Firearms

[Lord Raven]

Yes, you're right, you can make a point of view look like shit by making a blanket statement and simplifying the issue to black and white.

[cyron]

Again, I state the USA is ass-backwards. If they knew what's good for the law-abiding people, they would take steps towards to protect them from dangerous people with such easily obtained arms.

fire arms are a means of self defense for U.S. citizens if guns where outlawed the law abiding good citizens would hand in their guns and the criminals would? keep them and use them to commit crimes like mugs and if said person has given up their gun they cant use it to defend themselves can they?

my point is guns can be used defensively and you dont need to shoot or shoot to kill

Edited August 2, 2012 by Cyron

[Zanarkin]

fire arms are a means of self defense for U.S. citizens if guns where outlawed the law abiding good citizens would hand in their guns and the criminals would? keep them and use them to commit crimes like mugs and if said person has given up their gun they cant use it to defend themselves can they?

my point is guns can be used defensively and you dont need to shoot or shoot to kill

How many people that are mugged everyday actually carry a gun?

[Fenrir]

Wait, I'm sorry what part of my statement do you not agree with?

I don't agree that if guns are illegal there is no difference in how many people have them. There would be a huge difference.

fire arms are a means of self defense for U.S. citizens if guns where were outlawed the law abiding good citizens would hand in their guns and the criminals would? keep them and use them to commit crimes like mugs and if said person has given up their gun they cant use it to defend themselves can they?

my point is guns can be used defensively and you dont need to shoot or shoot to kill

SlayerX with the common sense, you're an idiot post taken care of.

You DO need to shoot or kill to defend yourself. You at least need the mindset. My dad has told me a story of one of my relatives who got robbed and had a gun but she didn't have the balls to shoot it and the robber called her bluff. The threat is only as good as the action behind it.

[1st Mate Bob]

I don't agree that if guns are illegal there is no difference in how many people have them. There would be a huge difference.

Right, but the psycho people who like to go around shooting up people will find a way to get a gun regardless. If they really wanted to shoot up a place, they wouldn't give a shit about regulations.

You DO need to shoot or kill to defend yourself. You at least need the mindset. My dad has told me a story of one of my relatives who got robbed and had a gun but she didn't have the balls to shoot it and the robber called her bluff. The threat is only as good as the action behind it.

This really depends. Not everyone is going to call the bluff, and you can always shoot at the ground as a warning shot to scare them further. Just because you heard one story it doesn't mean that's how it happens every time.

[Rehab]

Right, but the psycho people who like to go around shooting up people will find a way to get a gun regardless. If they really wanted to shoot up a place, they wouldn't give a shit about regulations.

I'm afraid this is getting to be a more and more circular argument. That's conceivably true that somebody could try hard enough, and invest enough to get a gun even in the most difficult places to get one, say Japan or something, but that doesn't mean every psycho is going to be able to go as far under tough restrictions. IMO the point of making it harder to get guns wouldn't be to prevent anybody ever from getting them illegally, just significantly more than might try currently.

Theoretically, at least. I'm not sure just what impact which laws have on the stuff, or whether it takes multiple states working together to put a dent in gun acquisition, or something.

[Rewjeo]

Japan, as far as I've studied, has had a very long history of people not being able to own weapons. In America, there are already so many guns out there that it would take a LONG time before regulations would make them as hard to get as in Japan. America also borders other countries by land and things move through those borders illegally.

[Fenrir]

Right, but the psycho people who like to go around shooting up people will find a way to get a gun regardless. If they really wanted to shoot up a place, they wouldn't give a shit about regulations.

You can't get around regulations that easy. You need money and tons of energy and time. What makes you guys think, "Well if you try hard enough you'll get the shit." It's not like illegal drugs, transporting a gun is much harder.(Especially the fully auto's which I think should definitely be illegal.)

You have to realize that people may not give a shit about regulations, but they still have to get around them. And how many people are gonna be that committed to throwing their lives away? Gangsters and mobsters, different story, different argument.

This really depends. Not everyone is going to call the bluff, and you can always shoot at the ground as a warning shot to scare them further. Just because you heard one story it doesn't mean that's how it happens every time.

But it's a possibility, and a desperate dude stealing shit is gonna do desperate things. He might think it's worth the risk of getting shot in the leg to have the opportunity to steal something. If I had a gun I don't know that I could kill somebody, would you? Cold blooded, even if he is stealing something are you gonna take a life?

[Byte2222]

I've only got a couple of points to add to the debate, related to the "guns as self-defence" argument and what I learned while studying martial arts.

Firstly: I've been ninja'd.

You DO need to shoot or kill to defend yourself. You at least need the mindset. My dad has told me a story of one of my relatives who got robbed and had a gun but she didn't have the balls to shoot it and the robber called her bluff. The threat is only as good as the action behind it.

Basically this, I learned some weapon art and one of the things I was taught was "if you're going to pick up a weapon, do so with the intent and ability to use it". If civilians are going to carry weapons with the intent of using them to defend themselves they are civilians with the ability and intent to kill (otherwise there's no point in letting them own weapons). I'm not sure I'm happy about that but moreover I think that it's very unlikely that everyone carrying a weapon is ready to kill with it and that kinda renders the self-defence point moot.

Secondly: another thing I was taught. If somebody jumps out at you, points a weapon at you and demands that you give them your wallet/purse there is one sure-fire way of escaping the situation unharmed. Give it to them. Anything else you do with or without a weapon of your own is endangering you and surely the contents of the wallet/purse are not as important as your life so why risk it.

The only other thing I want to say is that I am under no delusions about the USA's gun culture and fully accept that change in gun ownership and use in the country will take a very long time to change, when and if it changes. This, however, does not stop us from debating it in terms of philosophy and principals.

Actually I lied about "only other thing", I also want to say that I see no practical reason to have legal automatic weapons and (again, in principle not practice in the USA) do not believe they should be legally obtainable.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Byte2222

[1st Mate Bob]

You can't get around regulations that easy. You need money and tons of energy and time. What makes you guys think, "Well if you try hard enough you'll get the shit." It's not like illegal drugs, transporting a gun is much harder.(Especially the fully auto's which I think should definitely be illegal.)

You have to realize that people may not give a shit about regulations, but they still have to get around them. And how many people are gonna be that committed to throwing their lives away? Gangsters and mobsters, different story, different argument.

I've no problem with handguns for self defense and hunting rifles for what they're made for. Other than that, I agree on outlawing regular citizens from getting anything beyond those types of guns. You don't need a full/semi-auto gun to go hunting.

But it's a possibility, and a desperate dude stealing shit is gonna do desperate things. He might think it's worth the risk of getting shot in the leg to have the opportunity to steal something. If I had a gun I don't know that I could kill somebody, would you? Cold blooded, even if he is stealing something are you gonna take a life?

If he attacks me, he gets shot in the leg. If he's threatening my life or well being, he dies. I wouldn't hesitate. I've been mugged before by a group of about 8 guys with no way to defend myself. If I had a gun, it would have been a completely different story.

And no one said you HAVE to kill with the gun to use it to defend yourself.

EDIT: I forgot we were talking about shooting in general, not necessarily killing. I suppose my point is the same. If someone tries to steal from me, threaten. If he persists and attacks, shoot him. If he has a gun or some other way to threaten my life as well, he's dead.

Edited August 2, 2012 by 1st Mate Bob

[Raven]

If someone tries to steal from me, threaten. If he persists and attacks, shoot him. If he has a gun or some other way to threaten my life as well, he's dead.

If a person jumps on you, has a gun and is pointing it at your face threatening to kill you if you don't give your wallet, how are you going to kill him before he pulls the trigger? That takes a fraction of a second to do; you'd be shot dead before you even manage to reach your weapon, let alone draw it, aim and fire.

I'm not saying you wouldn't kill to defend yourself, but that's really situational, as someone else posted just above.

[Anouleth]

If a person jumps on you, has a gun and is pointing it at your face threatening to kill you if you don't give your wallet, how are you going to kill him before he pulls the trigger? That takes a fraction of a second to do; you'd be shot dead before you even manage to reach your weapon, let alone draw it, aim and fire.

I'm not saying you wouldn't kill to defend yourself, but that's really situational, as someone else posted just above.

Pretty much. Are you going to put your life on the line in a gunfight just to hold on to your wallet?

[1st Mate Bob]

If a person jumps on you, has a gun and is pointing it at your face threatening to kill you if you don't give your wallet, how are you going to kill him before he pulls the trigger? That takes a fraction of a second to do; you'd be shot dead before you even manage to reach your weapon, let alone draw it, aim and fire.

I'm not saying you wouldn't kill to defend yourself, but that's really situational, as someone else posted just above.

Well of course. Different situations call for different actions. I was talking about the same situation as Fenrir's relative, where she was already in a position where she had her weapon out and pointed at the guy. In that situation, the gun could effectively be used as a means for self defense. It would also work if you caught someone breaking into your house.

If the situation you brought up happens, you're pretty much passed being able to do anything. Having a gun or not wouldn't change anything, all things considered.

[eclipse]

Pretty much. Are you going to put your life on the line in a gunfight just to hold on to your wallet?

It's an interesting situation:

1. If you give up your wallet, do you trust the guy enough NOT to shoot you?

2. If you don't give up your wallet, do you think he'll have the nerve to shoot you and take your wallet?

This applies to more than just guns - if someone has a knife to your throat, you're still in the same sticky situation.

[Anouleth]

It's an interesting situation:

1. If you give up your wallet, do you trust the guy enough NOT to shoot you?

Why would he? He doesn't get anything out of it, except a far far harsher punishment if he's caught. And people in general, even thieves, still don't want to kill others: especially an unarmed person for no reason at all.

2. If you don't give up your wallet, do you think he'll have the nerve to shoot you and take your wallet?

Except that the chances of him shooting you are dramatically lower if you comply with him. I would gladly hand over my wallet for a significantly lower chance of death.

[1st Mate Bob]

Why would he? He doesn't get anything out of it, except a far far harsher punishment if he's caught. And people in general, even thieves, still don't want to kill others: especially an unarmed person for no reason at all.

Except that the chances of him shooting you are dramatically lower if you comply with him. I would gladly hand over my wallet for a significantly lower chance of death.

And thus we circle back to "how fucked up is the person wielding the gun" point. There's still a chance you'll be shot if the criminal feels that leaving you alive will compromise his ability to get away with the theft. Granted, this usually would not happen, since most thieves probably just want your money. However not everyone is a good citizen that won't take a life; not everyone's sense of morality is the same. In general the people who would take your life regardless are the same type of people who would shoot up a mall or a movie theatre.

[Zanarkin]

And thus we circle back to "how fucked up is the person wielding the gun" point. There's still a chance you'll be shot if the criminal feels that leaving you alive will compromise his ability to get away with the theft. Granted, this usually would not happen, since most thieves probably just want your money. However not everyone is a good citizen that won't take a life; not everyone's sense of morality is the same. In general the people who would take your life regardless are the same type of people who would shoot up a mall or a movie theatre.

Yes but the chances of not being shot are significantly reduced if you give them what they want. In other words, if someone tries to steal your wallet, give it to them. If you don't its more likely that they will shoot you and take whatever they want anyway.

Edited August 6, 2012 by SlayerX

[1st Mate Bob]

Yes but the chances of not being shot are significantly reduced if you give them what they want. In other words, if someone tries to steal your wallet, give it to them. If you don't its more likely that they will shoot you and take whatever they want anyway.

Once again, yes I know. I've been a victim in this situation before. My whole point, like I've already stated, was that if I were in a situation similar to Fenrir's relative (ie: already pointing my gun at the attacker) then I have a set course of actions I am going to take. These actions are (obviously) different than what I would do if he came up behind me with the gun pointed directly at my head.

[Duff Ostrich]

Yes, you're right, you can make a point of view look like shit by making a blanket statement and simplifying the issue to black and white.

I realize this is a week later, but I think its worth replying to.

Most of what I stated was fact: that the US constitution is insulated from the likes of those who would want to remove the rights guaranteed within it.

Who would want to, for instance, ban handguns? First, the people who say that the supposed increase in safety. Those are the fearmongers. The second group are those individuals who react to a tragedy involving gun violence by calling for a ban. Those are (as you might guess) the reactionaries.

My actual stance on gun control is slightly more nuanced than I think you've guessed. For instance, I register all of my guns with the police, and I think its a responsible measure to take. I think a small class on gun safety before being issued a concealed weapon permit is understandable. Waiting periods are a waste of time, but are more of an inconvenience than anything else. But I do draw the line at bans, as a handgun ban truly is (black and white) indefensible. It is no less flagrant a disregard for individual liberty as (for example) prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust, or in denying homosexuals the right to serve their country. I am very glad that my nation is on the right side of all three of these issues, even if it took entirely too long for that last one.

[Lord Raven]

Most of what I stated was fact: that the US constitution is insulated from the likes of those who would want to remove the rights guaranteed within it.

I think guns are the more controversial part of the constitution; the other rights I heavily doubt would be taken away. The thing about guns is that its intention was more for militia purposes... in fact, the wording of the second amendment is as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Most people who buy guns could care less about militia.

Who would want to, for instance, ban handguns? First, the people who say that the supposed increase in safety. Those are the fearmongers. The second group are those individuals who react to a tragedy involving gun violence by calling for a ban. Those are (as you might guess) the reactionaries.

I can twist the use of guns in such a way too. The only people who like using guns are people who are obsessed with the second amendment, obsessed with hating on people who take away rights, and obsessed with killing things. If not people wanting them outright banned (I do because I don't see the purpose in a gun other than to straight up kill or injure; I am almost psychologically unable to hurt people with the intention of hurting them), then heavily regulated and with more laws. I don't think the slippery slope argument works, and I do not think it is fair to call people "fearmongers" or "reactionaries" when they advocate for banning or regulation of guns based on personal experiences.

My actual stance on gun control is slightly more nuanced than I think you've guessed. For instance, I register all of my guns with the police, and I think its a responsible measure to take. I think a small class on gun safety before being issued a concealed weapon permit is understandable. Waiting periods are a waste of time, but are more of an inconvenience than anything else. But I do draw the line at bans, as a handgun ban truly is (black and white) indefensible. It is no less flagrant a disregard for individual liberty as (for example) prosecuting someone for denying the holocaust, or in denying homosexuals the right to serve their country. I am very glad that my nation is on the right side of all three of these issues, even if it took entirely too long for that last one.

The person denying the holocaust isn't physically hurting anyone nor is anyone physically hurt by homosexuals serving the country (save the people they kill). Guns can physically hurt people in the wrong hands; you cannot trust a large group of people to be as responsible as you with guns. It works better in a smaller country, but in mass people are complete idiots which many people have a hard time grasping.

[Fenrir]

I've no problem with handguns for self defense and hunting rifles for what they're made for. Other than that, I agree on outlawing regular citizens from getting anything beyond those types of guns. You don't need a full/semi-auto gun to go hunting.

If he attacks me, he gets shot in the leg. If he's threatening my life or well being, he dies. I wouldn't hesitate. I've been mugged before by a group of about 8 guys with no way to defend myself. If I had a gun, it would have been a completely different story.

And no one said you HAVE to kill with the gun to use it to defend yourself.

EDIT: I forgot we were talking about shooting in general, not necessarily killing. I suppose my point is the same. If someone tries to steal from me, threaten. If he persists and attacks, shoot him. If he has a gun or some other way to threaten my life as well, he's dead.

Feels like other people have said stuff that's 100% correct.

It's an interesting situation:

1. If you give up your wallet, do you trust the guy enough NOT to shoot you?

2. If you don't give up your wallet, do you think he'll have the nerve to shoot you and take your wallet?

This applies to more than just guns - if someone has a knife to your throat, you're still in the same sticky situation.

Don't call somebody's bluff. That's stupid. I'll take option 1 over 2 everyday.

Once again, yes I know. I've been a victim in this situation before. My whole point, like I've already stated, was that if I were in a situation similar to Fenrir's relative (ie: already pointing my gun at the attacker) then I have a set course of actions I am going to take. These actions are (obviously) different than what I would do if he came up behind me with the gun pointed directly at my head.

Ok, you take your gun out. What happens next? Do 3 of the 8 people who mugged you also take out guns? Or you take out your gun and instantly fire at victim 1 then 2 then 3 etc., but victim 8 has a gun and shoots you. Pulling out a gun lost you your wallet and your life in those scenarios. Still happy you had a gun?

Having a gun doesn't mean you have a magic wand to make it so people won't be able to rob or harm you. They are desperate and if they get caught they have much more at stake.(Jail time etc.) I think what you fail to take into consideration is that other people might pull out that pistol because you did, and do you really wanna be in a situation where you and somebody else are both pointing guns at each other?

[1st Mate Bob]

Ok, you take your gun out. What happens next? Do 3 of the 8 people who mugged you also take out guns? Or you take out your gun and instantly fire at victim 1 then 2 then 3 etc., but victim 8 has a gun and shoots you. Pulling out a gun lost you your wallet and your life in those scenarios. Still happy you had a gun?

Having a gun doesn't mean you have a magic wand to make it so people won't be able to rob or harm you. They are desperate and if they get caught they have much more at stake.(Jail time etc.) I think what you fail to take into consideration is that other people might pull out that pistol because you did, and do you really wanna be in a situation where you and somebody else are both pointing guns at each other?

Thanks once again for taking two completely different scenarios I mentioned and mashing them together as if they were the same. Nowhere did I say that having a gun = protection in every scenario (in fact I addressed that statement entirely already). You read my point (the last thing you quoted) yet you ignore it and are arguing with me over something I agree with you on.

[Fenrir]

Thanks once again for taking two completely different scenarios I mentioned and mashing them together as if they were the same. Nowhere did I say that having a gun = protection in every scenario (in fact I addressed that statement entirely already). You read my point (the last thing you quoted) yet you ignore it and are arguing with me over something I agree with you on.

I'm confused. Did you realize your argument wasn't solid and are backing out of it? Or is your point a variable? I don't get it.

You are pro-guns, right?

[1st Mate Bob]

Sorry, I realize I'm not being very clear. Let me correct how I feel about the subject.

1. Yes, I am pro-guns.

2. Hunting rifles and protective-hand guns are fine, but I do not believe normal civilians should be able to purchase semi or fully automatics; they should be for military use only.

3. I believe guns have potential to be used for self defense.

4. The people who mugged me (I believe) were not carrying guns themselves. The reason I believe this is because they drew knives on me. They were teenage kids, and I would think that if they did have guns that they would have drew

those instead, as they would have been more threatening. This is why I believe a gun would have been helpful to defend myself with.

5. Other people questioned my morality as to whether or not I would actually be able to pull the trigger if I was using a gun to defend myself. I answered "Yes."

6. Raven brought up a scenario where I get jumped and the gun is pointed at my face before I can pull my own gun out. My response was basically "No shit I can't do anything" for that scenario. Instead I pointed out that if I were in a situation similar to your(Fenrir's) relative where I already had my gun pointed at the attacker, I would pull the trigger to defend myself if the attacker persists.

7. You don't have to kill to defend yourself unless the situation calls for it. Sometimes just having the gun could make people give up trying to attack you, especially if they're unarmed themselves.

I realize that I didn't give all the information on #4 before, and that I was mostly assuming. Sorry for that.

[marcus90]

Only to order forces.