Gun Control

[obfuscator]

So it's locked in a closet? Going to be pretty difficult to grab that in the heat of the moment, eh?

 

And as someone's already iterated, I doubt even a trained soldier could manage to run and grab a gun before the person pointing it at him shoots.

[Giordano]

Because I accept the fact that I'm not trained to use a firearm. I've never fired a gun before and don't relish the prospect of pulling one, having it taken from me because I'm incompetent with it, and having it used against me.

No, I mean once you're trained, once you're comfortable weilding a gun, why don't you think you can't handle a situation where your life is in danger? What keeps you from thinking you can have power and control in a situation? if not, why don't you think you CAN be trained to wield a gun? Plus, why is taking a human life so immoral to you? A human life whose objective is to make yours miserable?

 

So it's locked in a closet? Going to be pretty difficult to grab that in the heat of the moment, eh?

 

And as someone's already iterated, I doubt even a trained soldier could manage to run and grab a gun before the person pointing it at him shoots.

Now you want guns banned because you think people will still dash for them while being pointed at? Seriously?

 

ONCE A GUN IS POINTED AT YOU, YOU ARE SCREWED. HIGH OR LOW GUN LAWS YOU ARE SCREWED EITHER WAY. Stop arguing for people's safety from their own guns.

[Zierro]

I don't know a single person who's had a gun pulled on them, or who's been in a situation where a gun would have saved their life. I don't see why these lethal weapons need to be readily available when the fact is the opportunities they would be used are one in a million.

 

So if you knew a couple of people who have been in that situation, would you feel differently?

 

Here's a scenario for you. Man breaks into your house to steal something, sees your guns. You come downstairs, he grabs one, points it at you. Now what?

 

So it's locked in a closet? Going to be pretty difficult to grab that in the heat of the moment, eh?

 

And as someone's already iterated, I doubt even a trained soldier could manage to run and grab a gun before the person pointing it at him shoots.

 

For every scenario you have where a gun isn't very helpful, we have one where it is.

[Furah]

So it's locked in a closet? Going to be pretty difficult to grab that in the heat of the moment, eh?

 

And as someone's already iterated, I doubt even a trained soldier could manage to run and grab a gun before the person pointing it at him shoots.

If the gun is pointed at his head and he is unarmed, at that point he would cooperate. But if he was in his study and heard something coming from the living room, he could easily grab the gun he has hidden in his desk and confront the person. Hopefully without having to use it.

 

Taking guns away from civilians only makes life easier for the criminals. If you were a criminal would you try and steal from people who may have a gun and be trained how to use it? Of course not, you'd want to steal from an area where all firearms are illegal.

[Kriegsmier]

So it's locked in a closet? Going to be pretty difficult to grab that in the heat of the moment, eh?

 

And as someone's already iterated, I doubt even a trained soldier could manage to run and grab a gun before the person pointing it at him shoots.

 

No, they are hidden in a closet. Not in plain view like your previous post implied. This is not the 1800s, and people do not keep them by the door anymore.

 

So it's locked in a closet? Going to be pretty difficult to grab that in the heat of the moment, eh?

 

And as someone's already iterated, I doubt even a trained soldier could manage to run and grab a gun before the person pointing it at him shoots.

If the gun is pointed at his head and he is unarmed, at that point he would cooperate. But if he was in his study and heard something coming from the living room, he could easily grab the gun he has hidden in his desk and confront the person. Hopefully without having to use it.

 

Taking guns away from civilians only makes life easier for the criminals. If you were a criminal would you try and steal from people who may have a gun and be trained how to use it? Of course not, you'd want to steal from an area where all firearms are illegal.

 

Precisely.

[obfuscator]

 

No, I mean once you're trained, once you're comfortable weilding a gun, why don't you think you can't handle a situation where your life is in danger? What keeps you from thinking you can have power and control in a situation? if not, why don't you think you CAN be trained to wield a gun? Plus, why is taking a human life so immoral to you? A human life whose objective is to make yours miserable?

 

If I was trained, if I was comfortable, I'm sure I could handle it. I wouldn't want to, I'm a pacifist by nature and don't want to take a life, because I see the value of it.

 

 

ONCE A GUN IS POINTED AT YOU, YOU ARE SCREWED. HIGH OR LOW GUN LAWS YOU ARE SCREWED EITHER WAY. Stop arguing for people's safety from their own guns.

 

You've just summed up my point 100% - if you have a gun pointed at you possessing a firearm will not help.

 

If the gun is pointed at his head and he is unarmed, at that point he would cooperate. But if he was in his study and heard something coming from the living room, he could easily grab the gun he has hidden in his desk and confront the person. Hopefully without having to use it.

 

Taking guns away from civilians only makes life easier for the criminals. If you were a criminal would you try and steal from people who may have a gun and be trained how to use it? Of course not, you'd want to steal from an area where all firearms are illegal.

 

Your logic makes no sense - illegal or not someone possessing a firearm may be trained in how to use it. The gun laws are irrelevant in this case.

 

Guns being legal: Man buys gun, commits crime.

 

Guns being illegal: Man must first find a place to steal a gun from. Then he must successfully steal the gun. Then, while being hunted by the police for the theft of that gun, he must successfully commit another crime.

 

Which is easier? You tell me.

 

@Zierro - I'm not denying guns have their uses. All I'm saying is the chances of your average citizen being in one of those situations is very small - and not worth the negative effects of light gun laws.

[sees_all1]

Guns being illegal: Man must first find a place to steal a gun from. Then he must successfully steal the gun. Then, while being hunted by the police for the theft of that gun, he must successfully commit another crime.

How about, gun is smuggled into country (not stolen). Gun is purchased illegally out of someone's trunk (nobody knows about it). Gun is used to commit crime.

If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns; that means the normal civilians that own them will turn them in, leaving everyone more vulnerable.

 

Also, people I work with own guns. They regularly go to ranges and shoot them. Others I work with rent guns, and shoot at ranges. If nothing else it's a valid reason to own a gun - as a hobby.

[Giordano]

 

 

You've just summed up my point 100% - if you have a gun pointed at you possessing a firearm will not help.

I know it won't help. We all know that. What I'm saying is stop trying to defend gun control with stupid, end-of-the-line scenarios like that.

 

 

If I was trained, if I was comfortable, I'm sure I could handle it. I wouldn't want to, I'm a pacifist by nature and don't want to take a life, because I see the value of it.

Have a good life getting walked on all over then.

[obfuscator]

 

 

You've just summed up my point 100% - if you have a gun pointed at you possessing a firearm will not help.

I know it won't help. We all know that. What I'm saying is stop trying to defend gun control with stupid, end-of-the-line scenarios like that.

 

Yeah, the scenarios aren't really helping either way.

 

Have a good life getting walked on all over then.

I will, I'll let you know how it turns out. Going ok so far :thumbup:

 

@sees_all: I agree to an extent, but you forget that the harder guns are to get, only the most serious criminals will bother to get them.

 

The chart felix posted that I've linked to several times proves this: gun crime is much higher in the states because guns are so readily available.

 

As I've also said before, shooting range and collection is a valid reason to own a gun.

[Zygimantas]

I have a question that is somewhat related to gun ownership. Lets say someone breaks into my house at night, I go and grab my gun and put it in a pocket. Then I go downstairs and see someone trying to steal my stuff, he sees me and pulls out a gun , he shoots me and the bullet hits my foot. I then take out my gun and shoot him in the head, killing him. This is considered manslaughter on my part right? Would I go to jail for that?

[Zierro]

If I was trained, if I was comfortable, I'm sure I could handle it. I wouldn't want to, I'm a pacifist by nature and don't want to take a life, because I see the value of it.

 

I value human morale and integrity, those who maliciously offend it should have no part in our society. They are a detriment and an enemy to society, and I don't know how you could argue against that - they are the ones who kill people for little to no reason. They are what we should get rid of - not the practice of self-defense.

 

Would you rather have an innocent child dead or an armed burglar dead? I value the detrimental less because without them, the people who actually do care about human morale and integrity would live more peaceful lives, which they deserve. The armed burglar is indifferent to an innocent person's right to life. Why give him a right he doesn't even agree with? He's undeserving and it's not worth the risk.

 

The chart felix posted that I've linked to several times proves this: gun crime is much higher in the states because guns are so readily available.

 

So, in America, you believe that bringing guns off the main market will cause gangs, murderers, burglars, etc. to all of a sudden give up their ways of life? Making something illegal isn't exactly the best way to stop America from doing something. Let's take marijuana for example. It is not readily available on the main market, yet is still an extremely common activity amongst teens. The Prohibition Act showed exactly what happens when you ban something that Americans believe they deserve the right to. Ironically, it caused more problems because it allowed underground gangster alcohol trafficking to thrive.

[obfuscator]

If I was trained, if I was comfortable, I'm sure I could handle it. I wouldn't want to, I'm a pacifist by nature and don't want to take a life, because I see the value of it.

 

I value human morale and integrity, those who maliciously offend it should have no part in our society. They are a detriment and an enemy to society, and I don't know how you could argue against that - they are the ones who kill people for little to no reason. They are what we should get rid of - not the practice of self-defense.

 

Would you rather have an innocent child dead or an armed burglar dead? I value the detrimental less because without them, the people who actually do care about human morale and integrity would live more peaceful lives, which they deserve. The armed burglar is indifferent to an innocent person's right to life. Why give him a right he doesn't even agree with? He's undeserving and it's not worth the risk.

 

Here's the thing - you forget that it is usually possible to have both the innocent child and armed robber survive. Having guns around lessens that possibility.

 

The chart felix posted that I've linked to several times proves this: gun crime is much higher in the states because guns are so readily available.

 

So, in America, you believe that bringing guns off the main market will cause gangs, murderers, burglars, etc. to all of a sudden give up their ways of life? Making something illegal isn't exactly the best way to stop America from doing something. Let's take marijuana for example. It is not readily available on the main market, yet is still an extremely common activity amongst teens. The Prohibition Act showed exactly what happens when you ban something that Americans believe they deserve the right to. Ironically, it caused more problems because it allowed underground gangster alcohol trafficking to thrive.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. Of course the gangs will still get guns. The murderers and burglars will turn to other weapons, and the survival rate will be higher, which the statistics prove.

[Dexek]

I've had a gun pulled on me 3 times, and I've used a rifle not to save my life, but the life of pets/livestock numerous times. I personally see use in their availability.

[obfuscator]

I've had a gun pulled on me 3 times, and I've used a rifle not to save my life, but the life of pets/livestock numerous times. I personally see use in their availability.

As I've said before hunting is a legitimate usage (or at least killing animals)

[Dexek]

I've had a gun pulled on me 3 times, and I've used a rifle not to save my life, but the life of pets/livestock numerous times. I personally see use in their availability.

As I've said before hunting is a legitimate usage (or at least killing animals)

 

Ohh, it wasn't animals.

[obfuscator]

I've had a gun pulled on me 3 times, and I've used a rifle not to save my life, but the life of pets/livestock numerous times. I personally see use in their availability.

As I've said before hunting is a legitimate usage (or at least killing animals)

 

Ohh, it wasn't animals.

Explain?

[sees_all1]

You're putting words in my mouth. Of course the gangs will still get guns. The murderers and burglars will turn to other weapons, and the survival rate will be higher, which the statistics prove.

Statistics never prove anything. [/stat nazi]

If someone is willing to murder another, I don't see how making guns illegal will stop them (from murder, and from obtaining an illegal firearm). I understand how legal guns can deter them (you know, bigger risk to your own life to take another).

Anyone want to look for a stat for me? Say, number of incidents of armed robbery in gas stations, banks, and.... gun shops? Would be interesting to see.

[Dexek]

I've had a gun pulled on me 3 times, and I've used a rifle not to save my life, but the life of pets/livestock numerous times. I personally see use in their availability.

As I've said before hunting is a legitimate usage (or at least killing animals)

 

Ohh, it wasn't animals.

Explain?

 

When someone is on your property attempting to take your animals, a gun and a short temper makes them change their mind very quickly.

 

EDIT: Same with people trying to steal gas.

[Zierro]

You're putting words in my mouth.

 

I'm sorry.

 

Of course the gangs will still get guns. The murderers and burglars will turn to other weapons, and the survival rate will be higher, which the statistics prove.

 

Those statistics prove that less people would die? You're jumping to conclusions. I could easily say that the Prohibition Act proves that underground gun trafficking will become a huge problem, and the US government will try to stop them, but since the criminals will all be well armed, it will cause a lot more carnage and chaos than if guns were trafficked legally.

 

Point here being that you're throwing around the word "prove" too lightly. The other point being that a lack of legalization does not stop America from doing what they want to do and can actually have a counterproductive effect.

 

Here's the thing - you forget that it is usually possible to have both the innocent child and armed robber survive. Having guns around lessens that possibility.

 

And how about for all the times where it isn't possible and it really is a matter of killing the armed man or allowing him to go through with his intentions to kill the innocent? I thought we just came to a consensus about the "guns are helpful here/guns are not helpful here" scenarios.

[Furah]

@Zierro - I'm not denying guns have their uses. All I'm saying is the chances of your average citizen being in one of those situations is very small - and not worth the negative effects of light gun laws.

They prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year in the US alone. Every day in the US; 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.

[fakeitormakeit2]

@Zierro - I'm not denying guns have their uses. All I'm saying is the chances of your average citizen being in one of those situations is very small - and not worth the negative effects of light gun laws.

They prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year in the US alone. Every day in the US; 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. In less than 0.9% of these instances is the gun ever actually fired. In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.

Statistics are nothing more than irrelevant numbers when not placed into context. Numbers fluctuate just because [there doesn't have to be a reason, perhaps less people robbed that year just by chance], perhaps 50% of the population moved away, or perhaps the police department saw an increase of 200 cops that year. Just because the burglary rate dropped that year doesn't mean it should be attributed solely to that firearms law, as it was obviously not the only thing that occurred that year.

 

And how does one estimate 2.5million crimes a year are prevented by guns? That's extremely subjective.

[Zierro]

Statistics are nothing more than irrelevant numbers when not placed into context. Numbers fluctuate just because [there doesn't have to be a reason, perhaps less people robbed that year just by chance], perhaps 50% of the population moved away, or perhaps the police department saw an increase of 200 cops that year. Just because the burglary rate dropped that year doesn't mean it should be attributed solely to that firearms law, as it was obviously not the only thing that occurred that year.

 

Ha, your criticisms against pro-gun statistics sound exactly the same as mine against anti-gun statistics. Can we all agree to stop using statistics and outlandish scenarios from now on? It becomes a stalemate for both sides.

[Furah]

And how does one estimate 2.5million crimes a year are prevented by guns? That's extremely subjective.

Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

[sees_all1]

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year.

Even if that had never happened before, we could do a thought experiment.

 

It is well known that town A is very pro-gun. That is to say more than 80% of the houses in town A own a firearm. Town B, 10 miles away, has ordinances prohibiting firearms (so much so that less than 5% of the people in town B have them).

If you were a thief, who would you rob?

 

Just saying, jail time is one thing (not enough to deter some individuals), but risking their life is another.

[Furah]

Just saying, jail time is one thing (not enough to deter some individuals), but risking their life is another.

Although this is an older survey, it is rather interesting to read.

 

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms[/i], James Wright and Peter

Rossi, Aldine, 1986']60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. 40% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.