The general gun control thread

[Atlanticatia]

The State enforces the law, not random civilians. In a civilised society at least. Otherwise, that line between citizen and government/law enforcement can become increasingly blurred, and that's dangerous.

Guess we don't need security guards then. Heck even unarmed security guards. After all the govt will protect every warehouse and mall in America.

Also ever hear of citizens arrest?

Security guards and mall cops don't arrest people or attempt to kill them.

[Tule]

People may obtain guns out of fear of crime, but the fact is that murder by strangers invading your home or attacking you in public are a tiny minority of all murders in the US while the vast majority are crimes of passion that happen between friends and relatives. So this fear is not a reasonable one, because what people are fearing is the same thing they are enabling by obtaining a gun.

From a public health and legislative standpoint, individual circumstances don't matter in the slightest. Guns are a threat to public safety. There might be some people who have saved their lives by using a gun, but they are heavily outnumbered by those who have had their lives threatened or taken away with guns.

And that is the problem right there. Individual circumstances do matter. Hell, we don't even force people to vaccinate there kids. Why should the govt be able to decide what people can and can't have? If you don't want a gun in your home, don't buy one. But let those who do, have what they want. The alternative is frigging paternalistic.

Individual circumstances matter, but so does the public interest.

Banning guns completely is unnecessary, but restrictions need to be in place. There are many good reasons to own a gun, but when 95% of people who buy guns for protection are putting themselves and their loved ones in danger you can't justify self defence as a reason anyone can cite to own a gun.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

What if you have several small children? What if you have a shit load of uninsured valuables? What if you are like that South African runner who has to put his legs on before he can move at more than a snails pace?

[Llamalandia]

Guess we don't need security guards then. Heck even unarmed security guards. After all the govt will protect every warehouse and mall in America.

Also ever hear of citizens arrest?

Security guards and mall cops don't arrest people or attempt to kill them.

They detain them until the cops arrive. And yeah, security guards have in fact shot and killed people before.

[Patridam]

Security guards and mall cops don't arrest people or attempt to kill them.

Yes they do, actually.

[Diopolis]

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

What if you have several small children? What if you have a shit load of uninsured valuables? What if you are like that South African runner who has to put his legs on before he can move at more than a snails pace?

Wasn't that the one who murdered his girlfriend?

[Atlanticatia]

People may obtain guns out of fear of crime, but the fact is that murder by strangers invading your home or attacking you in public are a tiny minority of all murders in the US while the vast majority are crimes of passion that happen between friends and relatives. So this fear is not a reasonable one, because what people are fearing is the same thing they are enabling by obtaining a gun.

From a public health and legislative standpoint, individual circumstances don't matter in the slightest. Guns are a threat to public safety. There might be some people who have saved their lives by using a gun, but they are heavily outnumbered by those who have had their lives threatened or taken away with guns.

And that is the problem right there. Individual circumstances do matter. Hell, we don't even force people to vaccinate there kids. Why should the govt be able to decide what people can and can't have? If you don't want a gun in your home, don't buy one. But let those who do, have what they want. The alternative is frigging paternalistic.

Public health and safety are important - the bigger picture. The rare individual may save themselves by having a gun, but in the bigger picture gun violence is a big public health/safety issue. And I'm not really opposed to compulsory vaccination. I think that in many cases with public health and safety to an extent, some individual rights can be infringed on - because allowing kids not to be vaccinated undermines children's right to life and introduces eradicated diseases, for example - the greater public health.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

Because I'm armed and if some insane person breaks in I'm going to try and fight them off?

[Llamalandia]

And that is the problem right there. Individual circumstances do matter. Hell, we don't even force people to vaccinate there kids. Why should the govt be able to decide what people can and can't have? If you don't want a gun in your home, don't buy one. But let those who do, have what they want. The alternative is frigging paternalistic.

Individual circumstances matter, but so does the public interest.

Banning guns completely is unnecessary, but restrictions need to be in place. There are many good reasons to own a gun, but when 95% of people who buy guns for protection are putting themselves and their loved ones in danger you can't justify self defence as a reason anyone can cite to own a gun.

Event The study you cite said it couldn't fully account for all of the myriad variables on the I individual level. In the hands of a mentally stable, well trained gun owner who properly stores and maintains his weapon a gun is a very safe tool. You don't punish the masses because some people, or even the majority of people are stupid and or misuse their rights.

[Llamalandia]

What if you have several small children? What if you have a shit load of uninsured valuables? What if you are like that South African runner who has to put his legs on before he can move at more than a snails pace?

Wasn't that the one who murdered his girlfriend?

Killed or manslaughter. Idk, he was convicted of some lesser charge I think. Not straight up murder though.

[Imperializt Russia]

Sorry, I don't wanna wait 15 minutes for the cops to show up.

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

Who said anything about killing anyone?

[Llamalandia]

And that is the problem right there. Individual circumstances do matter. Hell, we don't even force people to vaccinate there kids. Why should the govt be able to decide what people can and can't have? If you don't want a gun in your home, don't buy one. But let those who do, have what they want. The alternative is frigging paternalistic.

Public health and safety are important - the bigger picture. The rare individual may save themselves by having a gun, but in the bigger picture gun violence is a big public health/safety issue. And I'm not really opposed to compulsory vaccination. I think that in many cases with public health and safety to an extent, some individual rights can be infringed on - because allowing kids not to be vaccinated undermines children's right to life and introduces eradicated diseases, for example - the greater public health.

See that's the problem though where does one draw the line. I personally try to never infringe rights. I mean how many people die in skydiving accidents every year, a few should we ban that as well in the name of public safety? Or swimming pools or trampolines.
Also while I ink it is stupid as hell not to vaccinate I wouldn't presume to deny someone their choice except in extraordinary circumstances (or perhaps if the kid wants it and the parent is opposed)

[Diopolis]

And that is the problem right there. Individual circumstances do matter. Hell, we don't even force people to vaccinate there kids. Why should the govt be able to decide what people can and can't have? If you don't want a gun in your home, don't buy one. But let those who do, have what they want. The alternative is frigging paternalistic.

Public health and safety are important - the bigger picture. The rare individual may save themselves by having a gun, but in the bigger picture gun violence is a big public health/safety issue. And I'm not really opposed to compulsory vaccination. I think that in many cases with public health and safety to an extent, some individual rights can be infringed on - because allowing kids not to be vaccinated undermines children's right to life and introduces eradicated diseases, for example - the greater public health.

Fixed. Banning guns probably won't do anything to the rate of violence, maybe even to the rate of gun violence. Now, I have no qualms with increasing restrictions on who can buy guns, as long as they're reasonable ones, but the bigger public health threats are stairs and pools. So go advocate for more regulations(handrails/fences/whatever) on those two things to make them safer, if you really are concerned for the public safety above being anti-gun.

[Atlanticatia]

Wasn't that the one who murdered his girlfriend?

Killed or manslaughter. Idk, he was convicted of some lesser charge I think. Not straight up murder though.

He had claimed to be acting in 'self-defence' because he said he was using his firearm to shoot at who he thought was an intruder - but it was actually his girlfriend. With the gun he legally owned. How ironic.

[Diopolis]

Wasn't that the one who murdered his girlfriend?

Killed or manslaughter. Idk, he was convicted of some lesser charge I think. Not straight up murder though.

Whatever it was, probably not someone who should have access to guns.

[Ifreann]

You don't have to fight them, either. It is an art surely more ancient than any other. It pre-dates human civilisation. It pre-dates the human species.

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

It could save your life.

---

It's simple.
Run away.

1) Such is not 'defense' by definition, such is escape.

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

2) Please explain how this works when running away is not an option.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

---

It's simple.
Run away.

1. I am not fast.

You don't have to be. Running can place obstacles between you and your attacker that will also protect you. Plus, adrenaline's a hell of a drug.

2. What of situations where your means of exit is blocked, such as by a second attacker?

Run some other way. If you're totally surrounded then it hardly matters what you do.

3. What of situations where you are protecting your family or property from harm?

Take your family with you. Leave your property behind. Unless it's small and easy to carry.

---

"I think only the police should have access to firearms"
"But then only outlaws will have guns!"
"Totes strong argument"

You have proof that making weapons illegal keeps them out of the hands of criminals and off the black market, then?

Do I need to explain to you how "the police" and "outlaws" are generally two distinct groups?

---

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

What if you have several small children? What if you have a shit load of uninsured valuables? What if you are like that South African runner who has to put his legs on before he can move at more than a snails pace?

Are you under the impression that I was suggesting an infallible means to survive any possible circumstance? Because that's patently ridiculous.

---

...why not?

That's what I'd do. If some insane person comes in my house, I'll be out of there. Why would I want to stay around waiting to see them?

Because I'm armed and if some insane person breaks in I'm going to try and fight them off?

Why? They might kill you.

---

Wasn't that the one who murdered his girlfriend?

Killed or manslaughter. Idk, he was convicted of some lesser charge I think. Not straight up murder though.

Oscar Pistorius, the man you're thinking of, was convicted of culpable homicide.

---

What if I told you you can defend yourself without trying to kill anyone?

Who said anything about killing anyone?

That is the means by which firearms are used to defend one's self. That or the threat of doing so, which I suppose I should have also mentioned.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

It could save your life.

Why? They might kill you.

Exactly why I have a number of things to defend myself with. A single pump of one of the shotguns will send most people running.

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

It could save your life.

---

1) Such is not 'defense' by definition, such is escape.

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

2) Please explain how this works when running away is not an option.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

---

1. I am not fast.

You don't have to be. Running can place obstacles between you and your attacker that will also protect you. Plus, adrenaline's a hell of a drug.

2. What of situations where your means of exit is blocked, such as by a second attacker?

Run some other way. If you're totally surrounded then it hardly matters what you do.

3. What of situations where you are protecting your family or property from harm?

Take your family with you. Leave your property behind. Unless it's small and easy to carry.

---

You have proof that making weapons illegal keeps them out of the hands of criminals and off the black market, then?

Do I need to explain to you how "the police" and "outlaws" are generally two distinct groups?

---

What if you have several small children? What if you have a shit load of uninsured valuables? What if you are like that South African runner who has to put his legs on before he can move at more than a snails pace?

Are you under the impression that I was suggesting an infallible means to survive any possible circumstance? Because that's patently ridiculous.

---

Because I'm armed and if some insane person breaks in I'm going to try and fight them off?

Why? They might kill you.

---

Killed or manslaughter. Idk, he was convicted of some lesser charge I think. Not straight up murder though.

Oscar Pistorius, the man you're thinking of, was convicted of culpable homicide.

---

Who said anything about killing anyone?

That is the means by which firearms are used to defend one's self. That or the threat of doing so, which I suppose I should have also mentioned.

Ok then put a probability on it. Or make your example more specific. I mean, I would say me with a gun vs unarmed intruder, the intruder would lose 95% of the time. Intruder with a knife vs me with a gun, idk maybe 90% chance. Yeah, guns don't gurantee survival either, but not having when you need it, is a clear disadvantage.

[Occupied Deutschland]

1) Such is not 'defense' by definition, such is escape.

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

2) Please explain how this works when running away is not an option.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

1) Your coyness is no match for the definition of defense. I accept your concession.
2) So it doesn't. All you needed to do was answer the question.

[Big Jim P]

It turns ordinary people into people who can defend themselves from, deter, or prevent crime, thus enhancing the rule of law.

The State enforces the law, not random civilians. In a civilised society at least. Otherwise, that line between citizen and government/law enforcement can become increasingly blurred, and that's dangerous.

I said nothing about ordinary citizens enforcing the law, now did I?

[Imperializt Russia]

Who said anything about killing anyone?

That is the means by which firearms are used to defend one's self. That or the threat of doing so, which I suppose I should have also mentioned.

The threat of violence is how order is maintained.

No matter which set of numbers you use for "defensive uses of guns", it vastly outstrips total killed or injured by firearms in the US every year. The DOJ estimate outstrips this total figure by a factor of two. Which means that at possible minimum, two thirds of uses of guns are defensive in nature and are non-lethal and likely non-injuring.

And that is the problem right there. Individual circumstances do matter. Hell, we don't even force people to vaccinate there kids. Why should the govt be able to decide what people can and can't have? If you don't want a gun in your home, don't buy one. But let those who do, have what they want. The alternative is frigging paternalistic.

Public health and safety are important - the bigger picture. The rare individual may save themselves by having a gun, but in the bigger picture gun violence is a big public health/safety issue. And I'm not really opposed to compulsory vaccination. I think that in many cases with public health and safety to an extent, some individual rights can be infringed on - because allowing kids not to be vaccinated undermines children's right to life and introduces eradicated diseases, for example - the greater public health.

If 76% of homicide victims know their attacker, then only a quarter of firearm homicides can really be considered a "public safety issue".

[Llamalandia]

Yeah, I'm not gonna run and hide when someone tries to attack me. Sorry.

It could save your life.

---

1) Such is not 'defense' by definition, such is escape.

Is one not defended from harm when one escapes the potential cause of harm? They can't kill you, after all, if you aren't there.

2) Please explain how this works when running away is not an option.

The same way a firearm works as a means of self-defence when shooting your assailant isn't an option.

---

1. I am not fast.

You don't have to be. Running can place obstacles between you and your attacker that will also protect you. Plus, adrenaline's a hell of a drug.

2. What of situations where your means of exit is blocked, such as by a second attacker?

Run some other way. If you're totally surrounded then it hardly matters what you do.

3. What of situations where you are protecting your family or property from harm?

Take your family with you. Leave your property behind. Unless it's small and easy to carry.

---

You have proof that making weapons illegal keeps them out of the hands of criminals and off the black market, then?

Do I need to explain to you how "the police" and "outlaws" are generally two distinct groups?

---

What if you have several small children? What if you have a shit load of uninsured valuables? What if you are like that South African runner who has to put his legs on before he can move at more than a snails pace?

Are you under the impression that I was suggesting an infallible means to survive any possible circumstance? Because that's patently ridiculous.

---

Because I'm armed and if some insane person breaks in I'm going to try and fight them off?

Why? They might kill you.

---

Killed or manslaughter. Idk, he was convicted of some lesser charge I think. Not straight up murder though.

Oscar Pistorius, the man you're thinking of, was convicted of culpable homicide.

---

Who said anything about killing anyone?

That is the means by which firearms are used to defend one's self. That or the threat of doing so, which I suppose I should have also mentioned.

Wait, when would shooting your assailant not be option? I mean, ok I guess if it's close quarters and you have a freaking rifle, but generally with self defense we are talking pistols I should think. I mean, unless it is a riot like ferguson or la and your business is surround then I can see someone relying on a long gun for defense.

[Tule]

Individual circumstances matter, but so does the public interest.

Banning guns completely is unnecessary, but restrictions need to be in place. There are many good reasons to own a gun, but when 95% of people who buy guns for protection are putting themselves and their loved ones in danger you can't justify self defence as a reason anyone can cite to own a gun.

Event The study you cite said it couldn't fully account for all of the myriad variables on the I individual level. In the hands of a mentally stable, well trained gun owner who properly stores and maintains his weapon a gun is a very safe tool. You don't punish the masses because some people, or even the majority of people are stupid and or misuse their rights.

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk.

We don't ban alcohol entirely, but we do restrict its use. Even when its use is far more likely than not to be harmless.

Most drunk drivers never kill anyone. Should drunk driving be legal?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Event The study you cite said it couldn't fully account for all of the myriad variables on the I individual level. In the hands of a mentally stable, well trained gun owner who properly stores and maintains his weapon a gun is a very safe tool. You don't punish the masses because some people, or even the majority of people are stupid and or misuse their rights.

The masses have no use for a self defence firearm and expose themselves and others to a pointless risk...

This seems difficult to justify as a claim considering the statistics surrounding the defensive use of firearms, particularly when compared to those injured/killed by firearms (which is less than aforementioned defensive uses by most estimates, including one by the DOJ that seems safest to run with without inviting calls of 'bias!').

[Porterz]

no im my opinion guns should not be allowed take America for example [no offence] there have been so accidents involoving little kids it is not funny, people are killed everyday because of these monster's [guns]