Gun Control

[baalboy5]

Make bullets cost more then a gun. Nothing wrong with that. Not like being able to kill should be cheap.

 

We don't need gun control! We need bullet control!, I say each bullet should cost 5 thousand dollars, then they'll be no more innocent bystanders. Hell If you got shot they would take their bullet back!'

 

 

 

 

 

Also all that self-defense bs.

 

Can someone tell me a estimate of how many 'self-defense' measurements have been used with guns in the past years?

 

If I recall, the only reason we were aloud to have guns was because of the fight for indepence.

 

 

 

I've been resisting the urge to post that Chris Rock quote up,

Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his a**!' And people would think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your f*ing head off, if I could afford it.

 

 

I'm gonna get a another job, start saving some money, then you a dead man!

[Zierro]

 

That's not always a bad thing especially from a pro gunner's point of view. The main argument for pro gun is for self defense. What better method of self defense than an ensuring death upon some crazy person who is attempting to take innocent lives?

 

 

 

Or, how much easier do guns make it for psycho's to go on the rampage and take the innocent lives in the first place.

 

 

 

Psychos will always find ways to get guns... we're talking about the innocent people being allowed to carry the guns.

[venomai]

I was talking about homicide as opposed to suicide though.

 

My mistake. My argument is about the same for homicide: even if attempted homicide rates remain the same, overall homicide rates will generally decline due to the substituted weapons being "less lethal."

 

 

 

That's not always a bad thing especially from a pro gunner's point of view. The main argument for pro gun is for self defense. What better method of self defense than an ensuring death upon some crazy person who is attempting to take innocent lives?

 

Self-defense relies on defensive tactics, not offensive tactics. Deadly force should be the last resort in an act of self-defense, not the first.

 

 

 

A combination of martial arts and flight is probably the best form of self-defense in most situations. And in most states, it's also the most legal method:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_s ... lf-defense

 

 

 

Keep in mind, the world is not out to get you. "Crazies" are not around every corner, waiting to kill you and your family.

 

 

 

The goal of effective self-defense from violent crime is to reduce the hoimicide rate, not increase it. Whether or not putting a bullet in another man's head is justified by self-defense, the benefits of so-called "effective self-defense" do not outweigh its risks.

[venomai]

Psychos will always find ways to get guns... we're talking about the innocent people being allowed to carry the guns.

 

And I repeat...

 

 

 

Criminals will get guns, if they want them. Black market guns aren't that uncommon. It's like drugs, just because they're illegal, doesn't mean people won't get them.

 

The legality may not deter people from acquiring these products, but the demand certainly does. Low demand of a product means less availability. Just like drugs.

[ember3579]

Psychos will always find ways to get guns... we're talking about the innocent people being allowed to carry the guns.

 

And I repeat...

 

 

 

Criminals will get guns, if they want them. Black market guns aren't that uncommon. It's like drugs, just because they're illegal, doesn't mean people won't get them.

 

The legality may not deter people from acquiring these products, but the demand certainly does. Low demand of a product means less availability. Just like drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

And how do you suggest we do that? As long as people know they exist, and as long as they remain the most effective way of killing somebody, they will 1) be desirable for the criminal element and 2) be found in abundance and very wide variety on the black market. There's things on it in America that even some NATIONAL MILITARIES don't have access to. Want to bet someone can find an effective weapon on it?

[venomai]

1) be desirable for the criminal element

 

Sure, demand will always be high among criminals. This doesn't necessarily mean that the demand will be high enough for any average-Joe to acquire a gun, though. Keep in mind that most gun crimes are not committed by Hollywood-like masterminds with military-grade suppliers.

 

 

 

2) be found in abundance and very wide variety on the black market. There's things on it in America that even some NATIONAL MILITARIES don't have access to. Want to bet someone can find an effective weapon on it?

 

The black market isn't an underground eBay. It's a term that loosely wraps up all illegal dealings and 'suppliers', from your neighbour selling you a pistol under the table, to a high-end supplier for the Yakuza. It's ridiculous to assume that every criminal can acquire any weapon they want just because "it exists in the black market."

[Zierro]

My mistake. My argument is about the same for homicide: even if attempted homicide rates remain the same, overall homicide rates will generally decline due to the substituted weapons being "less lethal."

 

 

 

It's really anyone's guess though. In my eyes I don't see that happening because based on the past I think that the banning of guns wouldn't change the homicide rate all that much. Back then, all weapons were less lethal yet people have always been murdering each other left and right.

 

 

 

Self-defense relies on defensive tactics, not offensive tactics. Deadly force should be the last resort in an act of self-defense, not the first.

 

 

 

The best defense is a good offense.

 

 

 

A combination of martial arts and flight is probably the best form of self-defense in most situations. And in most states, it's also the most legal method:

 

 

 

Why are you being so lenient on psychos who have the intent to murder innocent people? There's only so much running away and karate chopping can do to someone with the intent to kill.

 

 

 

Keep in mind, the world is not out to get you. "Crazies" are not around every corner, waiting to kill you and your family.

 

 

 

Saying that homicide isn't that common looks good for both of our arguments. For you, it means we don't have a need for defense. For me, it means we shouldn't be worried about guns causing so many killing sprees in the first place (what anti gun people are afraid of). But that's just based on what you said about the crazies.

 

 

 

The goal of effective self-defense from violent crime is to reduce the hoimicide rate, not increase it. Whether or not putting a bullet in another man's head is justified by self-defense, the benefits of so-called "effective self-defense" do not outweigh its risks.

 

 

 

Well I happen to believe in eye for an eye and you don't. That's all it comes down to.

 

 

 

The legality may not deter people from acquiring these products, but the demand certainly does. Low demand of a product means less availability. Just like drugs.

 

 

 

How on earth are we going to extinguish the demand?

[venomai]

In my eyes I don't see that happening because based on the past I think that the banning of guns wouldn't change the homicide rate all that much.

 

We're not talking about an outright ban on guns, just like those who strive to reduce alcohol abuse aren't suggesting outright prohibition.

 

 

 

My comment was directed at Barihawk's earlier statement: "a reduction in gun crime only leads to an increase in others."

 

 

 

Back then, all weapons were less lethal yet people have always been murdering each other left and right.

 

I think we've all established that people can murder without the use of guns.

 

 

 

The best defense is a good offense.

 

A phrase that applies to hockey, maybe, but not self-defense. Try using that one in court.

 

 

 

Why are you being so lenient on psychos who have the intent to murder innocent people?

 

How am I being lenient? Martial arts and flight are two excellent methods of self-defense. Giving a person a knife and expecting them to use it properly, on the other hand, is a very poor method of self-defense.

 

 

 

For you, it means we don't have a need for defense.

 

I'm not suggesting that we don't have a need for self-defense. I'm suggesting that we don't need to go to the extent of equipping civilians with weapons, particularly if doing so results in an increase of overall homicide rates.

 

 

 

For me, it means we shouldn't be worried about guns causing so many killing sprees in the first place.

 

Just because all criminals aren't out to get you and your dog doesn't mean criminals aren't killing people.

 

 

 

Homicide is uncommon in the sense that most people aren't directly affected by it. Along the same vein, it's likely that you're not going to die from a drunk driver, but this obviously doesn't mean we "shouldn't worry about drunk drivers."

 

 

 

Well I happen to believe in eye for an eye and you don't. That's all it comes down to.

 

You've ignored my point completely and given me something totally unrelated.

 

 

 

How on earth are we going to extinguish the demand?

 

I'm not suggesting that extinction of demand is possible (in fact, I explicitly agreed that demand will always exist among criminals).

 

 

 

Reduction of demand, on the other hand, is possible through a change of culture.

[Zierro]

My comment was directed at Barihawk's earlier statement: "a reduction in gun crime only leads to an increase in others."

 

 

 

And it would. Crime has always been on our planet... guns have not. People want to murder to end the lives of other people - not just to have an excuse to use their guns.

 

 

 

A phrase that applies to hockey, maybe, but not self-defense. Try using that one in court.

 

 

 

I most certainly would. There are several cases where it is justifiable to kill out of self defense. Ever heard of the Castle Law?

 

 

 

How am I being lenient? Martial arts and flight are two excellent methods of self-defense. Giving a person a knife and expecting them to use it properly, on the other hand, is a very poor method of self-defense.

 

 

 

What? This isn't on topic but why is the knife user presumably not experienced in that field but the martial arts user is? I am pretty sure it is easier for the average person to use guns as defense instead of martial arts. Don't you need a clear mind for that type of thing? I don't see how that could happen when you have a gun pointing at you. If I were in a situation where I know I was going to be assaulted with someone with a gun, I'd much rather have a gun than take the risk of running or fighting him barehanded. If he doesn't care about my welfare I sure as hell won't care about his.

 

 

 

Just because all criminals aren't out to get you and your dog doesn't mean criminals aren't killing people.

 

 

 

I am a person aren't I...?

 

 

 

Homicide is uncommon in the sense that most people aren't directly affected by it. Along the same vein, it's likely that you're not going to die from a drunk driver, but this obviously doesn't mean we "shouldn't worry about drunk drivers."

 

 

 

Yeah and it still works for both of our arguments. If you're saying, even though it's, rare then we still should worry about homicide, why shouldn't we worry about defense?

 

 

 

You've ignored my point completely and given me something totally unrelated.

 

 

 

How is that unrelated? I don't care about the statistics for homicidal rates - I care about innocent people being able to have the right to take any measure possible to protect their own lives, and in some cases that means shooting the killer. My opinion is that you shouldn't put the murderer's life on the same level as the victim's.

 

 

 

Reduction of demand, on the other hand, is possible through a change of culture.

 

 

 

How will this happen?

[venomai]

And it would. Crime has always been on our planet... guns have not. People want to murder to end the lives of other people - not just to have an excuse to use their guns.

 

I feel like a broken record.

 

 

 

Yes, people kill people. Yes, people kill people without using guns. Yes, a reduction of gun crime may lead to an increase in crime of other weapons.

 

 

 

Now that we have that cleared up; perhaps you can read the rest of my posts? I don't feel like repeating it all over again.

 

 

 

Ever heard of the Castle Law?

 

The Castle Law does not translate to "the best defense is a strong offense."

 

 

 

I don't doubt that there are numerous situations in which use of deadly force is justified in an act of self-defense.

 

 

 

I am pretty sure it is easier for the average person to use guns as defense instead of martial arts.

 

Of course, this is highly dependent on the situation as well as whether or not the individual is experienced with guns or martial arts. Since the average person (except maybe in America) is not trained in either, the best defense would be flight.

 

 

 

Don't you need a clear mind for that type of thing?

 

Not particularly. Martial arts teaches you to be aware at most times, and prepared to defend yourself if ever the need arises.

 

 

 

If I were in a situation where I know I was going to be assaulted with someone with a gun, I'd much rather have a gun than take the risk of running or fighting him barehanded.

 

I'd rather not a gun. Pulling it out would probably get me shot, and even if it doesn't, I would probably miss and still get shot. My chances are much better if I run. Best of all would be to just give the guy my wallet and let him go on his way.

 

 

 

And I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about defense. Read my post again... I've made myself explicitly clear. I'd go as far as suggesting basic defensive martial arts training as a part of school systems. It would be a lot more useful than some of the crap we learn now.

 

 

 

How is that unrelated? I don't care about the statistics for homicidal rates

 

You've answered your own question.

 

 

 

I care about innocent people being able to have the right to take any measure possible to protect their own lives

 

So you could care less how many more people die as a result of this improved "protection"? :lol:

 

 

 

My opinion is that you shouldn't put the murderer's life on the same level as the victim's.

 

Great. I'm not doing that.

 

 

 

How will this happen?

 

Protesting, lobbying, discourse, prominent figures speaking to the public, changes in education and in the constitution, etc. Culture is always changing (capital punishment, black slavery, woman's rights, etc). Gun culture is a feature that can be changed just like any other.

[folmer_veeman]

 

 

 

I am pretty sure it is easier for the average person to use guns as defense instead of martial arts.

 

Of course, this is highly dependent on the situation as well as whether or not the individual is experienced with guns or martial arts. Since the average person (except maybe in America) is not trained in either, the best defense would be flight.

 

 

 

But if you were to take gun training (or whatever you call it) you would be able to shoot the robber, and thus allow the cops to arrest him. (Unless you shot him dead..)

 

 

 

If I were in a situation where I know I was going to be assaulted with someone with a gun, I'd much rather have a gun than take the risk of running or fighting him barehanded.

 

I'd rather not a gun. Pulling it out would probably get me shot, and even if it doesn't, I would probably miss and still get shot. My chances are much better if I run. Best of all would be to just give the guy my wallet and let him go on his way.

 

 

 

So you hate guns because you are a wimp and believe helping criminals is the best way to go? :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tut tut..

[NoMoreDead]

 

 

 

I am pretty sure it is easier for the average person to use guns as defense instead of martial arts.

 

Of course, this is highly dependent on the situation as well as whether or not the individual is experienced with guns or martial arts. Since the average person (except maybe in America) is not trained in either, the best defense would be flight.

 

 

 

But if you were to take gun training (or whatever you call it) you would be able to shoot the robber, and thus allow the cops to arrest him. (Unless you shot him dead..)

 

 

 

If I were in a situation where I know I was going to be assaulted with someone with a gun, I'd much rather have a gun than take the risk of running or fighting him barehanded.

 

I'd rather not a gun. Pulling it out would probably get me shot, and even if it doesn't, I would probably miss and still get shot. My chances are much better if I run. Best of all would be to just give the guy my wallet and let him go on his way.

 

 

 

So you hate guns because you are a wimp and believe helping criminals is the best way to go? :shame:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tut tut..

 

 

 

*Slaps*

 

 

 

Why even post if that's what you're going to respond with? Venomai puts up a couple of valid points, and you respond with utter nonsense and an insult. Well done.

[RichieMcD]

What? This isn't on topic but why is the knife user presumably not experienced in that field but the martial arts user is? I am pretty sure it is easier for the average person to use guns as defense instead of martial arts. Don't you need a clear mind for that type of thing? I don't see how that could happen when you have a gun pointing at you. If I were in a situation where I know I was going to be assaulted with someone with a gun, I'd much rather have a gun than take the risk of running or fighting him barehanded. If he doesn't care about my welfare I sure as hell won't care about his.

 

 

 

You think you'd be able to unholster a gun, turn the safety off and shoot an armed criminal pointing a gun at you and watching your movements? You're either [developmentally delayed]ed or superman :|

 

 

 

If I was in a situation where I was confronted by an armed criminal I'd give him what he wants, a phone and wallet isn't worth the possibility of your life.

[BlueLancer]

Exactly what I learned both in the army & later in Krav Maga lessons:

 

 

 

07jnqD8wvyE

 

 

 

If in civilian life you're pointed at with a gun, your first and foremost option is giving the robber the freaking cellphone or wallet with 20 bucks, even if you have a knife or gun.

 

 

 

You should only attempt to attack back & possibly try disarming him if it becomes clear you have given him everything & he is willing to take your life or harm another human being physically.

 

 

 

The amount of arrogance by some teens here is astonishing; That kind of situation is not an ego issue nor does it have anything to do with the bill of rights or the constitution. It can mean the difference between your life and death. Don't try to be a hero.

 

 

 

God forbid you ever have to face that kind of situation, please use common sense. Forget the fiction and fantasy you see in hollywood movies and concentrate on staying alive in reality

[folmer_veeman]

 

*Slaps*

 

 

 

Why even post if that's what you're going to respond with? Venomai puts up a couple of valid points, and you respond with utter nonsense and an insult. Well done.

 

 

 

I saw that coming, I didn't exactly mean to insult him, I just meant that just giving in isn't going to help. Criminals will just try it again if they get away with it that easily, and thus you do save YOUR life but the robberychain will go on until someone steps up to the person or the police complete their investigation. And still, not all his points were valid..

 

 

 

Like this one

 

 

Ever heard of the Castle Law?

 

 

 

The Castle Law does not translate to "the best defense is a strong offense."

 

I don't doubt that there are numerous situations in which use of deadly force is justified in an act of self-defense.

 

 

 

I mean, he contradicts himself by first implying you shouldn't shoot people invading your home, but after that he says that he believes there are a lot of cases where it's justified..

[Barihawk]

Speaking as an advocate for further gun control and against a ban, let me say this.

 

 

 

Violence should indeed only be used as a last resort. I hate to say something out of Halo, but the world has enough dead heroes. You can retrieve your credit cards, you can get a new cell phone. If you ever find yourself mugged, you should always do what they say unless you feel your life is in immediate danger.

 

 

 

Same goes for home defense. An unloaded weapon makes for a good tool, a loaded one is simply asking for trouble. Don't rely on either. First thing you should do is call the police and barricade yourself into a closet or safe room, and then protect yourself/your family. Chances are that a guy trying to remove your TV through the window is not going anywhere fast.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Great video, BlueLancer. We were never taught the self-defence part, but handing over your possessions and informing the police afterwards is by far the safest thing to do. It's common street knowledge.

 

 

 

I mean, he contradicts himself by first implying you shouldn't shoot people invading your home, but after that he says that he believes there are a lot of cases where it's justified..

 

Yeah, as in, when someone's life is in unlawful danger and there's absolutely no alternative but to use deadly force. Someone walking in through your door with a gun hardly equates to popping a bullet through their head, though! :lol:

 

 

 

Your first point defies logic too. Many people steal, or break into houses because they're desperate for money. It's not exactly a career choice they keep coming back to, when the risks against them are so high.

[folmer_veeman]

Ginger, let me give you an example, if you'd find answers to a test for a subject that you suck in, would you copy them? Ofcourse (at least I sure do hope so ;)). And what if you find out that the teacher stores the test answers in the same place EVERY time, wouldn't you return?

 

You do know you can be suspended/expelled for it, but it's easy winnings....

 

Think about it ;)

[Riku3220]

Ginger, let me give you an example, if you'd find answers to a test for a subject that you suck in, would you copy them? Ofcourse (at least I sure do hope so ;)). And what if you find out that the teacher stores the test answers in the same place EVERY time, wouldn't you return?

 

You do know you can be suspended/expelled for it, but it's easy winnings....

 

Think about it ;)

 

 

 

But you won't laern anything. If you're not going to learn anything the entire point of going to school is wasted because you won't even need to study if you copy the answers.

[Lateralus]

If someone is consistently robbing you it should be fairly easy for the police to catch them anyway.

[folmer_veeman]

If someone is consistently robbing you it should be fairly easy for the police to catch them anyway.

 

 

 

It's not smart to rob the same person twice anyway..

[Ginger_Warrior]

Ginger, let me give you an example, if you'd find answers to a test for a subject that you suck in, would you copy them? Ofcourse (at least I sure do hope so ;)). And what if you find out that the teacher stores the test answers in the same place EVERY time, wouldn't you return?

 

I would have had to have sucked in a subject at school first. PE doesn't count since the test was mostly regurgitated Biology. ;)

 

 

 

Think about it ;)

 

I wish you would. Comparing a school test, where the biggest punishment I'll get is a retest, to breaking into someone's house in sheer desperation where the worst possible punishment I'll get is a jail sentence, or someone shooting me dead, is plainly illogical.

 

 

 

I'll leave you to talk to a criminologist before trying to second guess the psychology of a thief. ;)

 

 

 

This post is so full of winks, you can make a parallelogram out of it (I think).

[Zierro]

You think you'd be able to unholster a gun, turn the safety off and shoot an armed criminal pointing a gun at you and watching your movements? You're either [developmentally delayed] or superman :|

 

 

 

I love how that hypothetical scenario works out perfectly in your favor. Now let me try: you hear someone breaking into your house and then you go get your gun prepared right away before he even knows you're there.

 

 

 

We can do this all day.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My opinion is that you shouldn't put the murderer's life on the same level as the victim's.

Great. I'm not doing that.

 

 

 

And yet you say this eye for an eye thing is unrelated. :roll:

 

 

 

You fail to see the point behind pro gun. We don't care about people who are going to try to kill us!! Including their deaths as part of your homicidal statistic argument doesn't work against us. I'm in favor of saving innocent people's lives, not saving murderer's lives like you are.

 

 

 

I'd rather not a gun. Pulling it out would probably get me shot, and even if it doesn't, I would probably miss and still get shot. My chances are much better if I run. Best of all would be to just give the guy my wallet and let him go on his way.

 

 

 

So you're assuming that you would miss and the other person wouldn't? That's pretty convenient.

[folmer_veeman]

Ginger, let me give you an example, if you'd find answers to a test for a subject that you suck in, would you copy them? Ofcourse (at least I sure do hope so ;)). And what if you find out that the teacher stores the test answers in the same place EVERY time, wouldn't you return?

 

I would have had to have sucked in a subject at school first. PE doesn't count since the test was mostly regurgitated Biology. ;)

 

 

 

#-o

 

This isn't a topic about bragging about your grades.. And besides I gave a hypothetical scenario, which would mean you would hypothetically suck at the one subject..

 

 

 

 

 

Think about it ;)

 

I wish you would. Comparing a school test, where the biggest punishment I'll get is a retest, to breaking into someone's house in sheer desperation where the worst possible punishment I'll get is a jail sentence, or someone shooting me dead, is plainly illogical.

 

 

 

Erm, if you would cheat for lots of tests, you would get a retest? What kind of soft school do you go to.. Any school would at least suspend you for cheating :wall:

 

 

 

 

'Nuff said (well actually not but I can't be arsed to post more :))

[Ginger_Warrior]

The points I'm making are these. The rest was banter:

 

 

 

1) We can play hypothetical scenarios until the cows come home. I can use any scenario my imagination can think of, and believe, knowing me, it wouldn't take long to think of one. This is going nowhere.

 

2) Your scenario was so disconnected from the original point of this thread it's silly. The motives are different, the consequences are different, there's barely any similarity at all and comparing psychology like that is ridiculous.

 

 

 

Make a relevant point, or don't. It's your choice.