protect you.

 

I'm surprised you take this stance, considering the way I perceive your posts on getting rid of meaningless junk and how people fill their life with consumerist craps

 

I don't support drugs use, but making them illegal hasn't done anything to stop their abuse. I don't support guns either, but I don't support disarming the law abiding population and having the criminals stay armed because they don't care about laws. It all comes down to what a law can do. A law about something physical, doesn't change anything. In the end it's society, and supply and demand not laws that will decide guns in America.

 

'if someone comes on my land then I should be able to shoot em up', which I wouldn't be surprised that you held given your views on this

I support self-defense, not shooting people for being on your land. Someone breaking in to kill or steal, or attacking you somewhere, you should have a right to defend yourself.

 

I concede that you cannot completely control guns, but the situation in other countries where there is still organised crime but there is a ban on guns is far more preferable to the American situation,

 

Those societies are completely different than ours, it's an issue of what society wants. To my knowledge those nations never had a lot of love for weapons. I'm not saying that is right. America is a very violent nation, just look at our foreign policy. I'm not saying guns are moral, i'm saying what limits the law has based on its society. I wish it was more like the UK. I bet you guys don't have many gun crimes? But i'm saying a law is the backwards way, we need to change it through society. Sadly, we're a backwards nation that will never change.

 

 

Personally, I'd never shoot anyone even in defense. I won't own a gun for fear of someone innocent being killed. I'd rather die than risk killing someone innocent or a kid getting their hands on it. When I had a gun pulled on me, the police officer told me I should have had a gun and shot them or hit them with my car. I guess I'm just debating the effectiveness of gun laws in a society that values them and violence. Laws don't change society, it has to be the other way around. I debate this way for drugs and any other thing people claim is immoral.

[Phoebeo]

No. I don't believe that people should have guns at home.

[Prince Myshkin]

People often, more than guns, accidentally hit people in their car, but we don't ban them. If it's about numbers, than they are more dangerous in that aspect.

 

And this is why we are moving towards cars that drive themselves. It's unlikely in the future that we will be driving our own cars. We are getting safer and safer and the one thing that hasn't improved has been human error. But that is a bit of a straw argument anyway. It's like saying 'well, you can kill people with a hammer, so should we ban all hammers?'. Cars and hammers provide functions that are very different to guns, and it's very difficult to do more damage with a car or a hammer than it is with a gun.

You said "if someone comes in your house they can have what you want, you get it on insurance and you report it to the police"

 

Not when they come in while you're home. We have a lot of homicides, and simply reporting them or calling the police wont' protect you.

 

Do you not think that you may have a lot of homicides because they are entering an area where other people have guns? If they had a gun and you didn't, it'd likely be a safer situation for all involved. Not arming up and reporting it to the police doesn't guarantee they are caught, but it decreases the chances of somebody dying.

 

 

I don't support drugs use, but making them illegal hasn't done anything to stop their abuse. I don't support guns either, but I don't support disarming the law abiding population and having the criminals stay armed because they don't care about laws. It all comes down to what a law can do. A law about something physical, doesn't change anything. In the end it's society, and supply and demand not laws that will decide guns in America.

 

I am not disagreeing with the fact that prohibition is not the best policy for drugs. There is massive long term evidence against it. Guns is a different matter, though, and there is massive long term evidence for it. Short term, not, but you have to think long term, because time moves forward and in the long run there will be more needless deaths.

 

There are people in England with guns who carry out crime. They break the law and use guns to do this. They don't just walk around with a gun, though. Just because they are a minority with a gun, if anything it makes it harder for them to operate as they stand out like a sore thumb and if the police find any guns on anybody then it's likely been used for something dodgy. They have to keep things under wraps and not draw attention to themselves. Nations with strict gun control aren't anarchies, and America wouldn't be either.

 

I support self-defense, not shooting people for being on your land. Someone breaking in to kill or steal, or attacking you somewhere, you should have a right to defend yourself.

 

 

Do you know what the odds are that someone will want to break into your house to kill you, as a regular guy? If somebody is in there to steal from you then it is not fair to kill them. You possessing a gun is making the situation worse. Its increasing the danger on all sides, so if it's damage limitation you are after then I'd start by not having a gun.

Those societies are completely different than ours, it's an issue of what society wants. To my knowledge those nations never had a lot of love for weapons. I'm not saying that is right. America is a very violent nation, just look at our foreign policy. I'm not saying guns are moral, i'm saying what limits the law has based on its society. I wish it was more like the UK. I bet you guys don't have many gun crimes? But i'm saying a law is the backwards way, we need to change it through society. Sadly, we're a backwards nation that will never change.

 

 

Personally, I'd never shoot anyone even in defense. I won't own a gun for fear of someone innocent being killed. I'd rather die than risk killing someone innocent or a kid getting their hands on it. When I had a gun pulled on me, the police officer told me I should have had a gun and shot them or hit them with my car. I guess I'm just debating the effectiveness of gun laws in a society that values them and violence. Laws don't change society, it has to be the other way around. I debate this way for drugs and any other thing people claim is immoral.

The societies are different because you have guns. In the long term you'd become similar to all the other non gun wielding countries. The only other countries that have them so prevalent, outside of hunting, tend to be pretty backwards in the Western worlds eyes.

 

England had a love for weapons. We had a fucking empire. We went all around the world with our guns. But societies change. Homosexuality used to be illegal. Now the entire notion seems so foreign. There are generational shifts. We have veeeeeeeeeeeery low gun crime.

 

You guys won't change for a long long time, but hopefully, bit by bit, you'll give them up. And there won't be a dictatorship straight after.

 

There have been more violent nations in the past. People who exterminate sections of society. And even they didn't have guns outside of the military.

 

I'm confused. You had a gun pulled on you, and you didn't have a gun. And both of the people got out alive. And the police officer thought that it didn't end well because you didn't shoot him? That's fucked up.

 

I'm not convinced the drugs/guns comparison stands up.

[NumbersGirl]

What would you have done with it? Sold it on? Could have made a lot of money on that I imagine. Are you allowed to sell those things on I wonder?

Since it would be a private (person-to-person) sale, I'm pretty sure yes you can sell it on to whomever you want at any time.

 

In the short time between the "purchase" and the company catching the glitch, my husband and I were debating what we would do with it. If we put it up for $900 or something, there would be oodles of willing buyers instantly. Keep in mind, Michigan is a very hunting-y State. Although we might have kept it, since it was a shotgun and we were considering going to that place for clay target practice anyway; it would have saved on rental fees. Apparently ammunition is the most expensive part of any kind of target practice though, since you blow through it so quick.

[Spider-Man]

Yes we have a right to own guns.

[Prince Myshkin]

Yes we have a right to own guns.

 

But should they?

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I love it when police pull me over and ask if I have any guns/knives/weapons/rocket launchers in my car.

 

 

Greg, I'll respond to your post later.

[Prince Myshkin]

I love it when police pull me over and ask if I have any guns/knives/weapons/rocket launchers in my car.

 

 

Greg, I'll respond to your post later.

 

I look forward to it, though have said all I wanna say really.

[Matter-Eater Lad]

I'm just going to call you names and say how I'm right.

[Spider-Man]

But should they?

 

they who