Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gun Control

347 replies to this topic
Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#331

Posted 24 July 2016 - 09:55 PM Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal, 24 July 2016 - 10:18 PM.

Most Americans would agree.  US gun culture has it's problems.  But to ignore the extent to which the mainstream gun control movement is largely a political scapegoat for the cyclical violence enabled by the war on drugs also misses the point...because making the communities most impacted by gun violence safer is supposedly the point of our gun control movement.  So in it's political context, the current US gun control campaign has been led by a reductionist viewpoint as well.  And since fewer Americans have exposure to guns nowadays besides movies/video games, it's that much easier to misinform them and label any gun control skeptic as some NRA shill.

 

 

 

If US gun violence was a priority merely on the basis of its severity next to the rest of the developed world, then we would be combating a host of other public health issues/crisis that take way more American lives each year.  There's obesity/heart disease, drug addiction, depression, cancer,......the list goes on really.  Gun violence is just a sexier issue for politicians to engage.

  • Skeever likes this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#332

Posted 05 August 2016 - 02:08 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms when I have purchased them all legally (in the system), keep them stored in my house, either in a safe or ready for action under my bed, and have never felt the urge to kill anyone with any of them. To anyone saying that there is no reason to have a firearm at home, I tell you this: If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?
  • Skeever likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#333

Posted 05 August 2016 - 03:05 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
  • Tchuck likes this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#334

Posted 05 August 2016 - 04:10 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.

Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
  • sivispacem likes this

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#335

Posted 05 August 2016 - 04:53 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
I never said I wanted to shoot someone. In fact, the simple idea of pulling the trigger on someone makes me feel sick to my stomach. But if I have to I will kill an intruder to protect my family.
Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers. I happen to own a so-called "assault weapon" (an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle) and I really enjoy it, so I would rather not have to give it up. And what makes you think that I live in an area where I don't have to worry about crime? I'd rather have the peace of mind of a loaded 12-gauge than a "it can't happen to me" mindset.
  • Skeever likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#336

Posted 05 August 2016 - 05:25 PM

Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers.

I'm not sure I agree, not that it's particularly relevant to the example of self-defence firearms given that semi-automatic centre-fire intermediate calibre rifles aren't actually that useful for it.

Perhaps if there was less anger amongst right-wing firearm groups at the prospect of more coherent licencing laws and training requirements people wouldn't suggest banning certain firearms.
  • Triple Vacuum Seal likes this

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#337

Posted 05 August 2016 - 07:34 PM Edited by SagaciousKJB, 05 August 2016 - 07:36 PM.

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
I never said I wanted to shoot someone. In fact, the simple idea of pulling the trigger on someone makes me feel sick to my stomach. But if I have to I will kill an intruder to protect my family.
Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers. I happen to own a so-called "assault weapon" (an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle) and I really enjoy it, so I would rather not have to give it up. And what makes you think that I live in an area where I don't have to worry about crime? I'd rather have the peace of mind of a loaded 12-gauge than a "it can't happen to me" mindset.
My point is that with it he kind of money people spend on things like an AR15, they could fortify their home, get a security alarm service, and home owners insurance. All I which is a lot more useful than an AR15 especially considering you could get a 200 dollar military surplus rifle if virtually any caliber that would function the same. What good does an AR 15 in your safe do you when someone has just kicked your door in and stuck a gun in your face before you even got up off the couch? Then supposing you just carry it with you at all times, you're skill going to be f*cked by the element of surprise in the same scenario. So obviously cameras or even just a dog is worth more to alert you to danger than having a gun to react with is.

Now when it comes down to it though, I believe poor people need firearms more than middle class or the wealthy because they can't afford alarm service subscriptions, probably live in a house where they can't make improvements even if they could afford it, etc. In this circumstance, I can agree having a firearm for that last resort is merited but when we talk about the financial cost of other options I believe it demonstrates there's a habit for Americans to treat what should be a last resort as their first line of defense.

P.s.
I have actually had people break in to my house before, so I know a little first hand about the adrenaline factor. Grabbing a phone to call 911 even becomes a challenge!

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#338

Posted 05 August 2016 - 08:36 PM

I fail to see why I, a law-abiding citizen, should have to turn over my firearms

I don't recall anyone suggesting you should.

If there was an intruder in your home, would you rather plead for your life, or engage them on equal terms?

You could just strive to live in a society where the chance of an intruder being in your home is so infinitesimally small that the notion of having to keep a loaded firearm to hand "just in case" is absurd. The rest of the civilised world manages just fine.
Yeah or invest the money on home improvements which would make it extremely unlikely an intruder when enter your home. Re-enforced doors, cameras and a security system all cost less than your average gun and safe combination. I know I would rather have them never in my house at all, than have to shoot it out with them. But then I also realize gun battles aren't glamorous and exhilarating like on the movies. People offer up this suggestion as if getting in a fun fight is as natural to them as Marshall Dylan and it's total BS.
I never said I wanted to shoot someone. In fact, the simple idea of pulling the trigger on someone makes me feel sick to my stomach. But if I have to I will kill an intruder to protect my family.
Oh and sivis, you know as well as I do that so-called assault weapons are under siege by gun-grabbers. I happen to own a so-called "assault weapon" (an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle) and I really enjoy it, so I would rather not have to give it up. And what makes you think that I live in an area where I don't have to worry about crime? I'd rather have the peace of mind of a loaded 12-gauge than a "it can't happen to me" mindset.
My point is that with it he kind of money people spend on things like an AR15, they could fortify their home, get a security alarm service, and home owners insurance. All I which is a lot more useful than an AR15 especially considering you could get a 200 dollar military surplus rifle if virtually any caliber that would function the same. What good does an AR 15 in your safe do you when someone has just kicked your door in and stuck a gun in your face before you even got up off the couch? Then supposing you just carry it with you at all times, you're skill going to be f*cked by the element of surprise in the same scenario. So obviously cameras or even just a dog is worth more to alert you to danger than having a gun to react with is.

Now when it comes down to it though, I believe poor people need firearms more than middle class or the wealthy because they can't afford alarm service subscriptions, probably live in a house where they can't make improvements even if they could afford it, etc. In this circumstance, I can agree having a firearm for that last resort is merited but when we talk about the financial cost of other options I believe it demonstrates there's a habit for Americans to treat what should be a last resort as their first line of defense.

P.s.
I have actually had people break in to my house before, so I know a little first hand about the adrenaline factor. Grabbing a phone to call 911 even becomes a challenge!
Well, answer this, do you want your house to resemble a damn castle? Sorry, but I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice. And I love how you mentioned 911. If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive. That's why I own firearms- when seconds count, the police take minutes.
  • Skeever likes this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#339

Posted 05 August 2016 - 08:44 PM

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.

And you're far less likely to get broken into in the first place if you've got proper high quality glass, a decent door with a high quality lock, and an alarm system. Burglaries are almost always crimes of opportunity, and if you're not low hanging fruit scrotes will just f*ck off somewhere else.

Tampa
  • Tampa

    Gaming Elite

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2015
  • United-States

#340

Posted 05 August 2016 - 08:56 PM

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.
Do you honestly think that I would charge head on to meet an intruder? Wow sivis, under an advanced vocabulary you really have no idea what you're saying. For one, I would grab one of my guns, and get in a position where I'm overlooking the only entrance into my space. I wouldn't "Rambo" through my whole house to try and kill the intruder, although I imagine it would scare them half to death. And for all I know, the intruder could be a murderous psycho or a crazy methhead trying to kill me. And I like having a rifle or any other weapon in between us.
  • feckyerlife and Skeever like this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#341

Posted 06 August 2016 - 02:57 AM

 

 

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.
Do you honestly think that I would charge head on to meet an intruder? Wow sivis, under an advanced vocabulary you really have no idea what you're saying. For one, I would grab one of my guns, and get in a position where I'm overlooking the only entrance into my space. I wouldn't "Rambo" through my whole house to try and kill the intruder, although I imagine it would scare them half to death. And for all I know, the intruder could be a murderous psycho or a crazy methhead trying to kill me. And I like having a rifle or any other weapon in between us.

 

 

That's very unlikely, though. Unless the burglar is quite inexperienced and you happen to be a very light sleeper or is anticipating being burglarized every day, chances are you won't notice the intruder in your house until you come face to face with him. Say you go to the kitchen to get a glass of water and there you go. Do you always carry a gun with you when waking up during the night time? If you don't, you better start doing so, just as a precaution, you know. I've had my apartment broken into when I was living in Vancouver. Was up at night watching a movie with the gf in the bedroom, movie ended and I went into the kitchen to get some water, nearly back to the bedroom when I noticed someone was there. Luckily he wasn't trying to rob the place and was "just" trying to flee the police for having broken his restraining order when trying to visit his son at his ex's house. If I did have guns in that situation, they'd be locked in the safe while he was there confronting me, and I wouldn't be able to reach them in time without trying to subdue him through other means. Which would be very unlikely as he was twice my size.

 

In any case, my point is that you are far more likely to be surprised by a burglar inside your home without having close access to your gun unless your gun is on you at all times. So having your guns locked safe and sound in your bedroom will count for squat. It is far, far more reasonable to increase security in your home as that will reduce the chance of being broken into, which would avoid the dangerous situation altogether. In the event you are able to notice someone is in your house before facing them, then I hope you do have some form of military training to be able to deal with that situation. Stress will make you make mistakes. And when facing someone potentially armed, you don't want to make mistakes.

  • SagaciousKJB, sivispacem and ExTerminator like this

TheKillSwitch69
  • TheKillSwitch69

    Crackhead

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2016
  • United-States

#342

Posted 06 August 2016 - 04:47 PM

Well, here is my opinion on gun control:

I believe that gun control doesn't solve a thing, it only disarms law-obiding citizens. Criminals get their guns off of the street, not from a local gun store. I know that this is kinda off topic, but Guns don't kill people, it is the person who uses the weapon, the criminals and the islamic state just give law obiding gun owners a bad name, and all the liberals could do is point the finger. Like I said, gun control isn't the problem, it is the people who possess them.

MY OPINION
  • Skeever and ULPaperContact like this

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#343

Posted 06 August 2016 - 05:06 PM

I hate it when the powers that be act like banning guns will solve crime. If someone wants you dead, or is mentally unstable, they'll find a way to kill you. Not to mention the sprawling black market.

  • feckyerlife, Skeever and TheKillSwitch69 like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#344

Posted 06 August 2016 - 05:38 PM

Almost nobody actually supports banning firearms outright. I've never understood why so many people attempt to portray the agenda of anyone who wants to see a more coherent firearms policy in such a way.

The idea "guns aren't the problem, it's the people that possess them" isn'tan argument against gun control, it's an argument for it. Firearm regulation seeks to make it harder for the types of people mentioned to gain access to firearms.

The US has a particular issue with murder, especially firearm related. Now I don't know if bringing in firearm laws like those elsewhere would resolve this or whether the horse well and truly has bolted, but these issues don't manifest themselves elsewhere in the developed world.

It's also worth noting the majority of murders aren't premeditated. In the case of most murder victims, nobody "wants them dead"- they're simply victims of circumstance, emotional outbursts or people who just snap. Restrictions on firearms won't prevent incidents like these from occurring entirely, but easy access to guns does enable them.
  • Tchuck likes this

ULPaperContact
  • ULPaperContact

    Proti všem tyranům, pro boha a zemi

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Nov 2015
  • United-States

#345

Posted 06 August 2016 - 10:55 PM

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -Ben Franklin

 

With what I've seen over the years, this is true. If you give the government an inch in the matter, they'll attempt to take a mile.

 

On an unrelated note,

Spoiler

  • Skeever likes this

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#346

Posted 07 August 2016 - 02:27 AM

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -Ben Franklin

 

With what I've seen over the years, this is true. If you give the government an inch in the matter, they'll attempt to take a mile.

 

On an unrelated note,

Spoiler

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

So, how do you suppose the matter ought to be fixed? Every year you have mass shootings in the US, which don't happen elsewhere in the world specially where gun access is restricted. Gun violence in the US is always at exceedingly high levels, which doesn't happen elsewhere in the world specially where gun access is restricted. 

 

You or the other dude said "guns aren't the problem; PEOPLE are the problem". Very well. So, how do we stop those people from having access to guns?

If only there was a term for that... CONTROLLING certain people's access to GUNS. Hmm. It's right there on the tip of my tongue. 

 

Gun Control does not mean disarming the population nor banning guns for life. If that's what you think it means, then you are completely ignorant of the subject and should do more research. What Gun Control is is literally controlling access to guns, making it difficult for certain people to have access to them, discouraging people from getting them, increasing the prices for it in the black market and what not. It goes more in detail than that, but we've covered that in the past 12 pages of this thread anyway, and frankly repeating ourselves when someone completely ignorant comes to the topic is quite a pain.

  • Bartleby likes this

Bartleby
  • Bartleby

    Current Mentos Freshness: 65%

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2004
  • None

#347

Posted 10 August 2016 - 08:32 PM Edited by Bartleby, 10 August 2016 - 08:37 PM.

I believe that gun control doesn't solve a thing, it only disarms law-obiding citizens. Criminals get their guns off of the street, not from a local gun store.

 

I'm not trying to pick on you in particular here, but I hear this on occasion and I feel like this is a false narrative from the get-go. It isn't as if there are two distinct types of people, criminals vs. law-abiding citizens, each clearly identifiable from the other. It also isn't as if one cannot be one and then become the other, or even perhaps both at the same time if we're looking at it in more ways than one. It also isn't as if a law-abiding citizen can't have mental health problems, make a mistake in judgment, want to hurt someone in an unforeseen fit of rage, or have any other circumstances take place that could lead to people getting hurt or killed. It also is not necessarily the case that a criminal in one respect is a criminal across the board, and will not respect any other laws.

 

The real world is a lot more complicated than us vs. them, and all too often such a thing doesn't really exist. Maybe in the movies, but this ain't Death Wish, ya know? The bad guys don't generally strut around in groups with headbands and baseball bats; in fact, perhaps even presupposing "bad guys" at all may be a step too far in the first place, if we're going to say it's only them who do this sort of thing. I just feel that this statement is far too simplistic and really boils down to a mindset of "let's not even attempt to fix this problem if it's going to be inconvenient for people who have done nothing wrong".

 

Edit: Also this is my 9,000th post. Woohoo.

  • El Diablo, Tchuck, Twang. and 4 others like this

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#348

Posted 22 August 2016 - 03:07 PM

 

 

I don't need to turn my house into a medieval fortification to protect myself when a firearm will suffice.

You have to be some kind of fantasist to genuinely believe that your average gun-owning American possesses either the competence or the capability to actually being a firearm to bear on an intruder successfully.

If someone breaks into my house and I'm unarmed, I'll likely be dead or incapacitated long before the police arrive.

In your bizarre fantasy land sure. In reality, pretty much the only time people ever get killed in home intrusions is if they intentionally confront the perpetrator. You're far less likely to actually survive being broken into if you come down, dick in hand, swinging firearm like you think you're Rambo.
Do you honestly think that I would charge head on to meet an intruder? Wow sivis, under an advanced vocabulary you really have no idea what you're saying. For one, I would grab one of my guns, and get in a position where I'm overlooking the only entrance into my space. I wouldn't "Rambo" through my whole house to try and kill the intruder, although I imagine it would scare them half to death. And for all I know, the intruder could be a murderous psycho or a crazy methhead trying to kill me. And I like having a rifle or any other weapon in between us.

 

As much as non-gun owners like to carelessly downplay the added home security of a firearm in responsible hands, this idea of shooting it out with an intruder is overly romanticized. If you are genuinely concerned about an intruder, then your home defense plan should be reliant on a large dog breed with a guard/attack heritage in tandem with a firearm.  Dogs will often do a lot more than a gun.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users