Gun Control: Your Opinion

[The Adrian Empire]

Why do people need guns? If you fund your police force well-enough they should be able to protect your people from criminals who have smuggled weapons into the country. Let's not make it any easier for them.

15 minutes, 15 minutes is the average response time for a police department in North America, not including the two to five minutes needed to call the police, when an armed man is in your house you don't have twenty minutes, when you are eating in a local restaurant and a mall shooter walks in, you don't have twenty minutes.

The police were not created to protect individuals, numerous supreme court rulings in various countries have held that they are not responsible for individual protection of life, they are there to deter and investigate crime. When possible preventing it.

[The Parkus Empire]

Well if you also have a strong justice system and strong penalties, then criminals will generally be dissuaded in the first place. I would think that would be at least as effective as everyone carrying around guns on their person. Accidents do happen.

No, see, you don't entirely understand criminals. They generally aren't just regular guys, like professors at universities, who could be totally happy without a life of crime: They are typically people with shitty lives, who grew-up in abusive households. People who will have a guaranteed crappy life working at McDonald's with no little or no benefits or retirement; people who would be fine dying before they're 50, since they have no future.

[The Parkus Empire]

When you're being mugged in the street, it'l take at least ten minutes for the cops to get there to help you. Your life is on the line, and it can all be over in a split second.

Armed robbery rarely takes longer than thirty seconds or so. Even in burglary, cops can't help 100%. Just ask Smunkee.

[The Adrian Empire]

Why do people need guns? If you fund your police force well-enough they should be able to protect your people from criminals who have smuggled weapons into the country. Let's not make it any easier for them.

Well if you also have a strong justice system and strong penalties, then criminals will generally be dissuaded in the first place. I would think that would be at least as effective as everyone carrying around guns on their person. Accidents do happen.

Except, that innocent people will still be killed in process of the crimes, and of course in the case of insane crimes (mass shootings), I am completely in favour of strong penalties and strong justice systems, but I think it should be in conjunction with concealed carry laws, not instead of that way people are armed so that crimes that can be deterred and stopped, the strong justice system to punish those who still get by.

[The Parkus Empire]

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

This may sound strange to you, but most banks don't want to have the reputation of being a shoot-out location. They would much rather hand over some money without any trouble. That is why note robbers can get money so easily: The banks work with the robbers to make sure customers don't notice anything.

[The Adrian Empire]

When you're being mugged in the street, it'l take at least ten minutes for the cops to get there to help you. Your life is on the line, and it can all be over in a split second.

Armed robbery rarely takes longer than thirty seconds or so. Even in burglary, cops can't help 100%. Just ask Smunkee.

This, I have often said until every single person has an armed police escort wherever they go, I won't agree with gun control, and if this society were created, I wouldn't want to live in it anyway. Because gun control can only work in conjunction with the destruction of every other freedom.

[Uawc]

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

This may sound strange to you, but most banks don't want to have the reputation of being a shoot-out location. They would much rather hand over some money without any trouble. That is why note robbers can get money so easily: The banks work with the robbers to make sure customers don't notice anything.

So, capitalism is screwing the people yet again?

[The Adrian Empire]

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

This may sound strange to you, but most banks don't want to have the reputation of being a shoot-out location. They would much rather hand over some money without any trouble. That is why note robbers can get money so easily: The banks work with the robbers to make sure customers don't notice anything.

Indeed it sounds foreign, like paying terrorist ransom and kidnappers, letting crime pay, will only convince more people that crime pays, in my mind

[The Parkus Empire]

Oh, and no, tellers are not likely to put their lives on the line for their bank's money, even if it means getting fired (which it won't).

For Christ's sake, most security guards, getting paid as terribly as they do, won't risk their life for a business. If there is one crook with his back turned, sure they'll do a little something. Anything more than that and you can't count on them, and businesses know this, as they tend to hire guards mainly for intimidation purposes.

[The Adrian Empire]

Exactly why I never got why Bank Tellers shouldn't be armed by default, the thief tries to rob a bank he'll have to go through every teller along the way, it'll be enough to deter most, and those that don't can be handled by tellers/security and if necessary the police

This may sound strange to you, but most banks don't want to have the reputation of being a shoot-out location. They would much rather hand over some money without any trouble. That is why note robbers can get money so easily: The banks work with the robbers to make sure customers don't notice anything.

So, capitalism is screwing the people yet again?

Robbing the middle class, sounds like socialism

[The Parkus Empire]

So, capitalism is screwing the people yet again?

Yeah. The biggest threat to any robber is an heroic customer, not an armed employee.

[The Parkus Empire]

Robbing the middle class, sounds like socialism

Armed robbery and murder: Sounds like government.

[Nimzonia]

15 minutes, 15 minutes is the average response time for a police department in North America, not including the two to five minutes needed to call the police, when an armed man is in your house you don't have twenty minutes, when you are eating in a local restaurant and a mall shooter walks in, you don't have twenty minutes.

What's a mall shooter? I don't think we have those here, unless it's a type of drink, in which case I don't know.

[The Adrian Empire]

So, capitalism is screwing the people yet again?

Yeah. The biggest threat to any robber is an heroic customer, not an armed employee.

I guess you are right about that I mean forcing people to carry guns is just as much a violation of rights as taking them away

[The Parkus Empire]

Indeed it sounds foreign, like paying terrorist ransom and kidnappers, letting crime pay, will only convince more people that crime pays, in my mind

A bank's, like any business', job is to make money, not teach bad guys a lesson. Crime does pay, and banks are content to let robbers take what amounts to a fraction of income tax if the bank can keep its customers.

But, if you are thinking banks let criminals-off that easy, you are wrong. Most robbers are too dumb to bother learning about, let alone checking for, dye packs.

[Grave_n_idle]

Gun control is stupid, of course people should not have anti-tank weapons or .50 cal machine guns but if we ban guns then bad people will still get them somehow and good people won't have anything to effectively defend themselves with.

A little paranoid, no?

If North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons, the other countries still will have - and North Korea will have nothing to defend themselves with!

Won't someone PLEASE think of North Korea?

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm surprised this is still going...

Bottom line is this, in my opinion. When you're in the back alley and a mugger's got a knife at your throat, you're going to wish you had a .45 on you.

Of course, when you're a girl bleeding in that same alley, and there's one guy holding a gun on you while a group of others rape you...

...you're going to want a gun. Preferably an automatic.

I think you'd rather not be getting raped, in the first place.

But, you still be getting raped even if they didn't have a gun, because they will have a knife and you won't or as men they will typically be stronger and you won't and of course even if there was gun control they would still have a gun because they are criminals. And criminals don't obey gun bans

So, what you're saying is, rape is inevitable?

[The Adrian Empire]

15 minutes, 15 minutes is the average response time for a police department in North America, not including the two to five minutes needed to call the police, when an armed man is in your house you don't have twenty minutes, when you are eating in a local restaurant and a mall shooter walks in, you don't have twenty minutes.

What's a mall shooter? I don't think we have those here, unless it's a type of drink, in which case I don't know.

School shooter was too emotionally charged in my mind, mall shootings are comparatively rare, especially where in other countries where there are fewer malls and in places where there are more armed civilians.

[The Parkus Empire]

What's a mall shooter? I don't think we have those here, unless it's a type of drink, in which case I don't know.

They're what gun nuts think all criminals are, and what liberals think all gun nuts are.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

How do you know that's why they are unarmed?

Wouldn't 'weapons are noticable evidence when you're fleeing the scene' be just as likely an explanation?

[Grave_n_idle]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

The same goes for "robbers". The thief passes a note to a bank teller, or whomever, demanding money, and the aforementioned employee is virtually always trained to concede to the delinquent's demands.

It's stupid. Why do that when you can just pull a shotgun on the criminal right then and there? You won't even have to fire, he'll just freeze/run while someone calls the cops.

Because money is just money?

This is why people like you shouldn't make policy decisions - all you'd do is escalate violence.

[The Parkus Empire]

Wouldn't 'weapons are noticable evidence when you're fleeing the scene' be just as likely an explanation?

Trust me, handguns are just as easy to conceal as the incriminating penis.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's also worth mentioning that most rapists are unarmed because they know the penalty for armed rape is much, much worse.

Indeed, even unarmed though, rapists pose a dangerous threat to young women, an armed young women can stop the rape before it begins (no I am not saying a preemptive shooting)

Don't most rapes actually occur within the household of the rapist or the victim? Isn't it entirely likely that the victim would be caught without a weapon even if he/she had one - and especially likely since rapes tend to be fairly sudden/surprise attacks, rather than kidnapping or something?

[The Adrian Empire]

Gun control is stupid, of course people should not have anti-tank weapons or .50 cal machine guns but if we ban guns then bad people will still get them somehow and good people won't have anything to effectively defend themselves with.

A little paranoid, no?

If North Korea doesn't have nuclear weapons, the other countries still will have - and North Korea will have nothing to defend themselves with!

Won't someone PLEASE think of North Korea?

Indeed what would keep China from nuking North Korea if they got uppity, or invading them completely, and committing mass genocide of the Korean people's, now North Korea certainly isn't stable enough to get nuclear weapons in my opinion just as I would like background check before one could buy a gun. But, if you asking me that if say Lithuania or Luxembourg wanted to build a nuclear weapon in order to keep their nation independent, we should say no, I disagree.

[The Parkus Empire]

Because money is just money?

The phrase "'just' money" defies my comprehension.