PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Gun Control Debates
     Mentality Behind Gun Control

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey all,

For the better part of the night Iíve been reading post after post on different forums about gun control and the right wing and left wing arguments.  Iíve noticed that I keep seeing the same pattern.  The pattern being the right wing people say that we need guns for protection and the left wing people answering back that if we had no gunís there would be no gun violence.  Note that both sides just want the same goal in the end, to feel safe and protected.

I will be honest with you all, Iím not American (Iím sure youíll forgive me though :-P).  Being able to look in from outside though has given me a unique perspective on the situation at hand and has led me to ask you this question.  

What has caused your society to diminish to the point that you feel the need to bare a gun to do your normal peaceful everyday chores and defend you against your government?

DSFX.


(Edited by DSFX 12/15/2006 at 03:30 AM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 03:28 AM on December 15, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Truth be told, alot of gun owners aren't honest as to why they have a gun. Do they honestly believe their rifle will do much good against an organized military force with tanks, jets and artillery?

I see the "I have this tactical ar-15 carbine with side rails, surefire light, reflex sight, laser grip and etc..." for home defense as "I bought this tacti-cool looking gun to impress cousin joe and flaunt at the range". That's probably true most of the time. Even I am planning to get a tacticool AK in .308 and a side mount scope, but I admit it's for no real reason.

As for people who CCW, there's a real risk in any country of being threatened for property or life. As long as that chance is not 0 percent, there's justification to having a defensive weapon.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:56 AM on December 15, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thank you for your reply,

I do agree with the first part of your statement and just chalk it up to ďboys and their toysĒ.  I myself am guilty of this only not with guns but computers.  

However I do have to disagree with your justification for a defensive weapon.  There is a multitude of ways everyday that you could be killed and most are preventable, why choose to protect yourself against only people and carry a gun?

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 2:48 PM on December 15, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well there's too many risks in life that if you worry about every single event you are practically not living at all.

So now you are asking, how do you justify which risk to undertake and which to not? That's personal preference or perhaps a calculation of which events are more potentially likely. Not everyone balances their pros and cons the same or even rationally, but how can you force them?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:58 PM on December 15, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your right on all accounts.  So then why do so many people come to the same conclusion,  they need a gun to be protected from their fellow man?  Is crime really that bad in the US, or are you all really just that scared of somebody trying to harm you?
DSFX

(Edited by DSFX 12/15/2006 at 4:29 PM).

(Edited by DSFX 12/15/2006 at 4:31 PM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 4:25 PM on December 15, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well crime rates aren't pretty in some parts of the states, but they're good in some other parts. In places like Chicago & New York they're getting national attention about their skewed high crime rates. I'm not sure how the US compares to other countries. But I expect that we're not at the top of the list nor the bottom of the list. You're probably right that most people who CCW are just afraid of being deprived of property/livelihood.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 4:43 PM on December 15, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm just trying to wrap my head arround it.  I live in Canada, i'm 23 and i've never seen a gun before, except on police officers.  I live in a big city of about 450,000 and i go out at night, downtown party it up i've never been scared of anybody or felt the need for a gun.  

I just don't get the whole mentality that if you try to take my wallet i'll try to take your life.  Haha take my wallet i'll buy a new one.

Just one question though that you can answer for me.  I'm not 100% sure about this but in Canada i do believe that if you have a gun you must have a gun locker and a separate ammo locker to store your weapons in.  The gun can not be loaded when in the gun locker.  This makes storing guns here alright but it's useless in a defensive situation because it takes to much time to open two lockers and load.  In America how are you supposed to store your guns?

DSFX
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 6:01 PM on December 15, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well that's fine, most of us gun owners don't try to force guns on others who feel they don't need one. It's as I said, a precautionary measure that some of us feels the need to prepare for and some of us don't. You may feel it's worth the risk for a wallet, but not everyone else feels the same way. If it were guaranteed that a thief will only take your wallet then perhaps the needs may change. There's a mentality in parts of the country (US) that deprivation of property is deprivation of livelihood, but in most other states it's not. These people are not usually preparing for the common mugger, but the "violent mugger". It's not I'll take your life for my wallet, but I'll take your life for my life.

As to your question, it's dependent on state, but the majority of states (I can only think of 2 states that may be restrictive) don't have any requirements for how you store weapons in a residence. There's only limitations on how you travel with a weapon and how you discharge a weapon.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 12:20 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wow, you guys have really loose gun control in comparison to Canada; Iím actually kind of shocked.  I know that you have to take mandatory courses in Canada if you own a hand gun or a rifle(there may be separate courses for handguns and rifles, I donít know).

But logistically I still donítí get it.  I could make examples and points but judging by the general attitude towards people with my point of view, the ďAntisĒ I donít think it would matter much, everybody is too set in their ways.  

I wish i could say I fully understand why you feel the need to have a hand gun but I can respect the reasons why you do it, to protect yourself and your family.  I just wish that people in America that are pro guns could see what it looks like from a different perspective.  Maybe then youíd understand a little more why I have trouble believing in carrying around a ďtoolĒ that is capable of so much destruction.  

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 12:59 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, I like to think I'm pretty well cultured. I've lived in 3 different countries with 3 very different gun control attitudes. I've lived in a country where guns are banned in it's entirety (China), a country where an assault rifle is issued to take home for every capable citizen (Switzerland) and a country...the US where guns are a choice. In all three countries, crime wasn't rampant, and my family never had an occurrence where we needed a gun. For most people this is probably true throughout their life.

However, despite knowing this there is a tangible chance where having a gun would help. Whether one decides to prepare for that chance is a personal preference. There is a legitimate use for guns despite the fact that it can be destructive.  Whether the pros outweigh the cons is again personal preference. Motor vehicles cause the most amount of damage to human life every year in the US. Yet most of us here in the US still decide to drive instead of walk & bike.

My point of all this is that I probably can't convince you by talking to you that a gun is necessary. However, in return you probably can't convince a gun owner that he/she doesn't need to carry a gun for self defense. There's really nothing wrong with disagreeing over what's necessary as long as you recognize that different people have different priorities, but it's not a good thing to force people to re-evaluate to your own priorities.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 01:31 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Iíve seen this gun to car comparison made quite a bit.  However people donít take into consideration that there is a lot more money being sunk into car safety and automated vehicles so people wonít have to drive and get into collisions.  There is progress and improvements being made to try to help prevent deaths and the end goal not have people drive the cars at all.  Can the same be said for the funding put into gun safety or education or dare I say it, termination?  This comparison may be apples and oranges but I figured I might as well dismiss it since I have seen it used so often.  

And I do agree with you that weíll probably never see eye to eye on the subject.  I do however enjoy the debate.  Well as far as priorities I think that in this case they are the same, to be safe and secure.  The only difference is the means to the end.  

DSFX
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 02:13 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Money is being spent on gun safety. There are many courses available for hunting, gun use, gun safety, carrying a gun and etc. Some of these are provided by the state and some by organizations. They are offered practically in every city. It is required that CCW holders pass an evaluation course before being allowed to carry. I have sought training from gun clubs for position shooting, safety handling and gun care. There is also money being spent on physical technology for gun safety, such as electronic gun safes locked by finger prints and key pads. There are also finger print activated trigger locks, barrel/dud locks and electronically locked portable gun cases. All of this development shows in that if you look at statistics, accidental gun deaths is on the bottom of the list of causes of death in the US.

Also, I don't see the motor industry trying to veer people away from using a car in the future. At least not in the US. If anything they're accelerating car purchases by offering more lucrative leasing options, more variety in models and even luxury vehicles such as off-roaders. Also, why terminate them if they're not the problem? Why not just get people to learn how to use them responsibly and remove those who use them vindictively?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:29 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are correct, there is money being spent on gun safety, I never questioned that fact. Itís just not to the extent the car industry is spending money, I looked up some figures a week or so ago, Iíll see if I can find them again.  Also they are developing cars that will cruise along highways and roads on their own to remove the human element from driving.  The same cannot be said for guns.

You also stated ďWhy not just get people to learn how to use them responsibly and remove those who use them vindictively?Ē Well because by the time you know somebody is going to abuse it itís to late, a life has been lost.

DSFX

But it is late and I must resign for tonight, Iím having trouble forming coherent sentences now.

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 02:40 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think you are referring to the "Grand Challenge" sponsored by DARPA. I've attended a few presentations of participants and I know of a couple of people who participated. That is not something piloted by the motor industry. DARPA is the US military 's department of futuristic gadgets and what not. They are sponsoring individuals and teams to build an autonomous vehicle for use of cargo transport in places like Iraq where supply lines are frequented with raids. I know of no involvement by the motor industry in any such development specifically for consumers.

Also, there is not as much demand for more gun safety features. The amount of money used does not equate the efficiency of the methods. There is enough present to reasonably secure a weapon when needed. Proof of this is shown by how low the numbers are for accidental gun deaths.

However, if one can  find a type of technology or method such that it removes the human element out of self protection then by all means it should be adopted. The point being as of yet, possessing a gun for self defense is arguably a very efficient way to deter being victimized.

I say good night as well. I have enjoyed the discussion and we should continue this later.

(Edited by quatin 12/16/2006 at 03:18 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:59 AM on December 16, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It may have been the DARPA project I saw but I have looked up several other sites, one a university, the other a government site and they both were working to develop automated systems too.  Bearing in mind that itís not the motor industry paying for research but the government site gives some nice figures.  
I will also agree with you that the gun related accidents are really low statistically speaking.  But my major concern is the use of guns for violence.  Having a concealed weapon wonít deter your attacker from attacking because he doesnít know itís there until after the fact, when heís shot.  It never prevented him from attacking you it just stopped the attack while it was in progress, an attack that could have been stopped many different ways, submitting, confronting, making a scene if itís in a public place.
Just what Iíd do though.

DSFX
Supported links
http://www.ece.osu.edu/citr/Demo97/osu-av.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/~jbs/itrans/ahssummary.htm

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 8:57 PM on December 18, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guns aren't for protection.  What gave you that idea?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:28 PM on December 18, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DARPA is the most persistent and advanced stage of automated controled vehicles so far. There are spurious university projects, but if you look into their sponsors some of them are also military contracts. But point being is that the motor industry really isn't pushing to remove cars from society.

It's not arguable that guns are used in violent crimes, but it is arguable that banning guns is the solution to violent crime. Violent crimes are not the result of guns, but violent people. You can argue that there will be less collateral damage if a gun isn't present, but you forget to mention that there is also the case of people being subject to violent crimes because they were not allowed to arm themselves to be on equal grounds with a criminal. You save injury on one hand only to perpetuate injury with the other.

Lastly just fyi. The majority of times where a gun is used to prevent crime by a private citizen, it is rarely fired. Most states allow brandishing to be a legal defense. Brandishing a gun will usually prevent a confrontation from getting worse, without firing a shot. If submission, confrontation, making a scene were as effective, then there is no rationale for so many people to spend so much money and effort on other methods. I don't know if you've ever taken a self defense class, but the first thing the instructor tells you is to carry a weapon.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:49 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Your right again banning guns is not the solution to preventing violent crimes, it is the solutions however to prevent gun related crimes and even some other crimes that people wouldnít have tried to commit if they didnít have a gun.  I agree with you again when you say that ďViolent crimes are not the result of guns, but violent peopleĒ.  But violent people are a result of a violent society among other factors and why should you arm a known violent society?  Shouldnít you disarm it so it is less violent?

ďbut you forget to mention that there is also the case of people being subject to violent crimes because they were not allowed to arm themselves to be on equal grounds with a criminal. You save injury on one hand only to perpetuate injury with the other.Ē  If your being attacked by a criminal with out a gun and you have a gun it does not put you on equal ground, at any time you have the ability to shoot and kill that criminal in self defense.  The only time it will put you on equal ground with an offender is if the offender has a gun also.  What if both of you didnít have guns? Besides the type of isolation you keep referring to is almost non existent in society today, rarely(if ever) will it ever be just you and the criminal.

Iím kind of shocked to hear that your legally allowed to brandish your firearm at any time for self defense, I want to say that it would almost surely escalate any situation but who really knows.

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 6:45 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Punishment for a crime not committed is hard to justify. I'm not sure how you can convince every single citizen that they are irresponsible, violent and not capable to own tools capable of injury.

Even if it's rare that's no support to say "NO-ONE is allowed to prepare for a confrontation where he/she had to rely only on himself/herself, because it probably won't happen". The goal of self-defense is to not be dominated by your attacker, you either want equal or upper ground, but not be under handed.

It is better to brandish than to shoot. It is not legal to brandish at any time, but at a time where self-defense is justified.

(Edited by quatin 12/19/2006 at 7:09 PM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:06 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


This is the biggest difference between the ďantisĒ and the ďprosĒ, you see it as punishment and infringement upon your freedoms as an American citizen but how free are you all really if you have to carry a concealed weapon everywhere you go?  The laws too that support the use of firearms against people also aggravates the situation Florida comes to mind, Iím not to sure the name of the law but Iím sure you know the one Iím talking about.  

Using a gun to gain the upper hand in any engagement short of a shootout is a lazy and narrow minded way of dealing with confrontation.   There are many different ways to diffuse any situation without the need to shoot somebody.  Just because somebody has a gun doesnít mean heís got the upper hand.  

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 8:25 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am uncertain of the situation you speak of in Florida. I am also not following you that carrying a weapon is antagonistic to freedom. We don't believe that the world is full of trouble, but we are also not naive enough to think any society is trouble free.  Most people can go about their daily lives without such encounters, but it does occur. It will be a better world if guns/weapons are not needed, but how realistic is such a world and how naive is it to believe one day such a goal is achievable?

I am actually intrigued as to what you think the methods should be to diffuse a confrontation that may turn violent. Could you elaborate more on this?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 11:09 PM on December 19, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The situation in Florida is regarding this http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html
Also, and Iím sorry to have to make this analogy(Iíve been trying to avoid it)  but the need to own/carry/use a gun to feel protected is in many ways parallel to a toddler and their security blanket that they carry around.   Donít you see the use of guns as more of a Band-Aid solution to crime?  Instead of stopping crime, just arm the masses and they will be able to better fend for themselves?  And from what is going on thatís not even working.  

It will be a better world when people realize that since the industrial revolution the need for muscle has diminished and the need for intelligence has risen.  With the attitude towards violence projected by the NRA and ďprosĒ how do you expect to ever attempt to achieve a peaceful world?  The only thing standing between us, the people right now and our hope of a peaceful world of tomorrow is ourselves.  It has to start somewhere, why not start with what most people consider to be the most advanced country in the world!
As for my methods, if Iím being robbed, I give in.  If Iím being attacked I flee.  If for some odd reason Iím backed into a corner and canít flee then I give in again.  I may get hurt but not killed because I never posed a threat to my attacker.  

DSFX


(Edited by DSFX 12/20/2006 at 04:02 AM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 04:00 AM on December 20, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry if I am butting on your post but I feel that the pro gun side is not represented here. There is so much that you don't seem to understand. I read the artical you have referred to and want to expand on it. The laws in Fl have brought them the lowest violent crime rate since the late 70's. The artical is speculation and there is no evidence for either side, though if history is any judge of what to expect the crime rate will drop even more including nonviolent crime.

In my state where the right to carry was recently changed from a shall issue to a may issue, the violent crime rate has again started to climb after falling in the early 90's after a spike in applications for carry licenses after a technical change in the carry laws. Every state that has instituted a right to carry laws have had drops in violent crime. You are under a false assumption that if you don't struggle you won't be killed. You may not but remember you are at the mercy of a criminal, if he is there to kill you or doesn't care if you live, you will die. If you realy want to see why the right to carry law realy do reduce crime read John R Lotts book (More Guns Less Crime) it is a hard read since it is a study using FBI crime stats.

DSFX you are under a false assumption of what freedom is and what the second ammendment is about. Besides reading the ammendment you need to read the federalist papers and understand what the founders ment when writing that ammendment. Freedom is an inalienable right as is the right to keep and bear arms.

quatin please don't take what DSFX says as the norm, the great majority of gun owners don't use gun ownership for stroking their egos.


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 5:56 PM on December 20, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess in a way you can relate that to a toddler's security blanket, but does make it wrong that a toddler carries a security blanket?

Guns is an immediate and effective solution to a crime occuring, that's why cops carry them. It's simple to say "just stop crime", but how exactly do you do that? If it was that easy to just prevent crime then we wouldn't have the need to carry weapons in the first place. Weapons did not perpetuate bad people, bad people perpetuated weapons. If bad people are going to arm themselves to neglect the law, what rationale is there to disarm those who follow the law?

It's sort of naive to say that people can become smart and not kill each other. You suggested that human nature is something that preserved through the centuries, so why dream to expect that will change?

The point isn't how you handle a situation yourself. Gun owners are not forcing you to own a gun so you can use it, whether to escelate or dissolve the situation. Anti-gunners are forcing gun owners to be at the mercy of the criminal without choice.  If you decide to give into the thief and be at his/her mercy, does that mean everyone else should be forced to do this as well?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 7:16 PM on December 20, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quantin,
You are right a gun is an immediate and effective solution to a confrontation, unfortunately itís often Permanente.  Police carry guns, true but they also wear Kevlar vests to help aid in their protection because they unlike most people put themselves in more danger on a day to day basis.  True enough, it is simple to say just ďstop crimeĒ but what Iím getting at is that there are many different ways to stop crime.  Iím sure that if you looked at violent offenders that youíd see some similar patterns in their way of life and thought processes that you could help to address rather than having to carry a weapon so one doesnítí attack you.  Bad people augment weapons, if they didnít have access to them their confidence in their ability to commit the crime would be reduced and that in turn would reduce the likelihood of them committing the crime.  

I donít think itís naÔve at all to assume that one day people will become smarter and find more creative solutions to solve problems and in turn reduce crime rates drastically if not abolish them.  Humans much like animals evolve to suit their environments, if we produce a peaceful environment for a long enough period of time then wouldnít it be safe to assume that weíd adapt to it and lose the fear that makes you want to carry a gun with you?  

ďGun owners are not forcing you to own a gun so you can use itĒ but that is assuming that all gun owners will never ever commit a crime with their guns.  According to your school of thought because I can be attacked with a gun I should carry a gun for self defense and so should everybody else in turn.  Itís a domino effect.  I will admit this though Quantin, I can argue all your other facts I can disprove them I can counter them.  The only fact that I do have trouble arguing is that guns use for self defense, because yes you can use them to shoot, kill, threaten an attacker.  That is what my original post was about.  What I consider fear you consider preparation; what you consider a tool used for defense I consider tool capable of only one thing, taking lifeís;  what I consider the easy way out you consider the only way out.  And that is the mentality behind the ďprosĒ.  

DSFX

(Edited by DSFX 12/21/2006 at 1:12 PM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 1:11 PM on December 21, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Trigger,

Feel free to voice your opinion.  But I think Quantin is doing tremendous job of arguing the ďprosĒ side.  What Iíd like to know though is do you think it is alright to have such potential for violence that everybody is to afraid to do anything; and how far should those limitations go if you do agree?  Secondly does that impede upon your freedoms?

Again I have to point out that the fear of an attacker is the most valid reason people have for guns.  This mentality that you can be killed is almost paranoid.  As has been argued above you can be liked in a variety of different ways yet people choose to protect themselves against people the most, even when statistics show that cars kill more people than guns, why is that?

When the amendment was written times were different, there was less law enforcement and the need for self protection was greater because America was still a developing country.  As for inalienable rights, that idealism is outdated at best and well it is insulting to my intelligence to even buy into that.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights

My impression upon the term freedom is not skewed as you may suggest.  The idea of freedom in societyís constraints is ludicrous at best.  Nobody is really free, nor were we ever.  We do whatís best for us and secondly others and hope not to impede somebody doing the same.    You can have fewer rules to constrain your personal freedoms in society but you still must live by societyís laws.

I would like to know how you interpret what Iíve said to make you believe that I thought that people own guns for the sake of their egos?  Because I will have to correct you on that issue, that is not what I believe at all.

DSFX

EDIT: need to add in second amendment topic but will do it later


(Edited by DSFX 12/21/2006 at 2:56 PM).
 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 2:23 PM on December 21, 2006 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from DSFX at 2:23 PM on December 21, 2006 :
Trigger,

Feel free to voice your opinion. †But I think Quantin is doing tremendous job of arguing the ďprosĒ side. †What Iíd like to know though is do you think it is alright to have such potential for violence that everybody is to afraid to do anything; and how far should those limitations go if you do agree?
Secondly does that impede upon your freedoms?


Actualy there is no real potential for violence by the law abiding gun owner. This is easy to prove in the US 1 out of 4 people are gun owners, everywhere you go everything you do you are surrounded, 7 days a week by them. Yet calm exists. By this fact alone gun owners are law abiding, safe, sane people. Over 70% of homicides in the US are commited by criminals with long criminal historys. In Texas a recent study shows that gun owners 12 times less likely to commit a crime that the general public. With gun ownership comes responsability most gun owners realize this and behave accordingly. They will walk away from a confontation if they can. In the us over 2.5 million crimes are thwarted every year by gun owners of that only 300 criminals are killed. Gun owners are not interested in harming anyone if they were more criminals would die. All they want is for the criminals to leave.

Secondly does that impede upon your freedoms?


I don't see how it could. If you meen by carrying a gun continuously? No, it would be no diffrent than carrying a wallet or pocketbook. †

Again I have to point out that the fear of an attacker is the most valid reason people have for guns. †This mentality that you can be killed is almost paranoid.


Not realy., If you look back at the past century who is the biggest killer of man? Goverments are the ones that slauter mankind. Over 150,000,000 in the last century alone. You have more to worry about from a tyranical government than criminals. I think that, that paranoia is misplaced.


As has been argued above you can be liked in a variety of different ways yet people choose to protect themselves against people the most, even when statistics show that cars kill more people than guns, why is that?


You don't protect yourself from people you protect yourself from criminals. Guns aren't used as often  as a car and there is a greater potential for the missuse of a car, speeding,drunk driving etc.  †


When the amendment was written times were different, there was less law enforcement and the need for self protection was greater because America was still a developing country. †As for inalienable rights, that idealism is outdated at best and well it is insulting to my intelligence to even buy into that. †http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights


How so? You still have the risk of your goverment becoming corrupt or tyranical. Our freedom is tied to our constitution and the only way to prevent the loss of that freedom is through down right force you give up that force and you are ruined. Just look at what happned to Germany in the 30's. You may not beleave it but if you look over this planet the great majority of the goverments are tyranical if you disarm the US public weakens the sovereignty of the US since an invader would only need to over come the military in stead of a nation.

My impression upon the term freedom is not skewed as you may suggest. †The idea of freedom in societyís constraints is ludicrous at best. †Nobody is really free, nor were we ever. †We do whatís best for us and secondly others and hope not to impede somebody doing the same. † †You can have fewer rules to constrain your personal freedoms in society but you still must live by societyís laws.


What constraints would that be? You are free to live as you choose, your life is what you make of it you are not forced in to any mold or restrained in anyway. You are not forced to submit to society's laws you can break them if you choose to, criminals do it all the time. I worked with a woman that had immigrated to the US from the Soviet Union. I wish I could have her talk to you so you can see what being opressed is really all about.    

I would like to know how you interpret what Iíve said to make you believe that I thought that people own guns for the sake of their egos? †Because I will have to correct you on that issue, that is not what I believe at all.


Sorry, confused you with quantin. Was refering to his first post on this thread.

DSFX

EDIT: need to add in second amendment topic but will do it later


(Edited by DSFX 12/21/2006 at 2:56 PM).





(Edited by TRIGGER 12/21/2006 at 7:38 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 5:24 PM on December 21, 2006 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

let me quote to address things easier:

You are right a gun is an immediate and effective solution to a confrontation, unfortunately itís often Permanente.  Police carry guns, true but they also wear Kevlar vests to help aid in their protection because they unlike most people put themselves in more danger on a day to day basis.


You are correct, however a gun owner can also wear a Kevlar vest by applying for it. Police put themselves in danger that PEOPLE are involved in. YOU and I are those people. Just because the police does it more doesn't mean gun owners should not be allowed to carry for protection, because it is fact that crime affects ordinary citizens, not just police.


True enough, it is simple to say just ďstop crimeĒ but what Iím getting at is that there are many different ways to stop crime.  Iím sure that if you looked at violent offenders that youíd see some similar patterns in their way of life and thought processes that you could help to address rather than having to carry a weapon so one doesnítí attack you.  Bad people augment weapons, if they didnít have access to them their confidence in their ability to commit the crime would be reduced and that in turn would reduce the likelihood of them committing the crime.  


Criminals are not allowed access to firearms in the USA. Disarming the entire populace makes it seem like EVERYONE is a criminal and should not have access to tools capable of injury.
I agree the problem is the criminal and that you can single them out and solve the criminal element, but that solution is not to disarm the entire populace whether guilty or innocent.


I donít think itís naÔve at all to assume that one day people will become smarter and find more creative solutions to solve problems and in turn reduce crime rates drastically if not abolish them.


I just have to disagree here. It's human nature to be selfish, there will never be a perfect world where everyone acts for the better.


According to your school of thought because I can be attacked with a gun I should carry a gun for self defense and so should everybody else in turn.  Itís a domino effect.


Yes it is a domino effect, but it's not a bad effect. Just because everyone carries guns doesn't mean everyone is a murderous criminal. Criminals don't tend to pass CCW permits and people intending to murder do not bother legalizing their carry. I believe the best way to diffuse confrontation is to have the OPTION of being equally armed. What you are suggesting is that no one even should get the option of preparing.


What I consider fear you consider preparation; what you consider a tool used for defense I consider tool capable of only one thing, taking lifeís;  what I consider the easy way out you consider the only way out.  And that is the mentality behind the ďprosĒ.  

The decision to carry a gun or prepare for confrontation is not something that everyone has to understand. What is important is that everyone needs to understand that I or anyone has the CHOICE to make such a decision. By adopting the "anti-gun" stance, you are forcing people to submit to confrontation.

 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 5:56 PM on December 21, 2006 | IP
DSFX

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See now I can understand wearing a Kevlar vest and saying that itís defensive because it provides survivability against a weapon.  However the argument that a gun is defence would be like saying that the best defence is a good offence.  Sometimes it is but it is rarely the case.  

Criminals are not allowed access to firearms in the USA. Disarming the entire populace makes it seem like EVERYONE is a criminal and should not have access to tools capable of injury.
I agree the problem is the criminal and that you can single them out and solve the criminal element, but that solution is not to disarm the entire populace whether guilty or innocent.


The fact that you have a criminal record and cannot acquire a gun is a rather positive thing but the problem is that a criminal is judged by the one action he did to make himself a criminal, what if that action has not been committed yet?  Really the word game that we all play with guns is just semantics.  Calling it a tool, a tool designed for injury, a tool with the capacity to take life and yes maybe even deture crime.  It doesnít matter, itís just a gun in the end.  It more just trying to put a positive spin on a negative object.

I just have to disagree here. It's human nature to be selfish, there will never be a perfect world where everyone acts for the better.

I do agree with you that there will never be a perfect world however the only constant in life is that nothing is constant and to hope for a world where people learn to solve their problems through other means rather than violence is something that I think we can both agree that we want.  Itís just how we get there that is up for debate.  

What Iím suggesting is not stopping people from preparing but rather forcing them to take a more effective approach to solve confrontation.  And I think the fact that the general consensus form the pros is that we should all carry guns and it would make it a safer place is just an example of the violent times that we do live in.  After all necessity is the mother of invention and when and if we all carried guns then criminals would be forced to find different way to commit their crimes.  


The decision to carry a gun or prepare for confrontation is not something that everyone has to understand. What is important is that everyone needs to understand that I or anyone has the CHOICE to make such a decision. By adopting the "anti-gun" stance, you are forcing people to submit to confrontation.


By adopting the Anti gun stance Iím not forcing anybody to submit to confrontation, there are other ways to defend yourself and other weapons to do it with, why just use a gun?  And again it would not just stop you from having a gun but it would stop the criminal element also.

DSFX

 


Posts: 24 | Posted: 01:59 AM on January 8, 2007 | IP
TRIGGER

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from DSFX at 01:59 AM on January 8, 2007 :

See now I can understand wearing a Kevlar vest and saying that itís defensive because it provides survivability against a weapon. †However the argument that a gun is defence would be like saying that the best defence is a good offence. †Sometimes it is but it is rarely the case.


A vest will not protect you from a knife, bat, arrow, axe.etc it will only protect you from a medium powered hand gun. A rifle, and a high powered hand gun will defeat a vest with ease. A gun will equlize since a 100 lb woman with a gun can defend her self against a 250 lb man. With a gun you can learn to defend your self in a short period of time, were any other form of defence you will usualy need years of training and practice. One of the advantages with using a gun is that you have a greater advantage over the criminal and with that advantage you will (in the majority of cases) not have to use it. example: if you were to break in to a house with the intent to rape the woman in side. Once you are in the house you are confronted with a woman that has a gun with a laser sight and you see a red dot on your chest what do you do? You leave, up right ,or feet first. Which would you chose? †

The fact that you have a criminal record and cannot acquire a gun is a rather positive thing but the problem is that a criminal is judged by the one action he did to make himself a criminal, what if that action has not been committed yet?.


You are right but do you disarm the victim so that the first time offender is at no risk perpetrating his crime? Making only one person at risk, the victim?

†Really the word game that we all play with guns is just semantics. †Calling it a tool, a tool designed for injury, a tool with the capacity to take life and yes maybe even deture crime. †It doesnít matter, itís just a gun in the end. †It more just trying to put a positive spin on a negative object..


Not realy. There are many tools that have the capacity to take a life yet they are still tools and I don't see it as a negative object. Since that tool is used 2.25 million times a year in the US to prevent crimes with out even one shot being fired. †


I do agree with you that there will never be a perfect world however the only constant in life is that nothing is constant and to hope for a world where people learn to solve their problems through other means rather than violence is something that I think we can both agree that we want. †Itís just how we get there that is up for debate.


True; but it is a unachevable goal. Since you would need to change the instinct and character of the vile predators that are the scourge of man. As long as evil exists in this world the meek will be prey to the vile. Until that time the good of man will need to protect them selves and the innocent from the evil of this world and the only way to do this is through force. †

By adopting the Anti gun stance Iím not forcing anybody to submit to confrontation, there are other ways to defend yourself and other weapons to do it with, why just use a gun? †And again it would not just stop you from having a gun but it would stop the criminal element also.


No; you are putting everyone who is not a criminal at the mercy of violent predators that don't need a gun to brutilze and kill their victims.

DSFX





(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 12:24 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 12:26 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 12:27 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 12:29 PM).

(Edited by TRIGGER 1/8/2007 at 12:40 PM).


-------
MACHINE GUNS? go to WWW.hansonshoot.com
 


Posts: 127 | Posted: 12:22 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


See now I can understand wearing a Kevlar vest and saying that itís defensive because it provides survivability against a weapon.  However the argument that a gun is defence would be like saying that the best defence is a good offence.  Sometimes it is but it is rarely the case.  


A kevlar vest is a supplement, not the solution. They are not bullet PROOF vests, they are bullet RESISTANT vests meaning bullet fragments WILL go through them. A gun is the best defense against another gun/weapon. Why do we keep armies around with guns if there's a better solution?


What Iím suggesting is not stopping people from preparing but rather forcing them to take a more effective approach to solve confrontation.  And I think the fact that the general consensus form the pros is that we should all carry guns and it would make it a safer place is just an example of the violent times that we do live in.  After all necessity is the mother of invention and when and if we all carried guns then criminals would be forced to find different way to commit their crimes.  


I disagree, the pro stance is that everyone should have the CHOICE to have a firearm or have the choice to find some "alternative" approach or not prepare at all. The CON stance really is forcing people to not prepare, because simply stated it says "people should not have guns". There is no solution offered, just "people should not have guns".


By adopting the Anti gun stance Iím not forcing anybody to submit to confrontation, there are other ways to defend yourself and other weapons to do it with, why just use a gun?  And again it would not just stop you from having a gun but it would stop the criminal element also.


Well rationally if there was another method/tool just as efficient, why would people own guns? I'm only saying you are forcing people to be submissive, because I haven't thought of anything as efficient as a firearm that wouldn't equate to having the same consequences as a gun. If you have something in mind let us know. What viable alternative methods are there available?


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 3:59 PM on January 8, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why do we keep armies around with guns if there's a better solution?

By that reasoning, all things that exist today are around because there is not a better solution... rape, incest, pedophelia, thievery, murder... all these still exist because there is no better solution...  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 06:50 AM on January 9, 2007 | IP
quatin

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All the things you mentioned are acts not tools. I don't know how you are bridging these things together. It's more like do we start banning genitalia because they can be used to rape? Do we start chopping off people's hands because they can be used to steal and murder?
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 2:53 PM on January 9, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from DSFX at 03:28 AM on December 15, 2006 :
Hey all,

For the better part of the night Iíve been reading post after post on different forums about gun control and the right wing and left wing arguments.  Iíve noticed that I keep seeing the same pattern.  The pattern being the right wing people say that we need guns for protection and the left wing people answering back that if we had no gunís there would be no gun violence.  Note that both sides just want the same goal in the end, to feel safe and protected.

I will be honest with you all, Iím not American (Iím sure youíll forgive me though :-P).  Being able to look in from outside though has given me a unique perspective on the situation at hand and has led me to ask you this question.  

What has caused your society to diminish to the point that you feel the need to bare a gun to do your normal peaceful everyday chores and defend you against your government?

DSFX.


(Edited by DSFX 12/15/2006 at 03:30 AM).



No gun violence does not equal safety, a knife hurts much more if it is thrust through you belly and is twisted slowly.

In the middle ages, a long before the gun, you didn't go on some roads because you get beaten, robbed, and left to die.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:15 PM on January 10, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.