Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The worst anti-gun argument ever.

75 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

    The blood of our martyrs will water the meadows of France

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#31

Posted 25 October 2013 - 10:28 AM Edited by Melchior, 25 October 2013 - 10:29 AM.

I should also point out that we're experiencing a gang war in Sydney. There's been an ongoing power struggle amongst and within the biker gangs in the Western Suburbs but it should be resolved at some point. Montreal experienced something similar a couple of decades ago and eventually it was brought under control. My point is, we aren't experiencing a shift in criminal culture or a crisis of firearm availability, we're seeing the escalation of violence with a specific end in mind.


nightwalker83
  • nightwalker83

    Don't mind me

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2004
  • None

#32

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:00 AM Edited by nightwalker83, 25 October 2013 - 11:01 AM.

@afk4ever,

 

Did you miss the part where it said

 

 

Arguments Made By Liberal Lawmakers

 

?


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#33

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:38 PM

Official statistics from a Tourist Centred area will always be skewered to avoid chasing away the money.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#34

Posted 25 October 2013 - 12:47 PM

Will they? Or is that just your opinion?

I'd imagine that official statistics provided by police forces, by that logic, would tend to overestimate crime levels in an attempt to draw down additional funding and manpower and therefore make the jobs of existing officers easier.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    he's going to get into the ring and put boots to asses

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#35

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:29 PM

Will they? Or is that just your opinion?

I'd imagine that official statistics provided by police forces, by that logic, would tend to overestimate crime levels in an attempt to draw down additional funding and manpower and therefore make the jobs of existing officers easier.

Sometimes that's true, and other times it's just the opposite. Unfortunately we never really have the "true" crime levels reported. In cities like New York, Captains are literally grilled weekly at COMPSTAT hearings if crime is not "dropping" in the areas their precints are responsible for. There have been dozens of cases of Captains ordering their subordinates to charge a rape case as sexual misconduct, etc - in order to make it look like they are doing a good job.

 

Then there's what you mentioned, where police will overstate the amount of crime they are dealing with for budgetary purposes. It's like we can't win win crime statistics... that's why looking at the NCVS versus the crime reporting from police departments (and the FBI which compiles them) is usually a lot different.


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#36

Posted 25 October 2013 - 11:36 PM Edited by lil weasel, 25 October 2013 - 11:37 PM.

Who to believe... the cops or the cops?

Is the tourist, your home, or the university safe?

 


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#37

Posted 26 October 2013 - 10:27 AM Edited by sivispacem, 26 October 2013 - 10:28 AM.

I'm not denying that statistical recording of crimes is flawed by any stretch of the imagination. I also don't struggle to believe that crime figures are manipulated for political purposes. My disbelief was towards your claim that crime statistics will always be skewed, which you still haven't actually demonstrated.

 

Also, several of your sources are utter bilge (blogs are opinion pieces and the Wheelgun analysis of UK crime figures is woefully poor, that topic has been discussed at length on the forums and elsewhere- the only people with an interest in misrepresenting the UK crime figures in such a way are the American right wing, to justify their "guns are good, no guns is bad" mantra, which makes sense as that's the only place you ever see it mentioned) and most of the newspaper reports are allegations, which aren't necessarily the same thing as actual events. You of all people should know the difference given your frequent allegations of "trolling" against me, despite such a think never actually happening.


TheFoxRiverFugitive
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive

    Sly Fox

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#38

Posted 26 October 2013 - 09:01 PM

It is literally impossible to solve the gun issue. People will still have guns even if they are outlawed.


GrandTheftBatman
  • GrandTheftBatman

    Connect 4 Champion 2012

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2013
  • None

#39

Posted 27 October 2013 - 05:10 AM

It is proven-- places with less violent cultures have less shootings.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    The blood of our martyrs will water the meadows of France

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#40

Posted 27 October 2013 - 06:13 AM

It is literally impossible to solve the gun issue. People will still have guns even if they are outlawed.

No, they won't. It's too expensive and the risk is too impractical. This is why the UK and Australia see so few shootings.


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#41

Posted 27 October 2013 - 07:27 AM Edited by lil weasel, 27 October 2013 - 07:32 AM.

If you really want to end firearm deaths, then outlaw or use confiscatory Tax schemes on the ammunition, like they did for machineguns, et cetera.

Few weapons work without fixed ammo. That little side issue of Infringing seems to easily sneak by the courts. But, Police and letter agencies, would have to disarmed (like in the U.K. :) ) or criminals will just take their guns.

Spoiler


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#42

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:04 AM

Few weapons work without fixed ammo. That little side issue of Infringing seems to easily sneak by the courts. But, Police and letter agencies, would have to disarmed (like in the U.K. :) ) or criminals will just take their guns.  As if the military don't 'lose' weapons :^:

 

It's a perfectly valid point, as in the UK black market ammunition is actually considerably harder to obtain than firearms, but I'm not sure I understand your point about having to disarm the police forces (our three/four-letter agencies aren't armed anyway as they have no active direct action capability). I can think of several nations with functioning armed forces, armed police and effectively illegal civilian possession of firearms, which have no firearm crime to speak of, Singapore being the most prominent of those. The idea isn't to entirely outlaw access to firearms for criminals and state servants, it is to make the prospect of acquiring a working firearm through illegal means so arduous and expensive that very few criminals do it.

 

Possession of illegal ammunition is a separate criminal offence in the UK.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#43

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:36 AM

Just going to put my two cents in here:

 

I'd love for everyone to be able to carry concealed in the United States (in my State, you have to jump through a thousand hoops just to be able to get a permit, and I think it's 100% illegal in my county). It would probably help to stop a lot of the mass shootings (barring schools) and would be a likely deterrent for criminals looking to make a couple of bucks stealing from the local 7/11 or Mom & Pop store. I'm completely against Fully Automatic and Burst Fire weapons, but believe you should be able to keep any Semi Automatic firearm you'd like in your home. Banning guns altogether, or taxing ammunition/firearms wouldn't prevent crimes or mass shootings, it would just prevent ordinary, law abiding people, like myself, from being able to defend themselves.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#44

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:57 AM

Banning guns altogether, or taxing ammunition/firearms wouldn't prevent crimes or mass shootings, it would just prevent ordinary, law abiding people, like myself, from being able to defend themselves.

 

I hear this claim a great deal, but no-one has ever provided any evidence to suggest that it's true. In a basic comparison between first-world nations with lax, moderate and restrictive firearm legislation- and I'm fully aware that such an analysis is extremely general and subject to a great deal of nuance, it's hard to draw any correlation at all other than nations with lax firearm legislation have more violent crime, although this isn't necessarily related to the firearm laws in place either directly or indirectly. There's little to no difference between nations with moderate and restrictive firearm legislation in terms of violence rates in society. It's also worth mentioning that some societies that have effectively outlawed firearm ownership have violent crime levels so low as to be statistically zero.

 

Of course this is a very general analysis and subject to a great deal of nuance, but I really don't think it's even possible to make a judgement on the issue. There's no evidence to suggest that nations that outlaw civilian ownership of firearms see comparatively high crime levels, but on the flip side there's no defined evidence linking the extremely low violent crime levels of places like Singapore to their absence of firearms. It is, unfortunately (especially unfortunate as an entire school of discourse is based around the subject), completely impossible to actually make reasonable assertions directly or indirectly linking the presence of firearms or otherwise to either higher or or lower crime levels. 


Broblab
  • Broblab

    Homicidal maniac

  • Members
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2013
  • None

#45

Posted 27 October 2013 - 11:16 AM

 

Looks to be typical Pro-Anti-gun propaganda to me. All solid *facts* that I've seen or heard over the years.
I'm sure the Brady Bunch would have nothing against it.
 
People need to understand that the taking of a life (with a firearm) is not lightly done, unless the life taken is of no consequence, such as a foe in war.
As a Religious person once said, "Taking the life of a rapist before he has the chance to plant his seed is flying in the face of God's Will to replenish life on this earth, and just as criminal as a murdering mother who casts God's Gift of life from her loins via abortion. All life is too precious to waste."
~~~~~
VVVV


Impressive.

I'm not even religious, and that still convinced me more than that bulljizz liberal site.

 

 read his signature


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#46

Posted 27 October 2013 - 01:43 PM Edited by D- Ice, 28 October 2013 - 10:44 AM.

Just my two cents on a couple of interesting posts...

 

If you really want to end firearm deaths, then outlaw or use confiscatory Tax schemes on the ammunition, like they did for machineguns, et cetera.

Few weapons work without fixed ammo. That little side issue of Infringing seems to easily sneak by the courts. But, Police and letter agencies, would have to disarmed (like in the U.K. :) ) or criminals will just take their guns.

Spoiler

 

Guns stolen from the military or law enforcement won't end up in the hand criminals who'll use them to rob your local store or house. It is more likely such guns are traded on the international black market, and end up in the hands of highly professional criminals, militants and terrorists.

Hizbollah or the Sinoloa Cartel aren't really going to bother robbing your local store or house, and if they inexplicably do, I doubt your guns are going to disuade or stop them.

 

 

Just going to put my two cents in here:

 

I'd love for everyone to be able to carry concealed in the United States (in my State, you have to jump through a thousand hoops just to be able to get a permit, and I think it's 100% illegal in my county). It would probably help to stop a lot of the mass shootings (barring schools) and would be a likely deterrent for criminals looking to make a couple of bucks stealing from the local 7/11 or Mom & Pop store. I'm completely against Fully Automatic and Burst Fire weapons, but believe you should be able to keep any Semi Automatic firearm you'd like in your home. Banning guns altogether, or taxing ammunition/firearms wouldn't prevent crimes or mass shootings, it would just prevent ordinary, law abiding people, like myself, from being able to defend themselves.

 

IMO (and as controversial as it may be), "law abiding citizens' self defence" is part of the problem of why guns should be banned. People without proper firearms training, and discipline in the law are far more likely to fire their weapons at people (criminals or not) who do not pose an unavoidable risk to their lives. I would go as far as saying that I personally believe that even threatening someone with a  gun when your life is not at unavoidable risk is unethical.

 

A second issue is, regardless of ethical interpretations, it will escalate the situation. It is far better that a thief steals a local store owner's hard-earned money for the day than either one of them lying there dead in a pool of their own blood.


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#47

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:29 PM

Piffle. You aren't the store owner who goes out of business. My city had a whole shopping mall go out of business merely because it was built next to a Low Income Estate. The hoodlums would steal the shopping bags from the supermarket customers, storm the business' and grab what they could run away with.

People without proper firearms training, and discipline in the law[...]
 

Answer to that is to start firearms education in school when the kids are eight years old.

Why should 'Law Abiding Citizens" be left to the mercy of the soulless animals.

People forget that the Police & other Authorities aren't some superbeings to guide and protect us.

 

Police & other Authorities are merely the Hired Help who have overtime become the 'masters' of our lives.

 

"NO TRESPASSING Public Property" If it's truly public property who does have the right to 'trespass'.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#48

Posted 27 October 2013 - 04:48 PM

Weasel, isn't that more an issue of social deprivation, poor education, vicious cycles of gang culture and substance abuse, and a whole raft of related issues focused around the failure of successive US political and law enforcement policies attempting to create social cohesion and bridge social groups with little more than a S&W per officer and a Mossberg 590 per car; no actual cohesive policies ? From an external perspective, if you get to the point at which you start to need arming every shopkeeper with a concealed handgun to stop the "hoodlums" from stealing everything, surely you've already reached such a point at which arming the citizenry is a futile If you've got to tool up every man, woman and child to stop the influx of crime, then I'd argue that your society has already collapsed. Just look at Mexico.

 

That is assuming the whole thing isn't just a product of your imagination, anyway. I mean, I've been to the states a couple of times and I don't recall it resembling Death Wish anywhere near as much as you seem to imply.

  • D- Ice likes this

TheFoxRiverFugitive
  • TheFoxRiverFugitive

    Sly Fox

  • Facade Corporation
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#49

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:43 PM

 

It is literally impossible to solve the gun issue. People will still have guns even if they are outlawed.

No, they won't. It's too expensive and the risk is too impractical. This is why the UK and Australia see so few shootings.

 

No, I mean they likely won't just hand over the ones they already own.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#50

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:29 AM

 

Banning guns altogether, or taxing ammunition/firearms wouldn't prevent crimes or mass shootings, it would just prevent ordinary, law abiding people, like myself, from being able to defend themselves.

 

I hear this claim a great deal, but no-one has ever provided any evidence to suggest that it's true.

 

 

Threat of a law being passed to tax ammunition and/or firearms would most likely lead to an increase in purchase of said ammunition/firearms. When my State's governor Andrew Cuomo started speaking about the New York Safe Act, which essentially prevents AR-15s from being purchased, gun ownership shot up, and I assume so did ownership of ammunition. .223 and .308 ammunition isn't expensive, so gun enthusiasts are likely to have large amounts of it (I know a few who own a couple thousand rounds). If criminals are able to steal from a gun owners home, they'll be able to obtain the weapons and ammunition they seek and do who-knows-what with it.

 

It's unlikely you'll find statistical evidence regarding this subject, but from a common sense standpoint it's not too outrageous of a claim.


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#51

Posted 28 October 2013 - 05:59 AM

One interesting way to end the gun ownership I've heard:

Anyone who applies for a gun permit of any kind would have to undergo a Court Ordered 31 day mental health evaluation in a state facility.

Since it would be 31 days and court ordered, the applicant would automatically be rendered unable to acquire a firearm or ammunition under current federal law.

 

Certainly no sensible person could object to that... :)


GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Alcoholic Blues

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States
  • Most Helpful [Expression] 2013

#52

Posted 28 October 2013 - 06:06 AM

Good guys need guns too.. or do innocent and law-abiding citizens just need to become bullet sponges for the wicked?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#53

Posted 28 October 2013 - 08:12 AM Edited by sivispacem, 28 October 2013 - 08:16 AM.

 

 

Banning guns altogether, or taxing ammunition/firearms wouldn't prevent crimes or mass shootings, it would just prevent ordinary, law abiding people, like myself, from being able to defend themselves.

 

I hear this claim a great deal, but no-one has ever provided any evidence to suggest that it's true.

 

 

Threat of a law being passed to tax ammunition and/or firearms would most likely lead to an increase in purchase of said ammunition/firearms. When my State's governor Andrew Cuomo started speaking about the New York Safe Act, which essentially prevents AR-15s from being purchased, gun ownership shot up, and I assume so did ownership of ammunition. .223 and .308 ammunition isn't expensive, so gun enthusiasts are likely to have large amounts of it (I know a few who own a couple thousand rounds). If criminals are able to steal from a gun owners home, they'll be able to obtain the weapons and ammunition they seek and do who-knows-what with it.

 

It's unlikely you'll find statistical evidence regarding this subject, but from a common sense standpoint it's not too outrageous of a claim.

 

 

You misunderstand me. My response was in relation to the idea that prohibiting firearms makes people unable to defend themselves. The logic going something along the lines of if you outlaw firearms, the only people with guns are the criminals. Which is far too generalist to actually really make sense as a logical argument, because it assumes several things- 1) that criminals can access firearms readily come what may (which simply isn't true if you look at places like the UK), 2) that all crimes of all natures involving firearms involve a direct threat to life or personal harm (otherwise what would you be defending against?) and 3) that the citizenry is actually reasonably capable of defending itself against criminals through the use of firearms (and I'd argue that despite the saturation of them in the US, the statistics for fatal and serious shootings indicates that a higher proliferation of guns amongst the citizenry does not make them safer from crime).

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the US would be safer without guns by any stretch of the imagination. I'm saying that it isn't logical to assume that places are always safer with them


D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#54

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:32 AM Edited by D- Ice, 28 October 2013 - 11:33 AM.

Good guys need guns too.. or do innocent and law-abiding citizens just need to become bullet sponges for the wicked?

 

Only my friend, it isn't such a clear cut case of good and evil, black and white.

Those labelled as criminals are not the wicked, blood-thirst raping and pillaging raiders from Mad Max, Death Wish and Fallout 3. Neither is the citizen protecting his home with a gun the righteous crusader.

 

The aim of most armed robbers is to steal material possessions, get out, and not get caught. Psychos primarily out to kill and harm are incredibly rare in comparison. And there is an incredibly high risk of an armed law-abiding citizen over-reacting with his gun at criminals who do not pose an unavoidable risk to his/her life. Also, an armed robber is obviously more likely to pull the trigger if he's got a gun pointed to his head, and it is kill or be killed/caught.

That is why I'd say even disarming law-abiding citizens and keeping the criminals armed is a better idea than everyone armed - even the potential increase in crime due to lack of deterrence would be more beneficial to society than all the dead home/store defenders and robbers (and mass shootings and all other disadvantages of widespread gun availability).

But obviously it won't happen like that - disarming law abiding citizens would starve off the weapons grey market which arms most criminals.

 

That's why in terms of crime, the UK is a relative paradise compared to most other places.

I remember how it was in Iraq, just prior to the 2003 War, when the government started distributing free Kalashnikovs. Within a month or so common law broken down, despite the fact it was an authoritarian state with most national resources aimed at keeing the population in check. Even in the heart of Baghdad, tribes and protection rackets quickly became the law, and hours-long shootouts with multiple deaths after low-level store/home robberies became the norm.

 

Simply put, I don't believe a successful, modern, urban society can exist when everyone is armed and takes reponsibility to imposes their rights or agendas with lethal force.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#55

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:34 AM

 it would just prevent ordinary, law abiding people, like myself, from being able to defend themselves.

 

If the guns are going to be banned why would you need to defend yourselves in the first place?


lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#56

Posted 28 October 2013 - 11:54 AM

The U.S. framers were more afraid of the People in Government becoming Masters rather than servants. So they (according to the Federalist Papers) wanted to safe guard the people's freedoms.

The idea of personal defense against crime was/is obvious and didn't need explanation.

Weapons of military grade should be in the hands of the people for that purpose.

And, The idea of having an Atomic Bomb or Tank, or even Light Artillery is just so much blah, blah, blah, to divert the real concerns.

The military zealot's who pledge themselves to political and military figures rather than the written law of the land are the dangerous ones. Sadly they have proven that even the written law can be subverted.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#57

Posted 28 October 2013 - 12:22 PM

I really wish I knew what you were talking about.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The blood of our martyrs will water the meadows of France

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#58

Posted 28 October 2013 - 02:02 PM Edited by Melchior, 28 October 2013 - 02:20 PM.



No, I mean they likely won't just hand over the ones they already own.

Well for one, firearms do require upkeep and replacement. Secondly, this issue can be solved via deterrence: make it a serious crime to be in possession of a firearm illegally. Criminals are capable of cost-benefit analysis, they understand that if one run in with the police is all it takes for them to find their gun, and having a gun is enough to get serious jail time, it won't be worth carrying a gun. This is why Australia isn't awash in "left over" guns.

 

 



If criminals are able to steal from a gun owners home, they'll be able to obtain the weapons and ammunition they seek and do who-knows-what with it.

I'm sorry, but this comes off as incredibly paranoid. Yes, clearly all firearm policies that try to keep criminals from obtaining guns will be completely ineffective, because the rampaging hordes of gang members that permeate America's suburbs and gated communities are so out of control, so ravenous and bloodthirsty, that they'll just commit burglaries en mass in order to get the guns. 

 

It really sounds like you're saying that criminals in America are so out of control that we shouldn't bother doing anything in terms of policy and just give everyone a firearm so they'll at least have a fighting chance when the viking hordes visigoths black people come knocking.

 

I don't mean to be so acerbic and patronising, but seriously dude, everyone needs guns to stop convenience store robberies? So what, if I'm in line buying my usual cheetos and cigarettes and someone comes in to rob the place, I should just kill them on the spot? Couldn't we try other strategies to prevent crime (like social integration, welfare, more investment in education) before we turn to mass arming of the population and vigilante justice?

 

EDIT: Okay, yes, guns can be useful for self-defense. But only in a very narrow range of cases. Maybe if somebody with nothing to lose is threatening your life and police-intervention is useless- the only cases I think of where that actually applies though are people being stalked by suicidal exes and maybe shop keepers in case of a riot. I do think the citizenry should have access to firearms if they demonstrate their proficiency and responsibility, but to pretend that firearm proliferation is a broad anti-crime device is dogmatic lunacy of the highest order.


Vercetti42
  • Vercetti42

    I have moved to a new account.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 13 May 2013
  • India
  • Best Contributor [Gaming] 2012

#59

Posted 28 October 2013 - 03:52 PM Edited by AceKingston, 28 October 2013 - 03:52 PM.

I can't believe that you guys (Melchior, sivi) haven't popped up this point, I'm saying it again. Yes, they can be used for self-defense but what is the need for it when it's banned? When the 'bad guys' can't get it?


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#60

Posted 28 October 2013 - 04:19 PM

Um, we have both mentioned the difficulty in acquiring firearms in nations that heavily restrict and/or outlaw firearm ownership multiple times. We've used Australia, Singapore and the UK as examples throughout the thread...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users