|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 19:17:16 GMT -5
Post by Hitotsumami on Jul 20, 2012 19:17:16 GMT -5
@ Kylor
Sure, some people use guns to murder. About 9000 people per year. But Millions don't. They use them for protection. So that is only 1 out of every 277 people who has a gun uses it to kill someone. All the others have ACTIVELY used the gun for protection.
Now, if it was the other way around, 1 person per 277 uses a gun for protection and the rest for murder, I'd be right behind you and support you. But that just isn't the way it is.
Also, of course I can't prove that people need guns to protect themselves, but I don't think something like that needs proof. If guns are outlawed, criminals will have a hay day. They'll still find a way to get guns, and now all of those people will be defenseless. Sure, they'll have pepper spray or a pocket knife, maybe even some with tasers, but none of those are going to stop a man from pulling the trigger to a gun.
At least, most of the time.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 19:32:51 GMT -5
Post by Kyubey on Jul 20, 2012 19:32:51 GMT -5
Alright, now you're flat out ignoring the parts where I said that guns should be available for home defense, but not anything like the kind that James Holmes legally bought, and when I said that people whose job it is to defend, such as police officers, security guards, and such.
Guns have caused more problems than they have solved, and you should really start providing proof for your argument that if guns are completely banned, then everyone will start smuggling guns on the black market and killing all the defenseless townsfolk, because I can't find anything that supports this.
Also, look up all the cases where proper knowledge of self-defense has saved lives without the usage of guns. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, trying to defend oneself using a gun in a situation they don't know how to handle has been proven to not end well in most cases.
9000 people a year is just enough to show that maybe, just maybe, we're doing things a bit wrong.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 19:43:39 GMT -5
Post by Hitotsumami on Jul 20, 2012 19:43:39 GMT -5
I didn't respond to your point about guns for home defense because I agree with it. I'm just responding to the points I disagree with.
Also, of course people will smuggle guns if we ban them. You think a criminal will be like "Oh, well we can't have guns anymore cause thats the law."? Of course they won't.
Drugs aren't allowed, and we can see the huge amount of smuggling that goes on with that. The same thing will happen if guns are banned.
And yeah, I'm sure people with self-defense knowledge can probably protect themselves without a gun. The thing is, it is unrealistic for the 2 million people a year who get in situations where they need to protect themselves to know all of that self-defense knowledge. A gun is a much more feasible way of obtaining protection, even if it is just used to scare away the criminal.
And yeah, 9000 people use a gun to kill a person. Two million use them to save their life.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 20:05:04 GMT -5
Post by Kyubey on Jul 20, 2012 20:05:04 GMT -5
Not every criminal would stop using guns, but it would prevent some. Not everyone who uses guns to murder buys the weapons with the intent of committing a crime. Like one example (which happened a long time ago but I remember because it happened really close to where my mom used to live) where a man was killed because he went to the wrong address and the elderly couple inside thought he was dangerous.
It is unrealistic to expect everyone to know how to defend themselves, but it's also unrealistic to keep gun regulations the same as they are now and expect the people who purchase firearms to use them properly. Even in cases where the gun owner has good intentions, there's far too much that could go wrong for it to be okay.
And while I fully admit that guns can't be erased from our culture, as there are far too many of them to expect a full-on ban to work at all, regulations should be more strict than they are now.
We can't expect criminals to give up guns because of harsher regulations, but it's flat out wrong to look at an incident like the shooting in Colorado and say, "Oh well, nothin' that can be done, guns don't kill people, people kill people." And while it's true that not everyone is going to learn proper precautions to protect themselves, perhaps harsh regulation might encourage people to look up alternatives to firearms.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 20:25:25 GMT -5
Post by CJ on Jul 20, 2012 20:25:25 GMT -5
Also, CJ, no offense, but I find the notion that the world today is anything resembling America during the Revolutionary War to be hilarious. I should have been a little more clear. I'm not a constitution thumper. There were a lot of things that were flawed in those times, gender and racial injustices are just few examples. I meant that when those men were faced with oppression and unfairness, they were able to bare arms against it. The "soldiers and officers" idea Morcombe brought up were exactly the kind of people the 2nd Amendment was written to defend against. As we're talking about smuggling and whatnot, CJ, is that a particularly bad issue where you live? Are smuggling-related crimes and deaths especially common? I honestly don't know, and maybe you could provide some insight on that. Students are frequently mugged and beaten on my campus. I take great measures to avoid being attacked but I still carry my Taser. And wow?! Is that true, Xero?
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 20:36:06 GMT -5
Post by Hitotsumami on Jul 20, 2012 20:36:06 GMT -5
@ Ky
I'm all for harsher regulations. Thorough background checks when selling guns and better border checks so guns don't get smuggled into the country.
Harsher regulations, I agree with. But banning guns, I do not. Because two crazy kids shot people at a school does not warrant we take away guns from the two million who have used them for protection.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 20:42:53 GMT -5
Post by Xero on Jul 20, 2012 20:42:53 GMT -5
@cj,
Yes it is true. Me and a friend of mine were mugged by two people who had guns.
I know it would be impossible to outright eliminate guns altogether, but I can see perhaps severely limiting what guns you can and cannot have. If memory serves, the guy who was responsible for the Aurora massacre had an assault rifle, a Remington, and a .40 handgun. That is some serious hardware. Honestly, I do not think anyone would need anything more than a handgun for home protection.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 21:51:34 GMT -5
Post by Hitotsumami on Jul 20, 2012 21:51:34 GMT -5
I totally agree with limiting the kind of guns people should own. If one does want to use a really powerful gun for sport, then there should be some regulation as to where the gun should be stored. Maybe at a firing range facility of choice or something.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 20, 2012 22:39:25 GMT -5
Post by CJ on Jul 20, 2012 22:39:25 GMT -5
This is somewhat relevant because of today's events.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 21, 2012 4:14:41 GMT -5
Post by mainy on Jul 21, 2012 4:14:41 GMT -5
coming from a country where guns are banned, quiet alot of people smuggle guns here and there have been shootings heck on my street where a guy was shot with what was said to be a sniper rifle.
a straight up ban i dont think would work for America. strict regulations on who can own a gun and why is what i think should be implemented. the uk is alot smaller so naturally there is less gun grime so hard to compare if its actually helped banning guns
and even if guns did get full on banned to the point no one had them, not like its gonna stop murders and death etc people will just use other means and if anything, a lack of guns could make things worse due to people who have used guns to save themselves from criminals and the police force lacking guns. the police force here dont have guns and they get laughed at and just plain treated like worthless pieces of crap by almost everyone i know
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 21, 2012 9:19:15 GMT -5
Post by Morcombe on Jul 21, 2012 9:19:15 GMT -5
you cant exactly walk into a school, cafe or cinema with a knife and kill 100 people but people have done so with guns and that is why they should be illegal.
I dont care about anything else, you can kill 100 people in 10 seconds with a gun, you cannot do this with any other weapon. except a bomb and you aint gonna sell that to a regular person.
guns are illegal in the UK, and you know something I have never seen one that didnt belong to the police.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 21, 2012 9:31:41 GMT -5
Post by Hitotsumami on Jul 21, 2012 9:31:41 GMT -5
@ Mor
If a man wants a gun for murdering purposes, he will find a way to get a gun, illegal or not. Making guns illegal won't stop murderers, it'll just make more victims.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 21, 2012 12:09:24 GMT -5
Post by Xero on Jul 21, 2012 12:09:24 GMT -5
"Killing 100 people" is a slight over exaggeration. The guy killed 12 people and they said it was the largest mass murder event in US history, which is still something I am having a hard time believing.
However, if guns were banned, the guy would still find a way to kill those people. He probably would walk into the theater with a bomb strapped to his chest or something similar and quite possible create more victims.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 21, 2012 13:32:56 GMT -5
Post by Kyubey on Jul 21, 2012 13:32:56 GMT -5
Alright, I think the whole argument of "if guns are gone then gun-wielding brigands will storm the countryside and kill us all" is a bit of an exaggeration, and frankly, it's unnecessary. It's a kind of hyperbole that doesn't exactly lead to rational discussion, and doesn't solve the problem at all. There would not be more victims, Hito. As I continue to insist, most of the time, guns in an already dangerous and heated situation don't solve problems. If you can't expect everyone to learn basic self defense, how the hell do you expect everyone to know how to correctly use guns? Seriously, answer me that. In short, I agree with everyone else that there should be tighter restrictions. Like, really tight. And the kinds of guns that can be bought should be limited. I honestly can't see any honest, practical use for the sort of guns that were used to kill those people in that theater. They should not be made easily available, end of story. EDIT: Xero: I honestly don't think that's true. The killer clearly had no intention of killing himself. We could go into the likeliness of something like that actually working, but that's another discussion.
|
|
|
Guns
Jul 21, 2012 14:12:47 GMT -5
Post by Hitotsumami on Jul 21, 2012 14:12:47 GMT -5
@ Kylor
That isn't directed to me is it? Because I certainly didn't say that. I said if a criminal wants a gun, they will find a way to get a gun. If guns were banned, the amount of criminals with guns would be less. But some would still have guns if they wanted them. The amount of civilians with concealed weapons for protection would none. Therefore, most civilians can't protect themselves from a criminal with a gun in most cases. You don't need to know all about a gun and gun training, the gun itself as a threat is good protection.
This is my view:
Guns as concealed weapons for protection should be allowed. Heavy duty guns should not be allowed, except at perhaps firing ranges for sport. Guns are used all the time for protection, and we shouldn't take that away.
|
|