Gun Control

[Zierro]

No, my response of "holy [cabbage]" to his absurd assertion was all that needed to be said. I know that guns stop criminals, quite frequently too.

[Furah]

"Glenn Beck"

 

Stopped reading the quote. I looked at the sources though, going off the average guns are 6 times more likely to be used defensively than for criminal use (going off the National Crime Victimisation Survey 2005.)

[sees_all1]

No, my response of "holy [cabbage]" to his absurd assertion was all that needed to be said. I know that guns stop criminals, quite frequently too.

Maybe I quoted the wrong person then :oops:

[obfuscator]

Thing is, while not ever person with a gun is crazy enough to kill someone who eggs their car, restrictions on guns prevent those crazy people from getting guns.

 

That's why, while it is a small minority, you don't see the same volume of these "only in america" gun stories as you do in any other country.

 

While there may be "no official correlation" between gun ownership and gun crime, the fact is that crime is still much much higher. Society may be violent, yes, but we're facilitating that by allowing easy access to guns for people who don't need them.

[Furah]

While there may be "no official correlation" between gun ownership and gun crime, the fact is that crime is still much much higher. Society may be violent, yes, but we're facilitating that by allowing easy access to guns for people who don't need them.

In Scotland you're three times as likely to be assaulted than in America, violent crime there has doubled over the last 20 years. It has one of the lowest percentage of gun ownership in the developed world. In Ireland you're more that twice as likely to be robbed by someone wielding a syringe than a gun.

[Zierro]

That's why, while it is a small minority, you don't see the same volume of these "only in america" gun stories as you do in any other country.

 

While there may be "no official correlation" between gun ownership and gun crime, the fact is that crime is still much much higher. Society may be violent, yes, but we're facilitating that by allowing easy access to guns for people who don't need them.

 

There are plenty of countries around the world that have just as many horror stories as the US - but instead of the vast majority involving guns they use bombs, knives, and an assortment of other creative lethal instruments. There are also guns, despite the difficulty of obtaining them.

 

There are also many cases where, in the US, they will use something other than a gun to murder people, despite guns already being legal. For example, The Deltona Massacre which happened to take place very close to where I live - a group of men broke into a house and murdered six people (even the girlfriend who was trying to hide in the closet while she watched her boyfriend get beat to death, and even their small dog) with metal baseball bats in an extremely gory manner. Over an Xbox or something I think it was?

 

In the end, it comes down to whether the deterrent of gun laws outweigh the deterrent of gun defense. We have convenient statistics and scenarios on both sides. Personally, I feel better knowing I have an effective means of preventing myself from getting killed in my own house by somebody who deserves to get taken out of humanity - so you know what my vote is.

 

I've fired them plenty of times, but I could never use one in "self-defense." There's no chance in hell I could shoot a living thing, let alone a human.

 

Not even if you saw a man with a weapon approaching your loved-ones?

[Kriegsmier]

I've fired them plenty of times, but I could never use one in "self-defense." There's no chance in hell I could shoot a living thing, let alone a human.

 

Not even if you saw a man with a weapon approaching your loved-ones?

 

Or better yet, you?

[Range_This11]

I'm in the same boat, I would never shoot another human being under any circumstances. The chances a gunman puts my family's lives in the balance is soooooooo low. Imagine ridiculous we would act if we applied that same asinine logic (preparing for the most outside of chances) to all aspects of our lives. Somehow it gets applied to guns and ends up a valid argument, I don't really get it.

[1337_Byte]

Gun control in theory is good if everyone could be prevented from owning guns, but unfortunately that's impossible. Gun control only makes normal people more defenseless and allows criminals to obtain weapons just as easily.

[Alg]

but man Michael Moore got it right.

[spoiler=Spoiler'd for your safety (TvTropes link)]

On the documentary's page:

#

# Did Not Do The Research / Critical Research Failure: He dismisses the claims of the impact violent videogames have in society by saying that most violent videogames come from Japan... while showing Mortal Kombat footage.

 

* In another scene Moore stands in front of a museum's B-52 and claims the plaque celebrates that the plane killed civilians in the Vietnam War. The plaque in question actually states that during one of the Linebacker operations' date=' the B-52 in question shot down a Vietnamese MiG with its tail gun.

* Later on, Moore tries to suggest that because the NRA was founded the same year the Ku Klux Klan was declared an illegal organisation, the two are connected. This ignores the minor issue that the NRA supported the Civil Rights movement and that Ulysses S. Grant, the President who outlawed the Klan, was made NRA president after leaving the White House.

o Add to that the fact that the NRA was founded in New York by two veterans of the Union Army, whereas the Klan at the time was found strictly in the South.

* And one for the road. Following the Columbine footage, Moore suggests that the NRA moved its annual meeting to Columbine in order to capitalize somehow on the tragedy. In truth, the meeting had been scheduled months, if not years, in advance (as any large meeting of a national organization would have to be), and the NRA scaled down the scope of the meeting, canceling many of the events and only going ahead with the bare bones of the meeting, the actual work they needed to get done, out of respect for the victims of the shooting. Under New York law for non-profit organizations (the law applicable to the NRA), that part of the meeting had to be held; it could not be rescheduled except at the meeting itself.

 

#

 

*

[b']

# Documentary Of Lies[/b]: Moore was called out for editing the responses of some interviewees to say the opposite of what they meant.

 

In the "Documentary of Lies" trope

#

# Michael Moore is notorious for editing the responses of his interviewees to say the opposite of what they meant and using images and sounds to imply a lot that he's not actually saying outright. His work consists entirely of one-sided advocacy of this or that political issue (the deciding factor in whether or not you consider his films to be this trope or honest advocacy is usually whether or not you agree with him).

 

* Hell even a lot of the people who fall on the same side of the issue as he does still don't care for him at this point, even the hardest of the hard left are seeing him as more and more of a liability as time goes on.

 

It's not exactly Wikipedia, but still... :razz: I do agree that the culture has a lot more to do with it, though probably not in the way you meant.

[Zierro]

I'm in the same boat, I would never shoot another human being under any circumstances. The chances a gunman puts my family's lives in the balance is soooooooo low. Imagine ridiculous we would act if we applied that same asinine logic (preparing for the most outside of chances) to all aspects of our lives. Somehow it gets applied to guns and ends up a valid argument, I don't really get it.

 

It still does happen. And we actually do take precautions like this all the time. In Disney World, an extremely small amount of people have died from heart conditions by riding certain rides. Now they give warnings, ask if you want to ride the less extreme version of the ride, and keep a closer watch on all of the riders. Seatbelts and lifesavers. How often do people get into accidents? Why prepare for them?

 

So is the unlikeliness of an event really such a valid argument to support "not preparing for the most outside of chances in our lives"?

[Kriegsmier]

Lol, it makes me laugh how many people sit here and say I wouldn't shoot even if you had a gun in your hand and you are about to get shot. You must be out of your freaking mind. Kill or be killed, that simple there is no other option at that point. Whatever, keep your rock hard exterior, you'll need it to deflect those bullets coming at you. You are not badass for taking a bullet in that situation, sorry.

[Alg]

You can't really know how you'll act in a situation like that without being in it. I'd think that most people would be too busy [cabbage]ting themselves to shoot.

[Range_This11]

Lol, it makes me laugh how many people sit here and say I wouldn't shoot even if you had a gun in your hand and you are about to get shot. You must be out of your freaking mind. Kill or be killed, that simple there is no other option at that point. Whatever, keep your rock hard exterior, you'll need it to deflect those bullets coming at you. You are not badass for taking a bullet in that situation, sorry.

I'm not a bad ass, but at least I can say I have a clear conscience.

[Zierro]

I'm not a bad ass, but at least I can say I have a clear conscience.

 

Having a clear conscience is exactly why I would save my loved-ones. I mean, completely your choice, but it is surprising to see how much you care about a murderer's life over your own or your family.

[Range_This11]

Maybe I sounded like too much of an [wagon] in that post. I think what I meant to say is I don't understand how someone could take another person's life, and maybe all of you that claim you could are much braver than I, but I absolutely know down to my core that I could not kill another human being no matter what they have done to me or my family. It is not up to me to take another person's life. My family doesn't mean any less to me because of that and I'd rather you not insinuate something like that.

[Saru Inc]

Maybe I sounded like too much of an [wagon] in that post. I think what I meant to say is I don't understand how someone could take another person's life, and maybe all of you that claim you could are much braver than I, but I absolutely know down to my core that I could not kill another human being no matter what they have done to me or my family. It is not up to me to take another person's life. My family doesn't mean any less to me because of that and I'd rather you not insinuate something like that.

 

 

I'm basically like that, I mean, I would state the same thing. But I have a feeling that if I was *really* in that situation, I would shoot them in a heartbeat.

 

 

I've not really decided a clear position in gun control, so I won't partake in this debate much.

[Range_This11]

But I have a feeling that if I was *really* in that situation, I would shoot them in a heartbeat.

Even so, my original point...is that really a valid enough argument for gun ownership? That your family may someday be in a life threatening situation? Come on...

[Saru Inc]

But I have a feeling that if I was *really* in that situation, I would shoot them in a heartbeat.

Even so, my original point...is that really a valid enough argument for gun ownership? That your family may someday be in a life threatening situation? Come on...

 

 

I mean... again, I'm honestly not too interested in this debate surprisingly, so I'm not that educated in all the different dynamics. But, yea, I mean if not my family (I probably won't adopt kids with my husband later on in life), if I may need protection. I'll never get a gun, well, at least I don't foresee myself getting one. But I *guess* I'll vote against gun control, because I think they should have the freedom of owning a gun, if they wish to. I mean, there's a dang amendment about it.

[Zierro]

But I have a feeling that if I was *really* in that situation, I would shoot them in a heartbeat.

Even so, my original point...is that really a valid enough argument for gun ownership? That your family may someday be in a life threatening situation? Come on...

 

It is a valid argument for gun ownership. If it even saves one innocent life, it's a worthy cause. The thing is, it has saved far more than that. You act like it never happens and we should never need to worry about it. Are taking precautions really that ridiculous just because you think "it's never gonna happen to you"? That's the same mentality of the people who have been severely injured in a car accident because they didn't wear their seat belt. Come on...

[Furah]

I'm in the same boat, I would never shoot another human being under any circumstances. The chances a gunman puts my family's lives in the balance is soooooooo low. Imagine ridiculous we would act if we applied that same asinine logic (preparing for the most outside of chances) to all aspects of our lives. Somehow it gets applied to guns and ends up a valid argument, I don't really get it.

We already do, it's called OH&S and it's a complete pain in the ass. That being said, should something happen, you feel glad that you had it in the first place. While you may decline to defend yourself in such a situation, I wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger on my own grandmother if it was a case of her or myself. I place self preservation as the most important thing for myself.

 

But I have a feeling that if I was *really* in that situation, I would shoot them in a heartbeat.

Even so, my original point...is that really a valid enough argument for gun ownership? That your family may someday be in a life threatening situation? Come on...

 

 

I mean... again, I'm honestly not too interested in this debate surprisingly, so I'm not that educated in all the different dynamics. But, yea, I mean if not my family (I probably won't adopt kids with my husband later on in life), if I may need protection. I'll never get a gun, well, at least I don't foresee myself getting one. But I *guess* I'll vote against gun control, because I think they should have the freedom of owning a gun, if they wish to. I mean, there's a dang amendment about it.

 

I really respect you for that.

[transcript80]

Gun control is a steady hand.... :shades:

 

I'm opposed to firearm possesion, and here, owning a firearm is illegal, except hunting rifles and guns used at the range.

You are not allowed to carry a gun, except when going STRAIGHT to or from the shooting range, or when hunting.

 

I like it that way. Guns incite their use. You can't make stupid decisions with a gun if you don't carry one (opposed to ppl saing "guns don't kill people, bad decisions do" ) and when legal guns are not (or limited) available, getting one ILLEGAL is harder as wel (as posted before).

 

Offering training is only a partial solution, and fighting symptoms instead of causes. When people make "bad decisions" carrying a gun, no amount of training (except for really, really thorough, military style training) is going to turn the situation around to something less harmfull.

 

If you want to stop gun crimes, abolish weapon possesion, and enforce it. Keep guns in the hand of trained proffesionals (e.a. cops). We don't have "the second amendment" here, and I think it is an outdated excuse for people to own/carry guns. :wall: Present-day governement, although you might not like it, but in the "western world", e.a. US, Canada and at least western, if not all of Europe, is no longer a threat for its civilians.

[Foxtrot17]

But I have a feeling that if I was *really* in that situation, I would shoot them in a heartbeat.

Even so, my original point...is that really a valid enough argument for gun ownership? That your family may someday be in a life threatening situation? Come on...

 

I just wanted to say that I'm suprised that somebody would let their family die and themselves all because of a philosophical belief. What really ticks me off is that you think that because of your opinions on self-defence that it is justified to take firearms away from the populace to "protect" them. While I am against gun control, I do believe we need to treat the source of the problem, and not to take away guns from law abiding citizens. Also, just because you happen to live in a gated community doesn't mean that everybody else does. I used to live in southern Arizona and we had plenty of armed robberies and murders, and by taking away a means of self-defence that anybody could utilize (like your daughter or grandmother) to protect themselves from criminals who are physically stronger. My argument will probably fall on deaf ears, but it was worth getting my opinion out anyways.

[Skull]

I have no problem with gun ownership for the most part. It's not like most of the people who use guns for violent crimes wouldn't have a gun if it was illegal. Most of them don't own them legally anyways. The only real issue I can think of is accidental death or injury which can be limited very easily with training. That and some people might start thinking that they can take the law into their own hands and gun down any criminals they see.

 

That being said, I'll probably never own a gun.

[Giordano]

But I have a feeling that if I was *really* in that situation, I would shoot them in a heartbeat.

Even so, my original point...is that really a valid enough argument for gun ownership? That your family may someday be in a life threatening situation? Come on...

We already have stuff similar to that.

 

Insurance.