Gun ownership thread #2323344
- Thread starter jeremy202
- Start date
- Status
I like firearms too, but consider civilian ownership dangerous to society.
Progressive social policies eliminating sources of crime > GUNZZZZ
Progressive social policies eliminating sources of crime > GUNZZZZ
your logic is flawed. why would a person that has been openly threatened deserve more rights in defending himself than any other normal citizen? what's the difference in first having a stalker and then getting raped, or just getting raped right away. why would the first person have more rights to defend herself than the second one?Mikael Grizzly said:
that said, here too only people who have proven they're in danger get to carry a concealed weapon. this mostly being judges, lawyers, people who have to carry around a lot of money, etc.
but people still get to own guns at home if they get a permit or a license.
there is no serious relationship between gun ownership and crime in any way. in some cases crime rises with strict gunlaws (UK, Australia), in some cases it doesn't. some countries with very loose gunlaws have extremely low crime. other countries with very strict gunlaws have insane crime rates.Mikael Grizzly said:
there's really no line to draw in the sand, except that both ends of the spectrum do cause extreme crime: no gun ownership allowed = high crime, totally free gun ownership = high crime. inbetween this, there is no real "one size fits all" solution.
either way, you see guns way too much as defensive (or offensive) tools. sure, i'd use my gun if someone broke in. i'd try not to shoot the mofo if i didn't have to, but still, it could happen. regardless, i think it's an extremely unlikely event. for me owning guns is about sport, recreation, mechanical precision, worksmanship,... defense is no real factor in the equation for me.
i've got a clean wrapsheet, i passed all theoretical and practical tests, i'm sane and i'm physically able to use a gun safely. why the FUCK shouldn't i be allowed to own a gun, Mikael?
Mikael Grizzly said:
With all due respect, Mikael, try legislating a mad dog. My own father owes his life to the fact that 45 caliber shells are more persuasive than "can't we all just get along?"
Laws and policies can't protect against everything. Less so even than wild animals is it able to truly curtail the negative societal elements that necessitate it in the first place. Base human impulses and the existence of firearms are two unavoidable truths. Get rid of every gun on Earth, if you can, and somebody out there will make more because there's a market for 'em. The kind of social change you're talking about may be possible, and I've always hoped so, but it hasn't happened in all our years of evolution and it's not likely anytime soon. Until we can pacify both the world around us and the nature of our species, firearms are here to stay.
SuAside said:
Let's see... because he was threatened and has actual need?
You assume that in the second option the perpetrator would be somehow stopped by the possibility of the victim having a gun, which is flawed. He'd simply be more ruthless in disabling the victim.
So tell me, how's a gun at home going to stop you from getting raped outside your home?
Crime is not the only danger to society, which is what you try to imply here.
A line ago you said that there is no relation between gun ownership and crime. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
Just because I'm feeling mean.
Block of text, amounting to "human nature necessitates the existence of guns, so let's use guns to change it" or something similiar.
Also, why pacify the world? Can't we coexist with it, or have we fallen really that far that the only solution we can see is one of excessive violence?
Mikael Grizzly said:
"Change" is where you veer off the mark. You can't change human nature. With force, with guns, with anything. That's the problem. There will always be human predators, and the only way to keep from falling to them, as in nature, will always be to evade or outmatch them. An ugly truth is still a truth. I don't like it any more than you do, but I accept it.
Mikael Grizzly said:
I never said that we should, only that we would have to if we wanted to do away with guns (or rather, with weapons of defense, of which guns are generally the most effective example). I'm all for a world in which there are dangers and pitfalls, and for maintaining the necessary tools to deal with them when we must. Sometimes, that means a weapon. For an example, see the aforementioned mad dog trying to eat my father's face. As a species, we weren't lucky enough to be born with fangs and claws.
In regard to "have we fallen really that far," I would have to ask what heights you think we've fallen from. Human history has been an ugly, violent spectacle, and we've only just reached a plateau of reason where we can truly understand that. I'd say that, in spite of the wars and crimes, our overall civility as a species is continuing on the same upward trend it's been maintaining for at least a century now. Unfortunately, though, it's not a perfect world just yet.
Yamu said:
Uh-huh. If you can't change human nature, why am I currently studying law and typing on a computer rather than run around in loincloths bashing skulls with clubs and raping women to proliferate my genes?
Guns aren't the only defensive measure. Against the wild, we have reached a point where we don't have to use weapons against it to keep us safe. While I'm no expert in this field, various fences and other deterring technologies make weapons a rather ineffective measure of defence.
I think that rather than pacifying the world, we should focus on limiting our virility and proliferation - we keep expanding our niche and that's bound to create conflict.
As for human problems, as I said, progressive policies and, additionally, an effective police force. Make the crime as unappealing as possible and work available and attractive. A bit utopian, yes, but better than giving guns out and hoping for the best.
Mikael Grizzly said:
Nature and behaivior are two very different things. The basic impulses all remain the same-- the desire, however sublimated, for a fruitful life and a prominent social position, could lead one to study a lucrative field such as law. I don't know, I can't guess at your personal motives. The desire to mate is still very much alive, as is the will to violence. I've always respected you as a forward thinker, but unfortunately, you don't represent our species as a whole.
Mikael Grizzly said:
Again, it works on paper, but the reality is often different. I hate to harp on it, but again, let's say someone's being attacked by a wild animal on their own property, like a mad dog f'rinstance. Obviously, the fences haven't worked. Now if this man happens to carry a Colt while he's doing rounds on his acreage, he's likely to survive the ordeal. If not... good luck, buddy. This is just one example-- stuff happens, and sometimes all the deterring technologies in the world (IF you can afford them or they're available to you in your remoteness) won't help you in the moment.
Mikael Grizzly said:
Couldn't agree more. But until things fall into place, guns will still be used for ill, and guns, subsequently, will have to remain the best defense against guns. I don't believe in a Dillinger in Every Boot, far from it. I just believe that a society that legitimizes weapons is better equipped against those that would use them illegitimately.
I respect you, man, and I don't think you're all that far off. I see this is an "agree to disagree" situation, so I'm going to stop at this point lest I continue to contribute to the pro/anti gun clutter in a thread whose intent is entirely removed from the question. Sorry for the edit after you replied, my computer uploaded the changes to my last post too slowly for me to avoid it.
Yamu said:
True, but I don't think you can deny that our nature remained unchanged for the past thousands of years. Since society affects our behaviour significantly, doesn't it change our nature as well?
Thirst for violence has been significantly lessened in the last centuries, that's undeniable, and a direct result of our development as a society. If our nature remained unchanged, we'd have to temper each and every member of society, yet we don't have to.
Last, if I represented the entirety of the human race, we'd be pretty screwed.
Tasers are an alternative. I don't think a rabid dog can survive a few thousand volts without fainting. Plus, most modern ones work at a distance.
If such a transitional period was the price for a better society, I'd gladly pay it, unfortunately, there's no guarantee that the betterment will happen or that people will give up their weapons.
No problem, agree to disagree is an acceptable result in a Cambridge ESOL oral examination, so it's viable in real life too
Ah-Teen said:
I am so sick and tired of fucking retards and their slanted, biased, ignorant viewpoint about my personal ownership of guns.
Your weak brain can only come up with two legitimate reasons to own firearms? Really? You're that stupid and unimaginative?
Fuck you.
I can think of a dozen reasons without firing off two neurons and every single one is legitimate. Especially since your opinion of what is and isn't legitimate doesn't count for jack shit.
What counts is that, in the USA, my right to own can't be infringed upon. I personally don't care what any third world country (or any resident moron of said country) has to say about it.
Really. Care to list them, or are they too brilliant for our puny little brains to handle?DammitBoy said:
But your opinion does, of course.
Keep in mind, I enjoy handling firearms. That's why I, you know, resurrected this thread in the first place. But I hate foolish hostility with no actual reasoning or even an actual argument behind it. "Fuck you, I like guns and I don't care what you say!" is not an argument. Also, any argument that guns make people safer is just beyond foolish. We use guns to kill and injure each other far more often than they come in handy to defend against a "mad dog" or other wild animal. And the only time we really need a gun to defend ourselves against another person is... when the other person has a gun.
DammitBoy said:
DB, you're an example of a person who has not matured to the point of owning a firearm.
Mikael Grizzly said:
After reading that, I agree.
just because that person knows there (might) be a serious threat, he has a right to prepare himself to face this threat? while any other 'normal' citizen does not have that right? each of them is likely to encounter violence in his life at some point. why would someone who received a 'formal' threat be the only person ALLOWED to prepare himself against that?Mikael Grizzly said:
Si vis pacem, para bellum...
well, actually, yes, statistics show that a perpetrator is way more often dissuaded or stopped if the victim has a weapon.Mikael Grizzly said:
for obvious reasons, i'd like to add, since the victim is moderately better prepared to face a threat...
it won't, obviously. and that wasn't the point. i was just pointing out that my country is kinda retarded in our gunlaws as well.Mikael Grizzly said:So tell me, how's a gun at home going to stop you from getting raped outside your home?
so what other goddamn "threat to society" does a gun pose then? danger of overthrowing the government? that's hardly likely. besides, that constitutes a crime called treason.Mikael Grizzly said:
no, i said there was no relation between the correlation of gunlaws and crime, HOWEVER there are 2 distinct points that do always return without fail, and that's when there's absolute zero tolerance on guns and when guns are sold absolutely freely. inbetween of those ends of the spectrum there is indeed no way to predict what would happen with those 2 factors alone.Mikael Grizzly said:
good luck using a taser when facing two rabid dogs (or two knifewielding thugs), dumbass.Mikael Grizzly said:
there's a reason why we no longer use black powder guns or crossbows as primary tools of defense... one of them being the inability to fire twice with those weapons in their normal form.
everyone that hails tasers as being an "end all, be all" in self-defense forgets that cops carry a taser to COMPLEMENT their firearm. if there's two perps, do you think the cop will tase one and then ask the second to wait for a second, as he retrieves the pins and wiring?
SuAside said:
No, that quote is bullshit. Sorry for being direct, but that quote has no place in modern 21st century society
And I don't think you actually grasp the reasoning here - people who have real need can get a permit; those who don't have a significantly harder time getting one and usually get LTL tools, which are just as, if not more effective.
Assuming that the criminal is a moron and attacks head on or behaves conspicuously that is.
Limiting proliferation of firearms isn't retardation.
so what other goddamn "threat to society" does a gun pose then? danger of overthrowing the government? that's hardly likely. besides, that constitutes a crime called treason.
Anyone can have a bad day and become a danger to society. Besides:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4755143.stm
As an example of what "gun culture" potentially leads to.
EDIT: Found the picture that illustrates the point:
If you only take those two factors into account, yes, there is none.
Ah yes, the famous "gun nut" civil manner of speaking.
There is a difference between a cop and a civilian, and it's very basic. A cop is a cop, and it's in his job description to get into situation most civilians don't get into, usually not once in their lives.
Please come up with a more valid comparison, Sue.
I think we've also covered this in our discussion with Yamu.
EDIT: Wait... .50 caliber sniper rifles are available for purchase in the United States?
Kyuu said:
Both of these statements are incorrect and foolish.
Millions of police officers carry sidearms everyday to make people safer - it's called a deterrent. Most never draw their weapon in the course of their duty. same thing applies to civilians - most never get drawn or fired in self-defence, but millions of times a year they deter crime without being fired.
Are you really sure you want to say nobody needs a gun unless the other guy has a gun? How about if there are multiple attackers and a lone defender? How about an old woman being able to defend herself from an attacker?
Your response is simplistic and indicative of most of the children posting in this thread.
---
Grizzly: Funny, I've responsibly owned firearms for over forty years. I've never committed a crime, I've never had a hunting accident, I've never harmed another human with my guns, I've never threatned anyone with my firearms. Excuse me while I give your silly little statement any credence at all. As long as I'm a law abiding, legal resident of the U.S. I have a right to own and use them.
Me ranting about the stupidity of those who oppose that right doesn't make me immature, no more than you being a condescending prick makes you right.
---
A short list of good reasons to own firearms;
1) The 2nd amendment
2) Clay/Skeet shooting is a great, fun sport
3) Collecting guns as a hobby is fun and educating
4) Bad things happen, the police can't be everywhere
5) War Reinactment is a fun hobby and educational
6) Hunting is a great sport and wild animals are tasty
7) Target shooting is a legitimate sport
8) Speed shooting is a legitimate sport
9) You can't have a Biathlon without a rifle
10) Action shooting is a legitimate sport and great fun
I think we're done here. horst, collect samples, then meet me back in the lab for debriefing.
Member of Khans said:What is that about the whole home defense and self defense thing anyway?
Is there now institution called "police" in your home town?
I never felt insecure at home, I could never imagine placing a weapon of any kind next to my bed. Neither my grandparents, who live in the worst part of the city with the highest immigrant and crime rate, could.
Nobody I know owns a gun.
My father used to carry a Heckler & Koch P 10 with him five days a week, now it is a Walther P99. But since those are property of the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, it does not count. He never owned a gun himself.
I have a PSE XLR 43'' 62lbs reflexive compound bow. Does that apply?
So if a violent criminal breaks in your house you are completely comfortable with calling 911 and waiting 15 (average response time if not worse) or more minutes for the police to respond?
What do you think this violent criminal is going to do, wait 15 minutes and then start hurting you and your family?
It may be comforting to say it will never happen to me but the fact of the matter is it happens to different people every day and many people have to become a victim or defend themselves and their families.
- Status