DeletedUser
What about that guy in Florida who pulled out a gun when he was being assaulted in his car? Was he not saved (maybe not from death, but robbery and injuries)?
DeletedUser
Source material, or it didn't happen.
DeletedUser
What about it?
No one disputes that guns can be used for self defense. People dispute that they are an effective tool for most people to use for self defense and that the dangers outweigh the benefits of gun ownership for self defense.
DeletedUser
And what are the dangers to owning a gun?
In addition to the self-defense/hunting argument there's defense against the government. The last resort to overthrowing an oppressive government is open rebellion, and that's why the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution: if the government ever became a dictatorship or tyrannical civilians would be able to rebel.
(sorry if somebody else already mentioned rebellion against the government, but I can't remember all of the posts)
In addition to the self-defense/hunting argument there's defense against the government. The last resort to overthrowing an oppressive government is open rebellion, and that's why the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution: if the government ever became a dictatorship or tyrannical civilians would be able to rebel.
(sorry if somebody else already mentioned rebellion against the government, but I can't remember all of the posts)
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
When the American colonists rebelled against Britain the military and common people used similar weapons, aside from cannons, so it was a relevant right to have guns. Nowadays the military has tanks, fighter planes, heavy artillery, bazookas, machine guns and other automatic weapons, so the legal weapons available on the market won't get you much of anywhere in a rebellion and are more likely to be used in criminal violence. Use as hunting weapons is the only legitimate argument, and in that case they should only be used in rural areas.
DeletedUser
You're right about rebellion, now that I think about it comes down to this:
Hunting rifle vs AK-47
Molotov vs Fragmentation or High Explosive Grenade
Homemade Cannon vs Military Cannon
Car with Homemade Cannon vs Tank
Cabin Cruiser vs Battleship
Swords/Hunting Knives/Tools vs Military Knives (that one would actually be an advantage to rebels).
There's still protection against criminals. In my house there's two BB guns that I and my parents can get to very quick if we were in one half of the house and a pistol in the other half.
Hunting rifle vs AK-47
Molotov vs Fragmentation or High Explosive Grenade
Homemade Cannon vs Military Cannon
Car with Homemade Cannon vs Tank
Cabin Cruiser vs Battleship
Swords/Hunting Knives/Tools vs Military Knives (that one would actually be an advantage to rebels).
There's still protection against criminals. In my house there's two BB guns that I and my parents can get to very quick if we were in one half of the house and a pistol in the other half.
DeletedUser
Gun accidents (by this I mean not only shooting the wrong person, but also accidental misfires, kids getting a hold of the gun and thinking it's a toy, etc), suicides and crimes of passion.
Which doesn't wash. You would need personal nukes to defend yourself from the US government. Owning guns didn't work at Waco and certainly didn't work for Iraqi citizens (who under Saddam could own an AK-47 per household).
The Founding Fathers didn't know about today's guns, tanks, jet fighters, mines, bombers, nukes, etc, etc, etc. Owning guns (and let's face it, back in the 1700's the guns they were talking about where a totally different beast) will not ensure the civilians will be protected a tyrannical government.
In any event, there is much debate about the interpretation of that amendment. The first amendment doesn't mean that you can say whatever you want whenever you want. There are specific limits to your freedom of speech (fighting words, yelling fire in a movie theater, slander, etc). In the same way, even if people are guaranteed to own guns under the 2nd amendment, that does not mean that they are completely unrestricted in their access and use of guns.
And yes, these arguments have all been brought up before.
DeletedUser
Gun accidents!
Wrong person, If you shoot the wrong person, you an idiot, nuf said.
Accidental misfires, You don't check to see if a gun it loaded, by pulling the trigger.:laugh:
Kids getting a hold of the gun and thinking it's a toy, That might happen if the gun it put away and the child never sees it, but if you show it to him and teach him about it, I don't see that happening
Suicides, If they don't have a gun, they will use a knife or rope or pills.
Crimes of passion, If not with a gun, then some other way.
BB guns, Might scare a druggy that wants some cash, but not much more.
American = farmers with guts (and balls):bandit:
Britain = massive trained army
In the end crooks will always get guns, not matter what laws, all lawa will do it take the guns away from good people, and make crooks happy.
Wrong person, If you shoot the wrong person, you an idiot, nuf said.
Accidental misfires, You don't check to see if a gun it loaded, by pulling the trigger.:laugh:
Kids getting a hold of the gun and thinking it's a toy, That might happen if the gun it put away and the child never sees it, but if you show it to him and teach him about it, I don't see that happening
Suicides, If they don't have a gun, they will use a knife or rope or pills.
Crimes of passion, If not with a gun, then some other way.
BB guns, Might scare a druggy that wants some cash, but not much more.
American = farmers with guts (and balls):bandit:
Britain = massive trained army
Would not have mattered they would have fought even if the brits had todays guns tanks and what not.
In the end crooks will always get guns, not matter what laws, all lawa will do it take the guns away from good people, and make crooks happy.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Yes, all gun control laws do is make the criminals happy:rollg:
But of course I forgot, restricting guns doesn't work does it?:
(from http://www.medfac.usyd.edu.au/news/n...Dec/061214.php )
Yeah you guys are obviously right. Gun control laws are a terrible thing.:unsure:
That article was written in 2006, and there still have been no mass shooting incidents in Australia (that is, a shooting incident in which four or more people were shot) since.
But I'm sure there are loads of criminals and murderers out there, rubbing their hands with glee at our lack of household handguns, biding their time before they decide to actually start using their illegal weapons.
And yes, I am repeating the majority of an earlier post I made in this thread. I am doing this because people continue to use the same tired arguments that gun control does not work, and gun crime will not be reduced. I have provided a report and some statistics that show otherwise, and nobody has provided anything to refute them, but these unsubstantiated arguments continue.
DeletedUser
The "new" arguments presented here are meaningless.
They have already been covered by previous discussion.
They have already been covered by previous discussion.
DeletedUser
I'm sure if you look you can find more, but this is what I found in a few mins.
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
LMAO.
It never ceases to amaze me the shear gullibilty and ignorance that is rampant amongst internet users.
Do you actually accept the authors of this book as credible and reliable?
How many Nigerians have you given your bank account details to?
To make something else, that should be blatantly obvious, clear: a modern government with a modern army has the capability to commit genocide regardless of any gun ownership rights of their civilians.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
You head is so far up -the evolutionary scale-, it not even funny.
You post if full of -intelligent prose-, You show how little you know.
Maybe you should buy the book and read it, or at least read some history.
You post if full of -intelligent prose-, You show how little you know.
Maybe you should buy the book and read it, or at least read some history.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I assure you I am fairly well versed in modern history, and I find any claims that the leading cause of genocide in the 20th century was gun control to be utterly absurd. If you really think this book is anything more than a blatant piece of NRA propaganda, you really need to open your eyes to the world, and maybe look into some history yourself.
Or perhaps you should at least learn to recognise the difference between a genuine centre of learning and research, and a dodgy, private interest, lobby group controlled institute, such as those which the so called academics behind this book hail from.
Or perhaps you should at least learn to recognise the difference between a genuine centre of learning and research, and a dodgy, private interest, lobby group controlled institute, such as those which the so called academics behind this book hail from.
DeletedUser
I am not buying that drivel.
The presentation of the book itself is obvious propoganda, thus the book is worthless as a source.
Look at the wording for Onion's sake!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I don't care about the book, I care about the facts, you have done nothing to disprove it but flap.
DeletedUser
Worst argument in a long time.
You care about the numbers, use them for your argument, put them in a bogus context, but you do not care about the book which did all of this?
Great logic!
DeletedUser
Disprove what exactly?
Do you even have an argument?
So far you've come up with "gun control will not prevent crimes or deaths"
(I am paraphrasing, obviously you were not that clear with your statements)
When I refuted that with a report providing evidence that gun control does indeed prevent crime and deaths, you posted a link to some fools who present a logical fallacy that because genocide took place in countries with laws governing the use of firearms, gun control is the leading cause of genocide.
I laughed at your ridiculous link of foolish propaganda, what exactly am I supposed to disprove?
You haven't even provided any arguments at all in your last 3 posts.