The best argument against gun control, in one picture.

[Conserative Morality]

I assume you've heard of 'guards'? They're not a recent innovation, since they've existed in one form or another for about as much history as we have any records of - and their express purpose is to be more heavily armed than the master.

Lies! It's a well known fact that Julius Caesar carried a full compliment of Roman swords and daggers in his toga, along with a Lorica Segmentata under his toga. That's why he lived until 14 BC, long enough to peacefully pass power to his nephew, Caesar Augustus, instead of being killed by the Senate in the ides of March. Seems a shame all the Senators died, though.

[Soyut]

Didn't you say that pulling a gun when someone already has a gun pointed at you will get you shot? By your own logic, my buddy Shawn would have shot the man if he had pulled a gun on us.

A needless death as a result of a situation escalating with the use of guns.

People seem to assume that just because someone is engaged in a criminal act, they forfeit their right not to be shot. if someone enters your home, or attempts to steal your car, they do loose some of their rights, and you are giving the right to defend yourself or restrain/apprehend them. You are not given the right to use excessive force. That's why there are cases of people being prosecuted for assault on intruders.

I agree, and my friend did not want to shoot anyone. But people who continually claim that drawing a gun is the worst thing anyone could ever do in any situation, need to realize that guns have the ability to save innocent lives, that guns can be used for good and bad, and that they are really the only good way to defend yourself against other people who have them. There are two extremes to this debate, and people on both sides need to compromise and give credit to logic where it is due.

[Grave_n_idle]

I assume you've heard of 'guards'? They're not a recent innovation, since they've existed in one form or another for about as much history as we have any records of - and their express purpose is to be more heavily armed than the master.

Lies! It's a well known fact that Julius Caesar carried a full compliment of Roman swords and daggers in his toga, along with a Lorica Segmentata under his toga. That's why he lived until 14 BC, long enough to peacefully pass power to his nephew, Caesar Augustus, instead of being killed by the Senate in the ides of March. Seems a shame all the Senators died, though.

And ya tell that to the youth of today, and they won't believe ya.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

I dunno... I like the sign, but hate the fact that it's singling out one home.

perhaps a better sign should be...

"Some Home owners on this block have guns. some don't. Choose wisely!"

Agreed, singling out a home seems rather...dickish?

I'd just as soon the anti-gunners put up notices voluntarily. As long as they're willing to ride on the backs of those with guns, though, I'd say have at it.

[Chumblywumbly]

As long as they're willing to ride on the backs of those with guns, though, I'd say have at it.

What do you have against piggybacks?

[Ifreann]

Didn't you say that pulling a gun when someone already has a gun pointed at you will get you shot? By your own logic, my buddy Shawn would have shot the man if he had pulled a gun on us.

A needless death as a result of a situation escalating with the use of guns.

People seem to assume that just because someone is engaged in a criminal act, they forfeit their right not to be shot. if someone enters your home, or attempts to steal your car, they do loose some of their rights, and you are giving the right to defend yourself or restrain/apprehend them. You are not given the right to use excessive force. That's why there are cases of people being prosecuted for assault on intruders.

I agree, and my friend did not want to shoot anyone. But people who continually claim that drawing a gun is the worst thing anyone could ever do in any situation, need to realize that guns have the ability to save innocent lives, that guns can be used for good and bad, and that they are really the only good way to defend yourself against other people who have them. There are two extremes to this debate, and people on both sides need to compromise and give credit to logic where it is due.

You sure showed that strawman.

[Krazniastan]

I don't like to advertize the fact that I own guns. I don;t have stickers on my truck, I don't post signs on the door or in my windows. Mostly because I do have to think about theft, and while I am not too afraid of someone trying to get into my safe, (Its a custom made, 4400 pound monster with fireproofing, relockers, and more armor plate than an Abrams.) I am more afraid of having to report the theft to the BATFE. They are not the nicest of folks when it comes to reporting the theft of NFA items. . . .


As for carry, I did while I was in a state that allowed it. (Curse my luck that I had to move to $#@!ing Illinois. . . .) My logic was that if I ever had to draw my pistol, I had to be prepared to take a life. I was not going to give them a chance to hurt me or anyone I was with. This also meant that by drawing, that there was no other non-violent way out of the situation. That the person assaulting me had already decided that someone was going to be hurt or killed and that the only decision I had the ability to influence was who that person was. I wasn't carrying to kill someone, I carried because I wanted to survive. I guess the best analogy is that I carried for the same reasons I wear a seatbelt. I probably won't ever need it, but if I do, I have it.

Concealed carry means concealed. I didn't advertise the fact I was carrying and took great strides to fabricate holsters and gear that didn't print or announce that fact. About the only way people knew I was carrying is if they saw me put on or take off the weapon in my home or car.

As for open carry, well. . .
When I open carry, I usually have a rifle, SMG, or shotgun slung over a shoulder. Kind of a low profile fail, but /shrug. . . .

[JJ Place]

*snip pic*

1) Wait until gun owner leaves house
2)Break in
3)Steal gun
4) Rob other guy too. Or sell gun, those things are worth a fair bit

I'd take my gun my with me; what's the use of a gun if you can't even defend yourself outside of your house, where you're even more vulnerable to attack?

And if you have more than one gun, would you take them all with you ?
How about if you were a collector and had more guns than you can carry ? Would you leave them in the house, in a car, what ?

Hey, the more, the merrier. But, hey, chances are, if you live in a neighborhood with such a high crime rate that even apartment buildings are being robbed, you probably have one gun, and probably don't have the money to afford to buy anything else security wise. So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Also, yes, the more guns, the merrier, I say. You can never be too safe; it's always good to have just a little extra security, even if you lock up most of your extra guns under tight security. Also, if you burgled when your away, having a gun really isn't much of a point, as the gun is to protect yourself; a gun can't think for itself, so it's not going to protect your stuff while your away. But, hey, a gun is a last resort to only be used when absolutely necessary.

First, well, we had a chance with the guns before; but now with gun control, we have no chance.

"Gun control" isn't the reason why raging against the government is futile in the developed world. "Technology" is.

I'm sure plenty of people have said that in the past; it's never futile to fight for your freedom.

Second, a tyrantical government is criminal; it might be organized and ready for a bloody war, but it certainly isn't what you want in your backyard. Also, the Founding Fathers wouldn't write an entire amendment to the Bill of Rights so they could protect some people's hobbies; if they did, they might as well as have written amendement 3 to not infringe on your right to play Chess.

The founding fathers might not write amendments to protect hobbies, but they did write them to protect people - and they didn't envision government as the only potential threat.

So, basically, your now backing my own argument why gun control is wrong? Alright, looks like we're on the same page now.

[Fartsniffage]

Hey, the more, the merrier. But, hey, chances are, if you live in a neighborhood with such a high crime rate that even apartment buildings are being robbed, you probably have one gun, and probably don't have the money to afford to buy anything else security wise. So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Also, yes, the more guns, the merrier, I say. You can never be too safe; it's always good to have just a little extra security, even if you lock up most of your extra guns under tight security. Also, if you burgled when your away, having a gun really isn't much of a point, as the gun is to protect yourself; a gun can't think for itself, so it's not going to protect your stuff while your away. But, hey, a gun is a last resort to only be used when absolutely necessary.

http://hight3ch.com/auto-targeting-turr ... -security/

[Jocabia]

The person in the gun-free home has a higher chance of living. After some time cowering or being in a POW position the robber will leave. The person with the gun is an obstacle to the assailant's goal, a removable obstacle.

What a horrible situation to imagine. Let the assailant do whatever they want, steal, rape beat you within an inch of your life, it's better than having a gun in your home right. Somebody could get shot!

People who carry guns get shot.

Nobody I know who owns/owned a gun has ever been shot including myself. What sort of misinformation could make anyone say something so patently ridiculous.

Comprehension failure, much?

What I am saying is that, if you whip out a pistol during a home invasion or when someone is attempting to mug you at gunpoint, you're gonna get shot, whereas if you don't try and pull a Dirty Harry, you're going to lose material possessions.

Owning a gun =/= you get shot. That is false and I'm tired of hearing it. Besides, haven't you ever seen a movie. You can't whip out a gun when somebody already has one trained on you. That's just retarded. Besides its more likely that a homeowner would have the initiative if guns were drawn seeing as it's their house.

Sometimes drawing a gun can prevent rather than escalate crime. For example, a guy one night was trying to jimmy open the door to my friend's Toyota Supra in front of his house. My buddy Shawn stepped out of his front door with his shotgun, cocked the bolt ready, and the would be car thief took off running. True story.

I saw a guy doing the same thing in a parking lot. When he saw me he tried to run. I tackled him and handed him over to the police. I got an award from the city. No gun involved. True story.

What's your point?

[JJ Place]

Hey, the more, the merrier. But, hey, chances are, if you live in a neighborhood with such a high crime rate that even apartment buildings are being robbed, you probably have one gun, and probably don't have the money to afford to buy anything else security wise. So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Also, yes, the more guns, the merrier, I say. You can never be too safe; it's always good to have just a little extra security, even if you lock up most of your extra guns under tight security. Also, if you burgled when your away, having a gun really isn't much of a point, as the gun is to protect yourself; a gun can't think for itself, so it's not going to protect your stuff while your away. But, hey, a gun is a last resort to only be used when absolutely necessary.

http://hight3ch.com/auto-targeting-turr ... -security/

Interesting; although most people living in poverty might find it a bit hard to afford such an elaborate system.

[Fartsniffage]

Interesting; although most people living in poverty might find it a bit hard to afford such an elaborate system.

Yeah, but those corridors in slum housing would be a perfect place to re-enact that scene from Aliens with the auto-turrets.

[Nobel Hobos]

Sometimes drawing a gun can prevent rather than escalate crime. For example, a guy one night was trying to jimmy open the door to my friend's Toyota Supra in front of his house. My buddy Shawn stepped out of his front door with his shotgun, cocked the bolt ready, and the would be car thief took off running. True story.

And was the guy who was trying to break in armed with a gun ?

I saw a guy trying to break into my neighbour's house when they weren't home. I back went inside and quietly called the police.

By the time the police arrived, it was too late because the guy ran off all by himself. I doubt he'd seen me, it might have been someone else passing on the street who scared him off, or perhaps he just scared himself by making too much noise.

EDIT: My point being that not all criminals are prepared to risk the much higher penalties involved in carrying a gun while committing a crime. (They also more likely to be shot themselves.) Thieves like the one you describe are very likely going to make off as soon as they are seen and the shotter was probably entirely unnecessary.

That is all true, and probably why my friend didn't actually shoot the guy.

OK, what do you think your friend Shawn should have done, if after attracting the guy's attention by bolting the shotgun, the guy had kept trying to break into the car ? What if Shawn shouts out "get away from that car or I'll shoot" ... and the guy goes right ahead with breaking open the door, and then either steals property from inside the car or steals the car itself. What should Shawn do next, after threatening the guy with a gun ?

Do you think Shawn would have been within his rights to shoot the thief ? And if so, should he shoot to kill ?

[Ifreann]

So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Because gun control = expensive guns. Obviously.

[Demented Tigers]

Didn't you say that pulling a gun when someone already has a gun pointed at you will get you shot? By your own logic, my buddy Shawn would have shot the man if he had pulled a gun on us.

A needless death as a result of a situation escalating with the use of guns.

People seem to assume that just because someone is engaged in a criminal act, they forfeit their right not to be shot. if someone enters your home, or attempts to steal your car, they do loose some of their rights, and you are giving the right to defend yourself or restrain/apprehend them. You are not given the right to use excessive force. That's why there are cases of people being prosecuted for assault on intruders.

I agree, and my friend did not want to shoot anyone. But people who continually claim that drawing a gun is the worst thing anyone could ever do in any situation, need to realize that guns have the ability to save innocent lives, that guns can be used for good and bad, and that they are really the only good way to defend yourself against other people who have them. There are two extremes to this debate, and people on both sides need to compromise and give credit to logic where it is due.

Certainly they have the ability to save innocent lives. They also have the ability to take them. Why does anyone have to be shot? If people don't have guns, there won't be shootings.

Most intruders are burglars, so they are interested in stealing things. Ideally this would be accomplished while the occupants are out to avoid detection, being identified/reported etc, so burglaries are either well planned in advance, or opportunistic to minimise being caught. If confronted most would leave, again to avoid being identified/reported etc. But even if you are confronted with a gun by an intruder, surely just capitulate, let them take what they want, go file a police report, and put the stuff on the home insurance? Why make thing's worse?

[JJ Place]

Interesting; although most people living in poverty might find it a bit hard to afford such an elaborate system.

Yeah, but those corridors in slum housing would be a perfect place to re-enact that scene from Aliens with the auto-turrets.

Interesting idea; Never seen Alien myself, though.

So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Because gun control = expensive guns. Obviously.

Yes and No, maximum gun control = banned guns, lighter gun control = more fees and waiting time associated with being able to purchase a fire arm; not to mention the ridiculous over-burdening gun registration. If I had any say in the matter, all gun control would be completely lifted, and you could buy a gun similarly to how you buy anything else; anything else that you need to live or that makes your life easier or better.

I assume you've heard of 'guards'? They're not a recent innovation, since they've existed in one form or another for about as much history as we have any records of - and their express purpose is to be more heavily armed than the master.

Because everybody can defiantly afford to carry around a guard with them everywhere they go, and everyone lives next door to a police station where the police can be there in 30 seconds flat.

[Ifreann]

So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Because gun control = expensive guns. Obviously.

Yes and No, maximum gun control = banned guns, lighter gun control = more fees and waiting time associated with being able to purchase a fire arm; not to mention the ridiculous over-burdening gun registration.

Maybe in your mind, but not necessarily.

If I had any say in the matter, all gun control would be completely lifted, and you could buy a gun similarly to how you buy anything else; anything else that you need to live or that makes your life easier or better.

Cars have to be registered too. And drivers have to be licensed and insured. Alcohol and cigarettes, among other things are restricted to those over a certain age. You can only get certain medicines with a prescription from a doctor.

[Jocabia]

Interesting; although most people living in poverty might find it a bit hard to afford such an elaborate system.

Yeah, but those corridors in slum housing would be a perfect place to re-enact that scene from Aliens with the auto-turrets.

Interesting idea; Never seen Alien myself, though.

So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Because gun control = expensive guns. Obviously.

Yes and No, maximum gun control = banned guns, lighter gun control = more fees and waiting time associated with being able to purchase a fire arm; not to mention the ridiculous over-burdening gun registration. If I had any say in the matter, all gun control would be completely lifted, and you could buy a gun similarly to how you buy anything else; anything else that you need to live or that makes your life easier or better.

I assume you've heard of 'guards'? They're not a recent innovation, since they've existed in one form or another for about as much history as we have any records of - and their express purpose is to be more heavily armed than the master.

Because everybody can defiantly afford to carry around a guard with them everywhere they go, and everyone lives next door to a police station where the police can be there in 30 seconds flat.

For everyone wondering what the problem is, see above. There are people out there that are against even the most reasonable gun control. It's those that fight against reasonable gun control that are responsible for arming criminals, because criminals are getting their guns from legal sources that are not keeping enough control of their weapons or who are intentionally allowing them to get into hands illegally and not getting caught.

JJ, you're adequately demonstrating the problem and I thank you for it. If you really cared about people being safe, you'd support a level of gun control that keeps them out of the hands of the criminal and the insane.

You're not going to protect yourself in a home invasion. And certainly not one that would be deadly if not for your gun. It just doesn't happen with a frequency that makes owning a gun worth it, as I showed with statistics.

You might also note that the majority of criminals (of the time that commit armed robberies) are also poor. By your own argument, gun control makes it more difficult for criminals to get guns (since the black market is quite a bit more expensive than the regular market due to risk).

[Jocabia]

So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Because gun control = expensive guns. Obviously.

Yes and No, maximum gun control = banned guns, lighter gun control = more fees and waiting time associated with being able to purchase a fire arm; not to mention the ridiculous over-burdening gun registration.

Maybe in your mind, but not necessarily.

If I had any say in the matter, all gun control would be completely lifted, and you could buy a gun similarly to how you buy anything else; anything else that you need to live or that makes your life easier or better.

Cars have to be registered too. And drivers have to be licensed and insured. Alcohol and cigarettes, among other things are restricted to those over a certain age. You can only get certain medicines with a prescription from a doctor.

Incidentally the reason for licensing and insuring cars is much the same reason as licensing gun owners. There is a societal interest in limiting dangerous people's access to things that have the potential to kill a lot of people when used improperly.

[Jocabia]

I say we rebel against government tyranny. And why stop at guns.

I'm tired of school zone speed limits restricting my freedom. I have the right, nay, the obligation to speed through those zones to show them I should be allowed to do as I please, when I please, no matter who it endangers. I mean, what if someone with a mounted weapon were to pull up behind me and start firing? And I'm in a school zone. How am I supposed to protect myself. And what if I'm also drunk? Must I just sit there and be shot? They'll pry my vehicle from my cold dead fingers (most likely dead from hitting tree while I'm speeding and plowed, but ignore that bit).

[Nobel Hobos]

*snip pic*

1) Wait until gun owner leaves house
2)Break in
3)Steal gun
4) Rob other guy too. Or sell gun, those things are worth a fair bit

I'd take my gun my with me; what's the use of a gun if you can't even defend yourself outside of your house, where you're even more vulnerable to attack?

And if you have more than one gun, would you take them all with you ?
How about if you were a collector and had more guns than you can carry ? Would you leave them in the house, in a car, what ?

Hey, the more, the merrier. But, hey, chances are, if you live in a neighborhood with such a high crime rate that even apartment buildings are being robbed, you probably have one gun, and probably don't have the money to afford to buy anything else security wise. So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

You are honestly saying that what bad neighbourhoods need is more and cheaper guns ?

The more the merrier, eh ?

Also, yes, the more guns, the merrier, I say. You can never be too safe; it's always good to have just a little extra security, even if you lock up most of your extra guns under tight security.

And you should, right ? This was what I asked you, and which you haven't answered.

You should do everything you can to prevent a gun you leave in your house WHEN YOU ARE NOT THERE, from being stolen. Correct ? Gun-safes ... or preferably a gun-bank, a location which is more secure than an unattended residence, in which permanent security protects a large number of guns from theft. A bank.

What say you to that ?

Also, if you burgled when your away, having a gun really isn't much of a point, as the gun is to protect yourself; a gun can't think for itself, so it's not going to protect your stuff while your away. But, hey, a gun is a last resort to only be used when absolutely necessary.

JJ Place, it is EXACTLY my point. I asked you about leaving you gun where it can be stolen. You say "oh that doesn't matter" ?

It's almost as though you want thieves to have guns.

[Gauthier]

I say we rebel against government tyranny. And why stop at guns.

I'm tired of school zone speed limits restricting my freedom. I have the right, nay, the obligation to speed through those zones to show them I should be allowed to do as I please, when I please, no matter who it endangers. I mean, what if someone with a mounted weapon were to pull up behind me and start firing? And I'm in a school zone. How am I supposed to protect myself. And what if I'm also drunk? Must I just sit there and be shot? They'll pry my vehicle from my cold dead fingers (most likely dead from hitting tree while I'm speeding and plowed, but ignore that bit).

This message has been brought to you by the National Car Association.

[Ifreann]

So, in effect, gun control is limiting the options that people with less monetary funds have to protect themselves with. Translation: Gun control hurts poor people.

Because gun control = expensive guns. Obviously.

Yes and No, maximum gun control = banned guns, lighter gun control = more fees and waiting time associated with being able to purchase a fire arm; not to mention the ridiculous over-burdening gun registration.

Maybe in your mind, but not necessarily.

If I had any say in the matter, all gun control would be completely lifted, and you could buy a gun similarly to how you buy anything else; anything else that you need to live or that makes your life easier or better.

Cars have to be registered too. And drivers have to be licensed and insured. Alcohol and cigarettes, among other things are restricted to those over a certain age. You can only get certain medicines with a prescription from a doctor.

Incidentally the reason for licensing and insuring cars is much the same reason as licensing gun owners. There is a societal interest in limiting dangerous people's access to things that have the potential to kill a lot of people when used improperly.

Same reason they don't let me fly planes, pilot submarines, or conduct the London Symphony Orchestra.

[Nobel Hobos]

I say we rebel against government tyranny. And why stop at guns.

I'm tired of school zone speed limits restricting my freedom. I have the right, nay, the obligation to speed through those zones to show them I should be allowed to do as I please, when I please, no matter who it endangers.

It was your taxes payed for that school-yard. You should be allowed to take a short-cut through there. It's public land, right?

I mean, what if someone with a mounted weapon were to pull up behind me and start firing? And I'm in a school zone. How am I supposed to protect myself. And what if I'm also drunk? Must I just sit there and be shot? They'll pry my vehicle from my cold dead fingers (most likely dead from hitting tree while I'm speeding and plowed, but ignore that bit).

Plowed, you say?

Obviously everyone gives way to a main battle tank, but if some weenie in a Hummer disputes your right to use the intersection, roll him. With your snowplow.

[Ifreann]

I say we rebel against government tyranny. And why stop at guns.

I'm tired of school zone speed limits restricting my freedom. I have the right, nay, the obligation to speed through those zones to show them I should be allowed to do as I please, when I please, no matter who it endangers.

It was your taxes payed for that school-yard. You should be allowed to take a short-cut through there. It's public land, right?

Damn right! Not just school yards. Military installations, court buildings, the White House, Nixon's grave.