Gun Master Debate

[Dak]

I'll accept your refusal to address basically all of the very relevant and pertinent issues that I raised here as a sign that you have finally run out of mindless propoganda to spew out, and of course that's what these sheep-like sycophants who blindly follow flawed human manifestos tend to do: once you back them into a corner with solid reasoning and logic, they very rapidly stick their heads into the sand in denial (this topic is a great example of that). The truth can be a very bitter pill to swallow, and many prefer to be ignorant and mind-controlled instead. Enjoy the ostrich act over there, though it must be hard with sand all up in your eyes, mouth, and ears.

Ooooh so all your hypotheticals are "solid reasoning and logic", but none of the hypotheticals of the "other side" are.

I answered two of them, which you ignored and then went on another logical fallacy filled tirade. What were you saying about sound reasoning and logic? Let's look at this gem:

And if you possess any of these with relation to nature of the human psyche, you would realize the following to be true:

* if there are no guns in a society, people don't need them for protection

No, they wouldn't use guns if they weren't around, because they don't exist. Instead, people would be back to wearing ye olde fashioned body armor:

to defend from ye olde weapons of "mass destruction": Swords, bows, spears, pikes, maces, crossbows, battleaxes, etc etc.

Hell, in the US, hundreds more people are killed with hands/feet/bats/knives than with rifles, whether "harmless old huinting rifles" or the "Scary omgz it looks like teh military onez" kind. Guess we need a ban on bats and hands, or at least to register and control them all.

To be honest, I would have thought metalheads in general would be more of an open-minded kind (read "people who aren't brainwashed into mindless minions of illogical political manifestos") due largely to the very nature of metal, and I find it quite surprising that we've had not one but several people here parroting Brady bunch political propoganda as if they seriously believe it to be absolute truth.

When I can completely reverse your statement by replacing the actor, it's a waste of your time to type it.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I'm in no denial or ignorance as to the indiscretions of governments around the world, but let me just ask you this: are you actually suggesting that the main reason people should be allowed to carry guns is so that they can resist the U.S. government in some future guerilla war?

I suggested nothing of that nature. I suggested that you lack perspective. As for your question, that was the exact reasoning for the second amendment being placed in the Constitution. Hence, the contested "militia" aspect. However, I support the second amendment for the same reason that I stand against prohibition. I do not believe that the government has any business in arbitrating what I can and cannot own. Additionally, I support it for the "castle doctrine" that JAGE referenced.

 

[UltimateApathy]

You equated everything I said to "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE HAVE GUNS". That indicates that either (a) you were unable to understand what I was saying (I can try use smaller words if you want) or (b) you were doing the whole "stick the head in the sand" act again. Oh wait, most likely it's (c) Both of the above.

With regard to your medievil armour/weaponry reference, let me post this photo one more time:

The point is that guns (and all other modern weaponry) act as an enabler to more extreme violence. Human nature may remain relatively consistent over time but social norms DO change. If we had the same kind of approach to life these days as they had back in the medievil times, which involved consistant and perpetual warfare ALL the time and winning at all costs (no Geneva convention or whatever back then) this world would undoubtedly have been reduced to mostly total ruin and devastation. For example, picking up your gun and blowing off someone's head in a neighboring town for whatever random reason you choose would be a daily occurrence for many, maybe most, people. Human society has moved beyond that stage of our existance where warfare is a daily occurrence, and the idea of carrying a deadly weapon on your hip is decidely outdated and medievil.

Oh, and woweeee, you can replace the word "N.R.A." with "Brady Bunch", that's so incredibly smart, witty and funny, we all know how politically-minded and relevant the Brady bunch are, of course they naturally belong in a gun-based discussion. Furthermore, like I said earlier, I don't have any political agenda and I'm not preaching from any kinda political-based manifesto (unlike you), I'm just using common sense and morality to determine and demonstrate what the correct thing is to do in this kind of situation.

 

[UltimateApathy]

I do not believe that the government has any business in arbitrating what I can and cannot own.

So if your neighbor wants to own a nuclear generator in his backyard, you'd be all fine and dandy with that being legal? How about a meth lab in his house, or maybe several tigers running around his garden? Furthermore, you basically just admitted that the initial reason this much-lauded "2nd ammendant" was introduced is outdated and irrelevant nowadays.

 

[Dak]

You equated everything I said to "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE IF WE HAVE GUNS". That indicates that either (a) you were unable to understand what I was saying (I can try use smaller words if you want) or (b) you were doing the whole "stick the head in the sand" act again. Oh wait, most likely it's (c) Both of the above.

With regard to your medievil armour/weaponry reference, let me post this photo one more time:

More ad homs. More dodging of the point. So what guns are more efficient? If the concern is removing efficiency in killing from the most dangerous segments of the population, by all means, let's disarms the military. Militaries kill far more people and destroy far more property than any civilian individual, regardless of whether it's foreign or domestic.

Endlessly stating that guns can kill people, and can do so more efficiently than a sword, is not an argument for restriction of guns from a segment of the population. Once you can start tying in your obvious statements to a coherent platform, you might become less frustrated.

The point is that guns (and all other modern weaponry) act as an enabler to more extreme violence. Human nature may remain relatively consistent over time but social norms DO change. If we had the same kind of approach to life these days as they had back in the medievil times, which involved consistant and perpetual warfare ALL the time and winning at all costs (no Geneva convention or whatever back then) this world would undoubtedly have been reduced to mostly total ruin and devastation. For example, picking up your gun and blowing off someone's head in a neighboring town for whatever random reason you choose would be a daily occurrence for many, maybe most, people. Human society has moved beyond that stage of our existance where warfare is a daily occurrence, and the idea of carrying a deadly weapon on your hip is decidely outdated and medievil.

I must assume that besides having never read a history book or cross examined policy and statistical correlations, you also never watch the news. You are dipping further into the absurd.

But let's assume that you are correct, that carrying a deadly weapon on you is outdated. We can further extrapolate that out into any level of corporate government "carrying around deadly weapons". Let's be consistent and have a absolute national disarmament. All weapons in all sectors. From nukes to nerf bats, everything can be sold to less sophisticated countries, allowing us to pay down the public and private debt and usher in a new era of complete peace and safety in the US of A.

Oh, and woweeee, you can replace the word "N.R.A." with "Brady Bunch", that's so incredibly smart, witty and funny, we all know how politically-minded and relevant the Brady bunch are, of course they naturally belong in a gun-based discussion. Furthermore, like I said earlier, I don't have any political agenda and I'm not preaching from any kinda political-based manifesto (unlike you), I'm just using common sense and morality to determine and demonstrate what the correct thing is to do in this kind of situation.

James Brady, not Mike Brady. Common sense? lol. Why not double down on your logical fallacies and declare your position "self evident"? As far as morality goes, I find your position decidedly immoral, and hypocritical as well. It takes guns (or the weapons of the era) to prohibit anything, most particularly other guns. You further display an ability to lie, to yourself and/or others, by saying you are not politically motivated. To advocate for a law or public policy change is political by definition.

I do wonder what political "manifesto" I might be preaching from though.

 

[UltimateApathy]

Did you just say "So what if guns are more efficient?" Have you ever heard of a little something that is very popular in America called "mass shootings" where some psychopath shoulders an assault rifle and mows down several dozen people in the space of a minute or two - would this kind of thing be possible with a knife or any medievil weaponry? Try to appeal to your logical side before answering that question, though it seems to be largely missing.

Enablers are a commonly-known fact in psychology. For example a drug addict can't be one without drugs (note to all: drugs ARE illegal) etc, and a mass shooter - or even one of the gung-ho types that pull out their guns at the slightest provocation - can't shoot scores of people (or even one) without a gun.

It seems you would be in favour of fully disarming all levels of society which would be a noble goal for humanity eventually, but even though human society in general has moved beyond the phase where everyone is perpetually at war with everyone else (I don't deny that wars are still being fought, but they are far, far less prevalent than in the medievil times), we certainly aren't ready for a completely weaponless society either. Governments DO still need weapons for self-defence against other countries to deter war, but there is no justification for random civillians strolling around with guns strapped to their hip just so they can boast about the size of their "piece".

Now take out your N.R.A. rulebook and find the gun-hugger-politically-appropriate response to what to say when confronted by numerous "inconvenient" truths.

 

[Einherjar86]

Governments DO still need weapons for self-defence against other countries to deter war, but there is no justification for random civillians strolling around with guns strapped to their hip just so they can boast about the size of their "piece".

You need to stop resorting to this tactic over and over again because it's making you look foolish and immature. This clearly is not the overwhelming reason for the argument at hand, especially among some of the posters you're engaged in discussion with. Take the time to respond to their accusations without criticizing them as compensating for small penises or something of the like.

The worst part is that I am for gun regulation; and yet I can't stand this kind of showboating. Gun ownership cannot be entirely reduced to a pathological need to prove one's capacity, whether it be masculinity, combat skills, intellect, etc. There are way more factors at play and you're dicking around with stupid assumptions about the stability of individual psyches.

And please stop posting photos, especially the one you posted twice. They're achieving the opposite of your intended effect.

 

[Dak]

Did you just say "So what if guns are more efficient?" Have you ever heard of a little something that is very popular in America called "mass shootings" where some psychopath shoulders an assault rifle and mows down several dozen people in the space of a minute or two - would this kind of thing be possible with a knife or any medievil weaponry? Try to appeal to your logical side before answering that question, though it seems to be largely missing.

Enablers are a commonly-known fact in psychology. For example a drug addict can't be one without drugs (note to all: drugs ARE illegal) etc, and a mass shooter - or even one of the gung-ho types that pull out their guns at the slightest provocation - can't shoot scores of people (or even one) without a gun.

Here's the problem with your argument. Guns are an enabler. But they can enable someone either way, whether as for defense or offense. In a world with no guns, what would it take to prevent someone skilled with a sword, to mow (hey look, a term originated to describe the effects of bladed objects) down a dozen people? Probably someone else with at least a shield, if not a sword.

Of course someone could shoot scores of people without a gun, they would just need to be a damn good archer and have some standoff distance. But yes, it's more difficult. So what?

Have you looked at homicide statistics and violent crime statistics outside of the "oooh, shiny" mass killing statistics? You would notice an inverse correlation between gun purchase background checks and crime in the US.

You would also need to acknowledge all these killings happened in Gun Free Zones. You would also need to acknowledge that Conn. already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. You would also need to acknowledge that since the handgun bans in DC and Chicago were struck down, crime has dropped. However, they are still heavily restricted, and thus still have higher rates of violent crime than most of the country.

UK has had a gun ban for more than a decade. Crime has been rising ever sense and even though as per internal studies said to be underreported, still outpaces the US violent crime ratio by 4 to 1.

While none of these statistics can be proven causal, they are correlational, and prove there can be no causal or correlational aspect of guns = crime.

It seems you would be in favour of fully disarming all levels of society which would be a noble goal for humanity eventually, but even though human society in general has moved beyond the phase where everyone is perpetually at war with everyone else (I don't deny that wars are still being fought, but they are far, far less prevalent than in the medievil times), we certainly aren't ready for a completely weaponless society either.

Fine, well if it must be incremental, why not start with the government employees instead of the civilians?

Governments DO still need weapons for self-defence against other countries to deter war, but there is no justification for random civillians strolling around with guns strapped to their hip just so they can boast about the size of their "piece".

What's the difference? Why can weapons for a government be a deterrent but not for an individual? Is this your best attempt at "logic"?

@Pat: Whatever, yer just an NRA nutter!

 

[UltimateApathy]

Here's the problem with your argument. Guns are an enabler. But they can enable someone either way, whether as for defense or offense. In a world with no guns, what would it take to prevent someone skilled with a sword, to mow (hey look, a term originated to describe the effects of bladed objects) down a dozen people? Probably someone else with at least a shield, if not a sword.


They don't enable people with regard to defense at all, the chances of a criminal using a gun for crime are far higher than someone being able to use a gun for successful self-defense, this is a perfectly logical and reasonable observation for anyone who actually follows current events. If someone sticks you up with a gun you won't have time to draw your own weapon and fire, and the same goes for if someone puts a knife to your throat. And guns locked up in a safe in the situation of a rapid home invasion are about as much use as a pink towel.


Of course someone could shoot scores of people without a gun, they would just need to be a damn good archer and have some standoff distance. But yes, it's more difficult. So what?


Now if you're trying to equate someone with a sword or someone with a bow and arrow to someone with an assault rifle, your prostration of your mental abillity in favor of illogical ideals brainwashed into you has truly reached new heights of idiocy.

Use your brain, think about the logistics of the situation, how much easier is it to get away from or even counter-attack (for example, a large wooden chair to the head) some with a knife, sword, or bow than someone with an assualt rifle. This is shown in evidence from the numerous kindergarten attacks in gun-less China in recent years where some crazy guy goes into a kindergarten with a knife in hand and an intention to kill as many kids as possible. The death toll in those events only tends to be perhaps 2-3 but put an assault weapon in his hands and that toll easily becomes 20-30 or higher. A gun like that gives them a "god-like" power to determine who lives and dies, and of course the "power aspect" one of the main appeals of guns to the gun nuts out there.

Have you looked at homicide statistics and violent crime statistics outside of the "oooh, shiny" mass killing statistics? You would notice an inverse correlation between gun purchase background checks and crime in the US.
You would also need to acknowledge all these killings happened in Gun Free Zones. You would also need to acknowledge that Conn. already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. You would also need to acknowledge that since the handgun bans in DC and Chicago were struck down, crime has dropped. However, they are still heavily restricted, and thus still have higher rates of violent crime than most of the country. UK has had a gun ban for more than a decade. Crime has been rising ever sense and even though as per internal studies said to be underreported, still outpaces the US violent crime ratio by 4 to 1. While none of these statistics can be proven causal, they are correlational, and prove there can be no causal or correlational aspect of guns = crime.

Like someone said earlier in this topic, you can manipulate statistics to prove almost any point you like. I'll bite though: why don't you show me all these amazing statistics along with sources? I remember hearing something about there being 11000 gun deaths in the U.S. last year, and I think we can safely say that nowhere near 11000 people successfully used guns for self-defense in the same timeframe - so much needless and death and injury.

It's easy to see how guns can embolden criminals to be more brazen and violent in their actions, you don't need to be Einstein to see the logic behind this. Also, they made the mistake of also banning most cops from carrying guns in the UK at the same time, which also serves to embolden criminals.

Fine, well if it must be incremental, why not start with the government employees instead of the civilians?
What's the difference? Why can weapons for a government be a deterrent but not for an individual? Is this your best attempt at "logic"?


I already covered the reasons why the military needs weapons as an effective deterrent, but why they're not effective as deterrents for individuals, and instead are actually more likely to be used in crime. Is your idea of an effective argument to go around and around in circles asking for answers to questions that have already been answered?

 

[Dak]

Hey look, someone forgot how to use the quote feature.

They don't enable people with regard to defense at all, the chances of a criminal using a gun for crime are far higher than someone being able to use a gun for successful self-defense, this is a perfectly logical and reasonable observation for anyone who actually follows current events. If someone sticks you up with a gun you won't have time to draw your own weapon and fire, and the same goes for if someone puts a knife to your throat. And guns locked up in a safe in the situation of a rapid home invasion are about as much use as a pink towel.

This is the only correct sentence out of this whole paragraph. Which is why having all your guns locked up at home is a stupid idea that people like you probably support.

Now if you're trying to equate someone with a sword or someone with a bow and arrow to someone with an assault rifle, your prostration of your mental abillity in favor of illogical ideals brainwashed into you has truly reached new heights of idiocy.

Well what, pray tell, did people conduct all these "nonstop wars" with in the that time we lived in before assault rifles and other assorted firearms? What do you think they committed murders and robberies with? It's a perfectly valid equation. The world does not become a nonviolent paradise in the absence of guns. It actually gets bloodier.

Pretty funny when half of your "point" is an ad hominem.

"You're a stupid head!"

Use your brain, think about the logistics of the situation, how much easier is it to get away from or even counter-attack (for example, a large wooden chair to the head) some with a knife, sword, or bow than someone with an assualt rifle. This is shown in evidence from the numerous kindergarten attacks in gun-less China in recent years where some crazy guy goes into a kindergarten with a knife in hand and an intention to kill as many kids as possible. The death toll in those events only tends to be perhaps 2-3 but put an assault weapon in his hands and that toll easily becomes 20-30 or higher. A gun like that gives them a "god-like" power to determine who lives and dies, and of course the "power aspect" one of the main appeals of guns to the gun nuts out there. [/B]

You are using the word logistics. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Why are you so fixated on "mass" stabbings and shootings? Why can't you look at the total array of data? Or look at the common thread between these school attacks? You have a large group of unprotected people conveniently arranged for someone mentally ill to slash/shoot/hack/etc. Or, that it's always someone with mental problems and/or on psychotropic drugs.

It's like focusing on the damage done by one bomb at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, when standard bombing did much more damage to Japan, Germany, etc.

Like someone said earlier in this topic, you can manipulate statistics to prove almost any point you like. I'll bite though: why don't you show me all these amazing statistics along with sources? I remember hearing something about there being 11000 gun deaths in the U.S. last year, and I think we can safely say that nowhere near 11000 people successfully used guns for self-defense in the same timeframe - so much needless and death and injury.

So the answer is: "No Overwatch, I don't look at data. I rely on some some hearsay and stuff and then exercise my beautiful mind".

Gun deaths are the epitome of a contextless and useless statistic. What kind of gun? What kind of death? But let's look at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

According to this Wiki article, US had 10 firearm deaths per 100k people. When you break it down to the next level, over 60% were suicide. Those unintentional deaths (derp, yer gonna shoot yer eye out with that thing!) people such as yourself like to cite, barely get on the board.

Are you suggesting that people can't kill themselves without firearms? I wouldn't be surprised, since you think the world wouldn't have war or murder without guns (yet governments need them for "deterrent"). Since firearms are only involved in roughly half (and I'm rounding down) of suicides, that is clearly not the case.

It's easy to see how a lack of guns in the hands of potential victims* guns can embolden criminals to be more brazen and violent in their actions, you don't need to be Einstein to see the logic behind this. Also, they made the mistake of also banning most cops from carrying guns in the UK at the same time, which also serves to embolden criminals.[/B]

So you agree guns stop and deter crime? Make up your mind.

I already covered the reasons why the military needs weapons as an effective deterrent, but why they're not effective as deterrents for individuals, and instead are actually more likely to be used in crime. Is your idea of an effective argument to go around and around in circles asking for answers to questions that have already been answered?

Actually, no you didn't cover why military guns deter aggression from other countries, but it doesn't work the same way for an individual. Merely stating it doesn't magically make it fact.

 

[Summerian]

Body armor is illegal. What's your point UA?

Well since you cant quit the UA BS, this discusion is over.

 

[Summerian]

I'll accept your refusal to address basically all of the very relevant and pertinent issues that I raised here as a sign that you have finally run out of mindless propoganda to spew out, and of course that's what these sheep-like sycophants who blindly follow flawed human manifestos tend to do: once you back them into a corner with solid reasoning and logic, they very rapidly stick their heads into the sand in denial.

Well I hope you've learned something.
They have made up their minds and are only posting to tell others how it is - their truth. Can't even think clearly anymore. Facts and figures don't mean nothing.
If you can get a religious fanatic to put down their holy book, you might be able to talk some sense into these gun nuts. But you're asking them to cut of their dicks. That's how far the social norm has taken them.
Myopia
Machismo
Hubris
Antisocial
Unaccountability
Irresponsibility
self-victimization
The 2.nd is part of a game the right-wing is playing. Guns, tax cuts, abortion, welfare recipients, family values, heavy metal scare, threatened freedoms - this crap they want on the agenda.
Never mind social justice, war, greed, debt, health issues, hunger...
And these gun lovers are useful tools.
Fucking clowns. I swear - they sound like 3 y/o.
And people are dying...

 

[Summerian]

oms

what?

frust

huh?

vocate

That don't make no sense.

If your gun is just a tool then what are you crying about?
THESE NAIL CLIPPERS - FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!

 

[UltimateApathy]

Hey look, someone forgot how to use the quote feature.



This is the only correct sentence out of this whole paragraph. Which is why having all your guns locked up at home is a stupid idea that people like you probably support.




Well what, pray tell, did people conduct all these "nonstop wars" with in the that time we lived in before assault rifles and other assorted firearms? What do you think they committed murders and robberies with? It's a perfectly valid equation. The world does not become a nonviolent paradise in the absence of guns. It actually gets bloodier.

Pretty funny when half of your "point" is an ad hominem.

"You're a stupid head!"



You are using the word logistics. It doesn't mean what you think it means. Why are you so fixated on "mass" stabbings and shootings? Why can't you look at the total array of data? Or look at the common thread between these school attacks? You have a large group of unprotected people conveniently arranged for someone mentally ill to slash/shoot/hack/etc. Or, that it's always someone with mental problems and/or on psychotropic drugs.

It's like focusing on the damage done by one bomb at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, when standard bombing did much more damage to Japan, Germany, etc.




So the answer is: "No Overwatch, I don't look at data. I rely on some some hearsay and stuff and then exercise my beautiful mind".

Gun deaths are the epitome of a contextless and useless statistic. What kind of gun? What kind of death? But let's look at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

According to this Wiki article, US had 10 firearm deaths per 100k people. When you break it down to the next level, over 60% were suicide. Those unintentional deaths (derp, yer gonna shoot yer eye out with that thing!) people such as yourself like to cite, barely get on the board.

Are you suggesting that people can't kill themselves without firearms? I wouldn't be surprised, since you think the world wouldn't have war or murder without guns (yet governments need them for "deterrent"). Since firearms are only involved in roughly half (and I'm rounding down) of suicides, that is clearly not the case.




So you agree guns stop and deter crime? Make up your mind.



Actually, no you didn't cover why military guns deter aggression from other countries, but it doesn't work the same way for an individual. Merely stating it doesn't magically make it fact.

Hilariously pathetic how your brainwashed mind chooses to pass over the obvious fact that if someone sticks you up with a gun, you're simply not going to be able to reach into your concealed compartment and fire back at them without getting a bullet in the face. And if your gun isn't concealed they'll most likely just shoot you directly instead of sticking you up, and then probably steal your gun for good measure. You really love ignoring simple logistics, don't you?

Also, you're proposing that people simply leave unsecured firearms lying around their homes like any regular item on the off-chance that they're (a) going to have a rapid home invasion and (b) actually going to be get to their gun in time and be able win a firefight with burgulars that will most likely also be armed due to the freely available nature of firearms in American society - both idiotic claims, especially when little Johnny finds your gun under a pillow and blows his brains out by mistake.

Guns in the hands of civilians don't deter crime at all, but it does result in the criminals (who are in fact civilians too) being able to get guns MUCH easier, which in turn emboldens them to commit more brazen crimes. Furthermore, criminals aren't going to be "deterred" from doing crime at all if they know that civilians might be packing heat, it just means they're going to up the ante and carry the largest most powerful guns they can get their hands on, and be willing to fire said guns much more readily in any situation.

And let us not get forget that these psycopaths who commit mass murders are also "civilians" whose sick fantasies are so readily realized by the freely-available American guns far more effectively and terribly than knives etc ever could.
And let's also not forget the civilians who combine "gunplay" with substance abuse or a very short temper and are enabled by the guns to escalate relatively minor situations into murder - it's easy to kill someone with a guy in a split second moment or rage or ill-judgement, but killing someone with a knife generally requires extensive and methodical stabbing to actually fatally wound someone.

You're talking about how there are supposedly more deaths from gun suicide than gun homicide (and as was mentioned earlier in the topic, statistics certainly aren't infallible) but there's still a very significant number of homicides in there, and I'll guarantee you anything you like via the routes of common sense and a decent knowledge of current events that the number of times people have been able to successfully defend themselves with guns from crmininals is far, far lower than the amount of homicides and other crimes committed with guns (let us not forget that homicides are only the tip of the iceberg of crime committed with guns). I challenge you to show me any evidence that my above statement is incorrect - and in the absence of your beloved statistics, you need to rely on logic and common sense.

There are plenty of democratic countries out there (I can methodically list them if you like) where the police and military can carry guns but the civilian population can't and the over-all crime rates (not to mention the non-existant gun crime rate) are fractionally tiny and the socities are very safe and peaceful. That's your theory of guns in civilian hands deterring crime thrown totally out the window right there, numerous times. You should actually take your own advice and look at what the bigger global picture says (guns in civilians hands is not a normal or good idea) and stop allowing yourself to be mind-controlling by localized rightwing political propaganda.

Furthermore, it's not so much that guns in the hands of police deters crime rather than that police NOT having guns emboldens criminals to commit both violent and non-violent crimes on the street with knowledge that they won't be shot or even caught. Without the guns, criminals lose their fear of the police.

Also, the militaries of countries possessing weapons to deter war is an entirely different scenario from civilians possessing weapons to deter crime, and to try paint them as one and the same situation is purely idiotic. The necessity of possessing a weaponized military to preserve the security of the state is something you can study in numerous academic university courses, but you sure as hell won't find any academic courses referring to the necessity of civilians possessing guns to deter crime bwecause it's a sheer and utterly fallacy. Face it, son, you've been trolled by culturally-specific poilitical propoganda that has no logic or relevance with relation to modern human society in general.

 

[Summerian]

UltimateApathy
Thank you for trying but read between the lines will you.
Don't feed the trolls.

 

[Dak]

Hilariously pathetic how your brainwashed mind chooses to pass over the obvious fact that if someone sticks you up with a gun, you're simply not going to be able to reach into your concealed compartment and fire back at them without getting a bullet in the face. And if your gun isn't concealed they'll most likely just shoot you directly instead of sticking you up, and then probably steal your gun for good measure. You really love ignoring simple logistics, don't you?

I agree that open carry greatly reduces your ability to successfully mitigate a situation. So what? Otherwise, your suggestion that a weapon can't possibly be used in self defense is purely uninformed conjecture.

Also, you're proposing that people simply leave unsecured firearms lying around their homes like any regular item on the off-chance that they're (a) going to have a rapid home invasion and (b) actually going to be get to their gun in time and be able win a firefight with burgulars that will most likely also be armed due to the freely available nature of firearms in American society - both idiotic claims, especially when little Johnny finds your gun under a pillow and blows his brains out by mistake.

So not leaving it in a safe must automatically mean leaving it in the reach of a small child and leaving that child unsupervised . Of course, if freely available guns lead to "firefights" with burglars, I'm sure you have plenty of statistics to back this opinion up with. Right? So where is your evidence?

Guns in the hands of civilians don't deter crime at all, but it does result in the criminals (who are in fact civilians too) being able to get guns MUCH easier, which in turn emboldens them to commit more brazen crimes. Furthermore, criminals aren't going to be "deterred" from doing crime at all if they know that civilians might be packing heat, it just means they're going to up the ante and carry the largest most powerful guns they can get their hands on, and be willing to fire said guns much more readily in any situation.

How many times are you going to repeat unsubstantiated claims? You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to back up your opinions in this thread. No real life situations, and a single "hearsay" statistic.

And let us not get forget that these psycopaths who commit mass murders are also "civilians" whose sick fantasies are so readily realized by the freely-available American guns far more effectively and terribly than knives etc ever could.
And let's also not forget the civilians who combine "gunplay" with substance abuse or a very short temper and are enabled by the guns to escalate relatively minor situations into murder - it's easy to kill someone with a guy in a split second moment or rage or ill-judgement, but killing someone with a knife generally requires extensive and methodical stabbing to actually fatally wound someone.

So why are more people killed with bare hands or bats and knives than rifles of ANY kind? I mean, according to you "big scary guns" are pretty much laying around for anyone to use, and are clearly superior.

You're talking about how there are supposedly more deaths from gun suicide than gun homicide (and as was mentioned earlier in the topic, statistics certainly aren't infallible) but there's still a very significant number of homicides in there, and I'll guarantee you anything you like via the routes of common sense and a decent knowledge of current events that the number of times people have been able to successfully defend themselves with guns from crmininals is far, far lower than the amount of homicides and other crimes committed with guns (let us not forget that homicides are only the tip of the iceberg of crime committed with guns). I challenge you to show me any evidence that my above statement is incorrect - and in the absence of your beloved statistics, you need to rely on logic and common sense.

Let me guess: Any statistics I provide will be handwaved, just like every statistic and correlation I have demonstrated so far . Any logic and common sense I provide will be handwaved. Until you stop dismissing everything as "NRA rhetoric" or "not using your brain", more statistics and examples are going to help your religious adherence to your beautiful mind.

There are plenty of democratic countries out there (I can methodically list them if you like) where the police and military can carry guns but the civilian population can't and the over-all crime rates (not to mention the non-existant gun crime rate) are fractionally tiny and the socities are very safe and peaceful. That's your theory of guns in civilian hands deterring crime thrown totally out the window right there, numerous times. You should actually take your own advice and look at what the bigger global picture says (guns in civilians hands is not a normal or good idea) and stop allowing yourself to be mind-controlling by localized rightwing political propaganda.

Well if there are plenty of them, then please provide some documentation.

Furthermore, it's not so much that guns in the hands of police deters crime rather than that police NOT having guns emboldens criminals to commit both violent and non-violent crimes on the street with knowledge that they won't be shot or even caught. Without the guns, criminals lose their fear of the police.

So why wouldn't guns not being in the hands of civilians not also deter crime? Without guns, people lose their fear of getting shot while trying to commit a crime, not just after the crime is committed.

Also, the militaries of countries possessing weapons to deter war is an entirely different scenario from civilians possessing weapons to deter crime, and to try paint them as one and the same situation is purely idiotic. The necessity of possessing a weaponized military to preserve the security of the state is something you can study in numerous academic university courses, but you sure as hell won't find any academic courses referring to the necessity of civilians possessing guns to deter crime bwecause it's a sheer and utterly fallacy. Face it, son, you've been trolled by culturally-specific poilitical propoganda that has no logic or relevance with relation to modern human society in general.

I was in the military, I'm fairly familiar with military reasons for possessing various weapons systems. However, I've never seen an college military apologetics course, nor a college private firearm apologetics course. Why their nonexistence is somehow relevant I don't know.

A military is comprised of individuals operating weapons, whether they be small arms or complex systems, just like law enforcement. Why putting a uniform on someone makes things "totally different" in regards to the impact of weapons must be substantiated beyond "it just is!"

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'd bet UltimateApathy sees nothing wrong with drone missle strikes in Yemen etc.

 

[King Richard]

I'd bet UltimateApathy sees nothing wrong with drone missle strikes in Yemen etc.

Probably. He also probably thinks marijuana is a gateway drug, tv rots your brain, gay people can be fixed, and Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are bad people. derp.

From the way he talks he's totally cool with allowing the government have complete and utter control and power over us. Because they've proven to be so trustworthy y'know?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A lot of it comes down to moral beliefs. People that support disarming the civilian populace do so (if they're rational) because they believe there will be a net reduction in homicides as a result. It's the same argument people make to support the death penalty, that a few innocent deaths are an acceptable side effect to a well-checked, low-crime population. In this sense, the left and the far-right Eastern world have a lot in common.

 

[King Richard]

This quote is relevant to this discussion.