Topic: Assault weapon bans - page 15. (Read 36627 times)

no i believe that the person is smart enough to do it when im a sleep, or otherwise surprise me.
So you are pro-shooting-people-person.

it must be really nice to live in a NAP based world, having gun races with one's neighbors like it was the cold war, or spending all time when you are awake at the gun range, so that your shooting skills is not average but slightly above, and not sleeping at night in case you neighbor decides that mutual destruction is the only way to 'win'. And after that getting cancer from all the pollution and shit put in the air, which you are perfectly fine with, the air is owned by no one right? and then not have money to pay for your really expensive hospital trip, because you felt some sense of guilt of using(stealing!!!!) someone else's money that he is too rich to be able to spend himself.

Yeah, i really wanna live there.

No, the point of a gun is to shoot someone.  If someone breaks into your house, do you honestly believe that person has only the best intentions for you?  No; what's most likely, that person wants to either harm you or take your things or both.  To stop that from happening, you point, then you pull the trigger; this may or may not kill the person, depending where you shot, but it does a fine job at stopping a crime before you're a victim to it.

If you don't believe me, try doing anything after being shot in the leg, outside of crying and going to the hospital with a new lesson on breaking into someone's home.  To say I'm only assuming, is to say, "You're only assuming the cancer treatment will make you better; it's only the movies the cancer patient gets better, even with his whole body ravaged with cancer."

Trust me, the treatment may not defeat your cancer, but it's better than no treatment at all.

That's a neat statistic.  Problem is, it's just a statistic and doesn't mean anything.  Stats can be used to support any argument.  

The lawless and governments (forgive the redundancy) will always have weapons.  The lawful must always have access to the equivalent weapons to defend themselves from said lawless, else they will be trampled upon.  If guns didn't exist, this discussion would be about swords, because swords are designed to kill.

Guns also serve another purpose regularly overlooked by the anti-gun crowd.  They are an effective deterrent against crime.  Using the Bob and George scenario, if Bob knew George was armed, he'd think twice about coming over.  If he still decided he was going to go "visit" George, the sound of George's 12-gauge cocking might deter him still.  If that still wasn't enough, seeing the said 12-gauge pointed at him might change his mind.  George's chances of survival are significantly improved by him being able to legally and lawfully own and use a gun.

The same can be said if all Bob was interested in was George's bitcoins.  Aside from an encrypted wallet, without a gun, all George could do when facing Bob and his illegal gun is beg and plead to please not take his hard mined bitcoins.

Guns are not the problem.  The lawless are.  The solution is to correct the lawlessness.  Then the day would come that guns are not needed for self defense and would only be used for recreation.

M

No, you are assuming that George is better with a gun then Bob. Its only in the movies are the heros does not get shot, even with a little army shooting at him.

the only reason for having a gun is to be able to point it at another person, and that is a bad reason.

Precisely; there is absolutely no reason to make killing another man easy.

Since he was determined enough to kill George with guns illegal, he would've been determined enough to kill George with guns legal; the difference being, George would've been able to protect himself in the event of someone breaking into his house without facing criminal charges himself.

In other words: Bob have to be really determined to kill George.

Any enough-dertermined person can kill another person with whatever tools available(spoon), but there is not no reason for making it easy for them(gun).

We must also consider murders outside the firearms spectrum; for this to work, we must look at the rates of all homicides, and not keep ourselves in a box where we only examine the data of firearm deaths (because, if we did this, 100% of firearm deaths are caused by firearms, and that does not tell us much.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

We can see, despite some countries having lower rates of firearm deaths, their total homicide rates can be much, much higher.  Also, most of America's gun violence is apparently suicides, almost twice as many as homicides; that's completely different from worrying about your neighbor shooting you, as much as him shooting himself.

So now we must argue as to whether a gun in the hands of a person immediately turns them into a serial killer.  I argue that people must already have those tendencies before wanting a gun; allow me to explain why banning guns, then, worsens this situation.

---

Lets say future-murderer Bob wants a gun to shoot his neighbor with.  Lets say, all gun sales and ownership is now illegal.  So, Bob goes to his good friend he met over the deepnet, Jane, who is selling guns under the table at a markup for the risk involved.  Bob acquires his gun through breaking the law, and goes to his neighbor's house.  His neighbor, George, is not armed, because guns are illegal, and George is a good law-abiding citizen.  Bob breaks into George's house, and meets the unarmed George.  Because George is unarmed, and Bob can kill him at any moment with his own gun, Bob then rapes George, and after, shoots him dead.

Later, the police arrive (who are allowed to have guns, btw), called by the neighbors only after they heard gunshots, and arrest Bob, who was sobbing in the corner.  Thankfully, due to the law against guns, Bob got extra time in prison for gun ownership, and George...well, George is dead, so that really doesn't matter to him.  Thankfully, however, the law against gun ownership was there, and this crime did not go unpunished--I mean, Bob is already getting life for raping and murdering a person, and he would've been dead even after the gun law charges were put into place...

It is a weapon intended to kill. And gun related murders are relatively much higher in the US that in Germany. Like I said maybe you are able to handle guns resposible, but what if your neighbour isnt?

 Per 100.000
Germany    1.24 (2010)
United States    10.3 (2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Why you're against guns?

M

My reasoning for assault rifles first or that I am against guns?

But it happens in places where guns are allowed to right? I don't try to force anything it is just my opinion.

And your reasoning is?  Anything logical, or just pure emotional rhetoric that repeats what the anti gun crowd says ad naseum despite it being proven false time and time again?

M

Hmm.  A world full of godless selfish power hungry control freaks?  ie, what we have today?  We've seen multiple times what happens in "gun free zones".  I'll give you a clue, the word starts with 'm' and it involves a lot of death and maiming.

Feel free to go gunless.  That's your right.  Just don't try to force your beliefs on others. 

M

I am against guns in general actually, and assault rifles are a first step, that includes burst firing / semi auto weapons.

But cars aren't meant to kill... In fact they are getting safer and safer each year.. Volvo just made a car with a pedestrian airbag which is created to reduce the harm. But in one way you are right. The public can't seem to handle the responsibility of driving a car as well; Wreckless/drunk driving happens all the time. Thats why I am happy Google is pushing forward with their self driving car.

Control your anger, this is why guns in general should not be given to the public. What kind of world would we live in if we were so paranoid that we need to bring a gun to the cinema.

I would choose 3 but I realize that is not possible

It would seem that there is no such thing as just 'taking our assault rifles away', there is only 'taking the assault rifles away from those who will not or who choose not to shoot them when and where the government and politicians order them to.'

This casts the problem in a different light.

Me thinks...

I do not favor forcible disarmament.  No one should have the power to assume the position of the world's bully to force their desires on another nation.  You seem to consider the reported events in Syria to be the truth.  Considering it comes from the controlled/manipulated media, and it favors the US military industrial complex, I tend to think just the opposite - it's a fabrication, a so called false flag event to goad the people into allowing yet another war.

Remember the WMDs in Iraq proved to be a fabrication. 

M

Thanks, I am hoping to figure out how you came to your conclusions.  I haven't concluded the same as you, so it is helpful to figure out how to get there from here.  You didn't answer, but you tossed out another clue instead, which though it is arguably incorrect as many have argued that the pen is mightier than the sword even though we have advanced beyond both, we can set that answer aside for now to follow your clue, so...

Objects created to kill people are: ______

1) OK if a majority says so.
2) OK if in the control of a government.
3) Should all be destroyed.
4) OK if in the control of a government for which you approve.
5) OK only if it is sufficiently ineffective at killing people
6) something else or some other nuance?

...

I overheard some US Senators today claiming that negotiations and cutting some deal (particularly effective human action requiring keyboards) would be more effective at deterring future gas attacks than missiles (particularly effective human action requiring weapons).  Frankly I think those Senators may have something there as it (surprisingly enough) seems do also most US voters.

The opposite position appears to be that a type of weapon control be implemented and Syrian folks ought be forcibly disarmed from using that type of weapon due to their consent to a higher authority that permits such enforcement of disarmament (UN).  This position looks likely to prevail.
Do you favor the forcible disarmament in this instance as well with these more lethal weapons?