Gun Control

[venomai]

As we have discussed in the past, simply because a weapon is effective in self-defense does not mean it would necessarily be worth implementing as a means of citizen self-defense. For example, the introduction of certain handguns, automatic rifles or explosives for citizen use can have extremely detrimental side-effects, and it often far surpasses what is necessary to defend one's self.

 

 

 

Don't you think if self-defense was widespread and prevalent, that criminals would have less of a reason to attack people in the first place since they know there is a good chance that attacking someone could actually lead to their own death?

 

It isn't just the threat of death that deters these crimes, but also the threat of incapacitation and serious injury (which may lead to arrest). Citizen self-defense is effective at deterring these crimes, but that does not mean we need to train all citizens to kill their attackers.

 

 

 

For example, if all citizens were armed with pepper spray, or trained in martial arts, you would see a sharp decline in muggings and other confrontations.

[Zierro]

For example, if all citizens were armed with pepper spray, or trained in martial arts, you would see a sharp decline in muggings and other confrontations.

 

 

 

And I would agree except for one small thing. I think the potential victims should be on par with their attackers. If a criminal possesses a gun and the victim has pepper spray, I doubt the attempt of self-defense would be effective at all.

[venomai]

That's ridiculous. Many criminals use explosives and assault rifles -- do you honestly feel that citizens ought to be armed with these weapons to be on par with the criminals who use them?

 

 

 

Self-defense is not intended to make us as violent and destructive as the criminals we are defending ourselves from. You're reducing law-abiding citizens to the level of murderers, terrorists, etc.

[mmmcannibalism]

There is obviously a line for self defense, explosives are outlawed in general because you cant use them in self defense in a practical manner while you can use explosives to cause harm. By assault rifles im going to assume your meaning fully automatics in which case it does fall under the same type of reasoning. You can use an assault weapon for self defense but no more effectively then you can a 45 revolver; however, an assault rifle is capable of more harmful activity then a 45 due to the rate of fire etc. The semiautomatic weapons that are also deemed assault rifles are a tricky middle ground. A large amount of them are legitimate hunting weapons, but I do agree that they are in many cases unnecessary.

[Zierro]

That's ridiculous. Many criminals use explosives and assault rifles -- do you honestly feel that citizens ought to be armed with these weapons to be on par with the criminals who use them?

 

 

 

Self-defense is not intended to make us as violent and destructive as the criminals we are defending ourselves from. You're reducing law-abiding citizens to the level of murderers, terrorists, etc.

 

 

 

What's ridiculous is your recurring strawmans. I'm not saying that everyone should have their own personal nuclear bombs at the ready - just that pepper spray is a poor means of self-defense when dealing with criminals wielding guns.

 

 

 

Are explosives and assault rifles really an effective means for self-defense anyways? (Note: We are in the context of self-defense right now and not mass murder.) You're talking about weapons that are deemed as extremely lethal because they have the potential to kill numerous people, so how many cases are there where there are numerous attackers? An attacker uses those weapons so that they can kill multiple people, whereas a victim's intent should only be to ward off the attacker (usually only one).

 

 

 

So back to the point. Do you think someone with a gun would be afraid of someone with pepper spray? Besides, who would take out pepper spray if they encountered a criminal with a gun? Now, stay on the same grounds for this next question. Do you think someone with a gun would be afraid of someone with explosives or would they just think that they're downright stupid? Furthermore, explosives have a good chance of injuring the user too. Perhaps now you see the difference in lethality and intimidation.

 

 

 

My point is that victims should be on par with the criminal - in the limit that the method of self-defense is equal to and has a high probability to countering the method of the criminal's attack.

[venomai]

Zierro -

 

All of these weapons, from the simplest of pistols to the most complex of assault rifles, have the potential to kill multiple people (and often, they do). These are all "effective means of self-defense" only in the sense that they are deadly weapons, i.e. they almost certainly will kill the attacker, thus ending the attack.

 

 

 

Apologies for the reductio ad absurdum, as you seemed to have missed my point. The point is; it would be ridiculous to resolve the problem by trying to make the victim on par with the criminal, i.e. by giving them more destructive and more violent means of self-defense.

 

 

 

This isn't a video game or a war. Just because our 'enemies' carry big and deadly weapons doesn't mean we ought to as well.

 

 

 

Do you think someone with a gun would be afraid of someone with pepper spray?

 

Most criminals will be afraid enough to avoid mugging/attacking a person armed with pepper spray. The fear lies in the risk of a painful incapacitation which may lead to their capture and arrest.

 

 

 

You wish to draw a line; perhaps we should draw that line before the use of deadly and unnecessary force.

[mmmcannibalism]

All of these weapons, from the simplest of pistols to the most complex of assault rifles, have the potential to kill multiple people (and often, they do). These are all "effective means of self-defense" only in the sense that they are deadly weapons, i.e. they almost certainly will kill the attacker, thus ending the attack.

 

 

 

Here is the difference between an assault rifle and a 6 shot revolver

 

 

 

self defense--both can be used to take out one or two attackers easily

 

 

 

going on a killingn spree--opening up in a crowded mall with a revolver lets you fire 6 shots without reloading, thats 12 kills under the luckiest of circumstances. By the time you reload a revolver, most people will have run out of your firing range. Something like a tec 9 allows you to fire at least 20 shots before reloading and has a fireing range that allows for at least one reload before anyone could escape the initial firing range.

[Lenticular_J]

But if someone wants to go on a killing spree, they'll get an assault rifle. There are plenty of illegal methods that you would take. Buying one legally can get pretty risky if you're not smooth.

 

 

 

Serial killers usually aren't.

[venomai]

We are discussing citizen self-defense. Presumably, most law-abiding citizens armed with deadly weapons are not looking to go on a killing spree.

[i_love_burritos]

Did someone quote the automobile statistic ?

 

 

 

[Automobiles have killed more people than all the sum of gun related incidents]

 

 

 

Just say yes or no...

[venomai]

Did someone quote the automobile statistic ?

 

 

 

[Automobiles have killed more people than all the sum of gun related incidents]

 

 

 

Just say yes or no...

 

No. You are the first to quote such an irrelevant statistic.

[i_love_burritos]

Venomai, you usually have to listen to a joke two or three times to get it dont you ?

 

 

 

I was saying by quoting it, that it was irrelevant. It is a frequently quoted statistic when it comes to gun control, and I was simply determining whether anyone was foolish enough to say it.

[venomai]

If the joke is worded poorly enough, then yes... :lol:

[Zierro]

You wish to draw a line; perhaps we should draw that line before the use of deadly and unnecessary force.

 

 

 

That would be lovely, but I don't see anything unnecessary about wielding a gun to protect yourself from someone else with a gun. I think of a handgun as a 1-hit problem solved. Of course they should be regulated, and harshly at that, but they are probably the most effective means of self-defense.

[War_Junky_91]

That's ridiculous. Many criminals use explosives and assault rifles -- do you honestly feel that citizens ought to be armed with these weapons to be on par with the criminals who use them?

 

 

 

Self-defense is not intended to make us as violent and destructive as the criminals we are defending ourselves from. You're reducing law-abiding citizens to the level of murderers, terrorists, etc.

 

You get out of this god damn thread right now. RIGHT [bleep]ING NOW. You have lost all right to now talk in this thread. So called "assualt weapons" are used in LESS than three percent of gun crimes. And explosives? I don't think you can even find a statistic for explosive use in crime.

 

 

 

Now i know this picture i'm going to show is about five or six years old, but it still makes its point.

 

[hide=][/hide]

[1_man_army]

That's ridiculous. Many criminals use explosives and assault rifles -- do you honestly feel that citizens ought to be armed with these weapons to be on par with the criminals who use them?

 

 

 

Self-defense is not intended to make us as violent and destructive as the criminals we are defending ourselves from. You're reducing law-abiding citizens to the level of murderers, terrorists, etc.

 

You get out of this god damn thread right now. RIGHT [bleep] NOW. You have lost all right to now talk in this thread. So called "assualt weapons" are used in LESS than three percent of gun crimes. And explosives? I don't think you can even find a statistic for explosive use in crime.

 

 

 

Now i know this picture i'm going to show is about five or six years old, but it still makes its point.

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

Seriously, who do you think you are? Disagree with somebody all you want but you have no right to tell people that they should leave a topic, there is no need for it either - if somebody isn't correct then just point it out.

 

 

 

For the record your image cherry-picks incidents to make it's point and has clearly avoided taking a universal approach when comparing the states to ensure that it didn't conflict with their intended message. Plus, you misspelled [wagon]ault wrong but I still think you're okay to post in this thread ;) .

[War_Junky_91]

That's ridiculous. Many criminals use explosives and assault rifles -- do you honestly feel that citizens ought to be armed with these weapons to be on par with the criminals who use them?

 

 

 

Self-defense is not intended to make us as violent and destructive as the criminals we are defending ourselves from. You're reducing law-abiding citizens to the level of murderers, terrorists, etc.

 

You get out of this god damn thread right now. RIGHT [bleep] NOW. You have lost all right to now talk in this thread. So called "assualt weapons" are used in LESS than three percent of gun crimes. And explosives? I don't think you can even find a statistic for explosive use in crime.

 

 

 

Now i know this picture i'm going to show is about five or six years old, but it still makes its point.

 

[hide=][/hide]

 

 

 

Seriously, who do you think you are? Disagree with somebody all you want but you have no right to tell people that they should leave a topic, there is no need for it either - if somebody isn't correct then just point it out.

 

 

 

For the record your image cherry-picks incidents to make it's point and has clearly avoided taking a universal approach when comparing the states to ensure that it didn't conflict with their intended message.

 

Yeah sorry for the over-reaction. Just when i see somebody saying things like that it makes me see red. I'm calmer now. And how is a 1300% increase in violent crime and the leading murder capitals a cherry picked statistic?

 

 

 

And EDIT:

 

 

 

All of these weapons, from the simplest of pistols to the most complex of assault rifles, have the potential to kill multiple people (and often, they do). These are all "effective means of self-defense" only in the sense that they are deadly weapons, i.e. they almost certainly will kill the attacker, thus ending the attack.

 

 

 

Here is the difference between an assault rifle and a 6 shot revolver

 

 

 

self defense--both can be used to take out one or two attackers easily

 

 

 

going on a killingn spree--opening up in a crowded mall with a revolver lets you fire 6 shots without reloading, thats 12 kills under the luckiest of circumstances. By the time you reload a revolver, most people will have run out of your firing range. Something like a tec 9 allows you to fire at least 20 shots before reloading and has a fireing range that allows for at least one reload before anyone could escape the initial firing range.

 

You have obviously not seen this video.

 

[yt]CsLx5ISBXw4[/yt]

[1_man_army]

My point was they are using particular statistics for each state to suit their point. A better and more academic approach would have been to look at each state and compare the same thing over a similar period (for example murder rate by firearm over the last 10 years).

[War_Junky_91]

My point was they are using particular statistics for each state to suit their point. A better and more academic approach would have been to look at each state and compare them over a similar period (for example murder rate by firearm over the last 10 years).

 

I see your point, but its hard to to that without publishing a report. Not really meant for a picture. And infact i have read a report on the subject, published by the FBI no less (read it cover to cover). And it supports what the picture says.

[mmmcannibalism]

showing that one guy who trained can shoot a revolver with extreme precision and speed doesnt prove much of a point. Yes, you can use a revolver for a mass killing, but no its never going to be as effective as an assault rifle without requiring months(years) of training just to use it to that level.

[War_Junky_91]

showing that one guy who trained can shoot a revolver with extreme precision and speed doesnt prove much of a point. Yes, you can use a revolver for a mass killing, but no its never going to be as effective as an assault rifle without requiring months(years) of training just to use it to that level.

 

And assualt weapons can't compare to a homemade bomb surrounded by thousands of ball berrings. Don't get me wrong, i'm not opposed to regulating the ownership of assualt weapons, but i want them to be possible to own. And with the revolver video i was just proving the point of how fast you can reload a revolver. Its barely a hinderance. And if someone with a revolver walks into a mall store with only one exit everybody is gonna be on the ground, not running. This happened in texas and the guy just picked people off one by one at his own leisure.

[Quoi_Tu]

And assualt weapons can't compare to a homemade bomb surrounded by thousands of ball berrings. Don't get me wrong, i'm not opposed to regulating the ownership of assualt weapons, but i want them to be possible to own. And with the revolver video i was just proving the point of how fast you can reload a revolver. Its barely a hinderance. And if someone with a revolver walks into a mall store with only one exit everybody is gonna be on the ground, not running. This happened in texas and the guy just picked people off one by one at his own leisure.

 

That would seem to make things worse, by your argument that is.

[War_Junky_91]

And assualt weapons can't compare to a homemade bomb surrounded by thousands of ball berrings. Don't get me wrong, i'm not opposed to regulating the ownership of assualt weapons, but i want them to be possible to own. And with the revolver video i was just proving the point of how fast you can reload a revolver. Its barely a hinderance. And if someone with a revolver walks into a mall store with only one exit everybody is gonna be on the ground, not running. This happened in texas and the guy just picked people off one by one at his own leisure.

 

That would seem to make things worse, by your argument that is.

 

The guy in texas used a handgun. And by possible to own i mean with a federal permit that requires multiple background checks and a pysch evaluation along with a hundred hours of gun safety courses.

[venomai]

So called "assualt weapons" are used in LESS than three percent of gun crimes. And explosives? I don't think you can even find a statistic for explosive use in crime.

 

Cheers for missing my point and rebutting with something completely irrelevant. :thumbup:

[Quoi_Tu]

The guy in texas used a handgun. And by possible to own i mean with a federal permit that requires multiple background checks and a pysch evaluation along with a hundred hours of gun safety courses.

 

That was my point.

 

 

 

Shouldn't they just do the bold for all gun sales? Well, the hundred hours seems a bit much, but proper permits and training seem like something that the government should require. In fact, I think that's been said a few times in this thread. Always a good suggestion though!