Gun Control (Right to Bear Arms)

[DeletedUser]

If only the founding fathers knew how stupid people would be in the future. The constitution would have likely been written differently. So many people in opposition of gun control seem to be under the impression that it means completely banning guns. That would be a mistake, but expecting someone to prove they are competent and responsible enough to wield one is just common sense. I think there should be a written test and field exam before being able to own a gun. Letting any idiot have a gun is ridiculous. I know a lot of people that wouldn't know the first thing about gun safety and would likely blow their foot off the first time they tried to fire one.

 

[DeletedUser11019]

a total ban on guns would be like bootlegging(proabition)
cause more damage than good....yet its good for the people.

 

[DeletedUser]

a total ban on guns would be like bootlegging(proabition)
cause more damage than good....yet its good for the people.

*sigh* I really hope you aren't as stupid as your posts make you look.
Probation does not compare to a total ban on guns.
For that matter none of the "pro-gun-control" people in here has argued a total ban on guns, merely common sense restriction.

Why don't you actually read the thread instead of posting random Gizmo-like incoherent posts?

 

[DeletedUser]

So many people in opposition of gun control seem to be under the impression that it means completely banning guns. That would be a mistake

You are right scwanobi, there are many in opposition to gun control that are holding to a false impression of what control constitutes. But, i think this image was impressed upon the ignorant to illicit strong emotions in opposition to any form of gun control.

scwanobi, I think you touched upon the very facet of disingenuous mass manipulation that thrives quite readily in the United States (and some European Nations). It is these Machiavellian tricks, posed on the ignorant and unwary, by corporations (and, in turn, bribed politicians) that create these distractions and which, in my opinion, undermines the very fabric of this nation.

And while this may sound a bit melodramatic, I assure you it is not. The U.S. and, by trickle-effect, other nations are undergoing a relentless barrage of misinformation by profiteers, be they garbed in political titles or corporate ranks. It is through dissension, confusion, that business agendas are more readily served. For if you place your energies to battle a non-existent war, you leave other fronts wide open for exploitation.

 

[DeletedUser]

Excuse me David, but your argument seems to cling to the idea guns are toys. They are not, nor should they be used or treated as toys. That many people do use them as toys doesn't justify a lack of gun control. In fact, precisely the opposite.

Look, guns are not toys and they are far less safe than a bat, pipe, or sledgehammer. An assault rifle is simply not comparable to a baseball bat.

You know that I am not considering guns to be toys. If you want me to be more logical in my debates say it plainly so all can understand, don't use entire sentences to try and convince me to argue because I just get mad and throw myself around like a ragdoll and make no sense. I enjoy listing, so here are pros and cons. (Lets assume there is a gun and ammo here in these cases)

Here are the negatives

Guns are killing weapons.

Guns are dangerous.

Guns need alot of laws to keep them in the right hands, or need to be banned for the public saftey because they are worse in the hands of 3 evil individuals than better in the hands of 10 good individuals

Guns and Gun Rights are often debated and more rules are eventually thrown on causing the gun owner either to give up their guns, or become outlaws.

Drugs + Guns = Bad.




Now we shall look at the positives.

Guns are useful for self defence.

Gun safety is easy to teach and to be taught.

Most normal people understand the concept of a firearm.

Most evil people have enough common sense to fear the Law and the Police.

Most evil people will know that alot of other people are carrying guns, so they will not pull anything stupid.

 

[DeletedUser]

Now we shall look at the positives.

Guns are useful for self defence.

Any real stats on this? Any stats on this as to how many times personal guns are successfully used for self-defense rather than having an accident in the home, suicide or the weapon is stolen and used by a criminal?

Gun safety is easy to teach and to be taught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DcVRthVyRw

:laugh:

Most normal people understand the concept of a firearm.

Is that a good thing?

Most evil people have enough common sense to fear the Law and the Police.

Considering the crime rate in "armed" countries, I beg to differ.

Most evil people will know that alot of other people are carrying guns, so they will not pull anything stupid.

Same as above.

 

[DeletedUser]

Guns are useful for self defence.

WRONG! Guns are for killing people, the aim of defense is staying unharmed, can you not see the contradiction? Guns are absolutely useless for defense. You cannot hide behind a gun, it does not let you run away faster, all you get from pulling a gun on someone is make it a life or death situation. A mobile phone is better for self defense than a gun. Having a gun is also no use for protecting your property. Locks are the best way to protect your property, followed by alarms or a dog

Most evil people will know that alot of other people are carrying guns, so they will not pull anything stupid.

I still maintain my assertion from many other threads there is no such thing as an evil person. Violent crimes are committed by stupid people, by desperate people and by people with behavioural issues. Violent criminals will pull something stupid, they will not follow the same logic as you, that is why they are violent criminals, your guns will not change that.

 

[DeletedUser]

WRONG! Guns are for killing people, the aim of defense is staying unharmed, can you not see the contradiction? Guns are absolutely useless for defense. You cannot hide behind a gun, it does not let you run away faster, all you get from pulling a gun on someone is make it a life or death situation.

I could come up with so many real-life scenarios to defend my statement about guns being used for self defence that you and Adeliei's posts make me want to throw up at the lack of intellegence in your reasonings.

Well, we'll start with an Arsonist, they trespass on your property, catch your house on fire and try to kill you with something all because you witnessed one of their previous crimes. Say, you own a gun and the Castle doctrine gives you the right to defend your house if someone breaks in it, but also you would have the right to self defense because the nutjob is Destroying your house. Shoot em' in the head.


Then there is attempted murder scenario, rape scenario, burgulary scenario, attempted kidnapping scenario, and many many others.

But instead of arguing with scenarios, I admitt I know I can't change your mind, you are pre-occupied with making sure the public is safe from gun owners, not caring if they are good or bad, but you are leaving gaps in your coverage. Enhance it a little, provide a thourogh reason that someone should give you good rep for trying hard. Try and use something to Back up why you think you are right about guns being banned. Dangerous ******s have been used by both sides and they are the main antagonist, So lets scratch criminals from the list of reasons for Pro and Con. Think of other ways that guns should be banned.

 

[DeletedUser]

No one is saying guns should be banned. They are simply saying there needs to be rules and regulations for owning guns.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, they are right there, a 15 year old in my 9th grade class last year was allowed to own his own hunting rifles, whattsup with that???

15yearold + Gun Ownership= WTH???

Atleast he fought with his fists... And Im serious, he knocked some jerks teeth out because he said he would rape his mother, that jackoff got what he had it coming to him. Go redneck (kid) with guns (yet still not bringing them to school because he aint all dumb) in that case!

 

[DeletedUser]

I could come up with so many real-life scenarios to defend my statement about guns being used for self defence that you and Adeliei's posts make me want to throw up at the lack of intellegence in your reasonings.

I am starting to think that you may be as unfamiliar with real life as you are with intelligence David.

 

[DeletedUser]

I could come up with so many real-life scenarios to defend my statement about guns being used for self defence

David, that is EXACTLY what is being requested of you --- actual examples and statistics to back up your claims. You have provided absolutely none, and anecdotes are not evidence.

 

[DeletedUser]

"so thiz one tim this fool go into mah hous, i hear him and im lik wut man so i tak out mah gun and i catch him stelin my tv and i tel him "yo fool yu beter run befor i pop a cap in yo ass and hes like no man don shoot me man and im like yo fool i gonna cap yo ass so he put tv down and im like yeh thats right and then he starts runin and im like eh thas right tiz mah hous. And that's how my gun saved Christmas!!!"

 

[DeletedUser]

I could come up with so many real-life scenarios to defend my statement about guns being used for self defence that you and Adeliei's posts make me want to throw up at the lack of intellegence in your reasonings.

Scenarios only address what "could be". I am asking for evidence of what "is".

Give me data. Actual data that people successfully use guns for self-defense. Not that in some hypothetical scenario that it's POSSIBLE that someone could do it.

 

[DeletedUser11019]

thats an unfare question.....there are long lists for and against.
the REAL QUESTION IS..is the gun laws doing us any good?

i could give you a long list of south african crime stat, were a gun saved lives...but then ask the people...do you really want to carry a fire arm??
the answer is no.....

 

[DeletedUser]

Scenarios only address what "could be". I am asking for evidence of what "is".

Give me data. Actual data that people successfully use guns for self-defense. Not that in some hypothetical scenario that it's POSSIBLE that someone could do it.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/01/19/guns-used-self-defense-apparently-not-news

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
plenty of examples here



and my personal favourite:
http://gunowners.org/opetzpt4.htm
it describes alot of the opinions here, don'it?



Really, just type in "Guns used in self defence" into google. Safer than switching to safe auto

 

[DeletedUser]

If you're going to use a gun for self-defense, you'd better be absolutely sure that you're capable of killing someone without hesitation - I don't know a lot of people who are. If you pull out a gun to protect yourself and don't use it immediately, there is a very good chance it will be taken from you and used against you instead. If you don't believe the other person is capable of getting it from you, you probably don't need a gun in the situation to begin with.

 

[DeletedUser]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/01/19/guns-used-self-defense-apparently-not-news

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
plenty of examples here



and my personal favourite:
http://gunowners.org/opetzpt4.htm
it describes alot of the opinions here, don'it?



Really, just type in "Guns used in self defence" into google. Safer than switching to safe auto

Still no stats. Just individual situations.

Oh, well. I didn't figure you'd even try...and I was right.

 

[DeletedUser]

One example for using a gun for self defence.

Close to where i live a situation happened several years ago.
Som junkie high on drugs walked in the house of an elderly cupple.
( middle of the day )

He was armed with a knife and started to beat up the man and cut him i the neck and demanded that his wife go get all the money they have in the house.
Now she got what little they had around the house but he wanted more and treatened to kill him if he did not get it.

Now this had been going on for some time and he was yelling and making allot of noice so a neighbur overheard it and came to check what is up he got cut in the arm but managed to get out of the house.

He ran to another neighbur and told him to come and he brought his shotgun with him.
He entered the house told him to drop the knife no responce he shot a hole in the celing and told him the next one is amed at your knees.

Knife dropped to the floor instantly and shortly there after the police and ambulances arrived and taked care of the rest.

Now to me that sounds like the shotgun made the whole differance he did attack the first one who tryed to intervene.

Now the sad part of this story is that the elderly man did never recover from his cut to mutch time elapsed and he had lost too mutch blood he died in hospital shortly there after.

Now one can wonder would a shotgun in there home have prevented that ?
There would have been lots of time for the wife to go get it insted of the money.But then on the other hand she would have probably had to shoot the junkie i seriusly doubt he would have surrendered to her.And a shotgunblast to the chest at close range is good night permanently.
But i think she would have had every right to do so her husband was in a life and death situation and only she could do anything about it.

And yea what is wrong with owning a gun at 15 ?
I started hunting at 15 and got my first gun of but the parents need to sign the papers that it is ok for the minor to get a weapon.

At 15 you will be convicted of a crime if you brake the law and therby by the state deemed old enough to know what you are doing.

But that shuld be the parents choise they know there child best everyone is not old enough at 15 some never will beehmy:

 

[DeletedUser]

Below me, I can make up stories too, but I don't have to. Again, the primary drive, at this point, is to substantiate your claims/arguments with statistics, not anecdotes.

And to cover the "youth with a gun" argument, youth are not allowed to own their own guns, and the penalties associated with youths committing crimes is grossly lenient. In order for a minor to be appropriately convicted for the commission of a crime, they must be charged as an adult, which requires a pre-trial to determine if indeed the crime, the manner in which it was committed, should be treated as an adult-measured crime. So, I just don't see any point in your presenting that flip-tail argument.