How do you feel about guns?

[Prince_James]

Redarmy11:

It is also the the only Western country with a population of violent minorities equal to that of the entire population of many other countries, or barring that, a significant percentage. In fact, there are more blacks in America than there are people in Canada and the population of blacks in America is almost 2/3rds that of the UK's total population. MOreover, whereas they are clear minority at about 14 percent, they make up 75 percent of the prison population.

Note: I am not claiming that blacks are somehow genetically predisposed to crime in the above, only that black people commit more crimes than white people in America on average and base this on proven statistics and judicial fact. Nor am I indicting individual blacks of being criminals. This is, of course, so that the "oh my God, you're being racist!" card is not thrown at me over this.

So yes, we certainly have problems with other things besides guns. Not to mention an influx of illegal immigration bringing with it crime from another group that has disproportionately committed crimes.

But anyway, if we want to stop murders of women, how about we train them so that they are on more equal footing as regards gun proficiency? Or perhaps teach them that it is a positive thing to have a weapon near them and in the house where they can get to it, even if someone were to be in the house attacking them with another. Moreover, do note that it is only 25 percent murder rate in "the immediate family", whereas one simply has to know the other person - a significantly larger category - for the 80 other percent. Indeed, does it not make sense that one would probably know the person who one angered or provoked enough to be murdered by? Most certainly it does to me.

But yes, I view any person, regardless of what they do, as more immune to punishment if they are likely to be carrying a weapon that can counter attack the weapon wielded by their would be number, so really, if the numbers tripled, I'd expect that murderers would find themselves on the opposite end of a gun barrel more often than present.

Also take into consideration that women are significantly weaker and less prone to violence then males, hence their usual failure to survive a violent encounter with a man.

 

[redarmy11]

Redarmy11:

It is also the the only Western country with a population of violent minorities equal to that of the entire population of many other countries, or barring that, a significant percentage. In fact, there are more blacks in America than there are people in Canada and the population of blacks in America is almost 2/3rds that of the UK's total population. MOreover, whereas they are clear minority at about 14 percent, they make up 75 percent of the prison population.

This isn't an argument for giving the frightened middle-classes more guns. This is an argument for removing the institutionalised prejudice and inter-generational poverty that consigns ethnic minorities and their descendants to the bottom of the scrap-heap. But, even taking what you say at face value:

1. Increased numbers of non-whites compared to other Western nations is balanced by... increased numbers of whites. Unless gun crime is somehow related to blacks forming extra-large gangs?

2. Surely pumping more guns into the market will just worsen the situation? There's lots of traffic across the line dividing legal and illegal firearms - increasing the numbers of guns will work in the favour of violent blacks as much as defenceless whites.

Note: I am not claiming that blacks are somehow genetically predisposed to crime in the above, only that black people commit more crimes than white people in America on average and base this on proven statistics and judicial fact. Nor am I indicting individual blacks of being criminals. This is, of course, so that the "oh my God, you're being racist!" card is not thrown at me over this.

See my opening remarks for some indicators of why the prison populations of Western societies house inordinate numbers of blacks.

So yes, we certainly have problems with other things besides guns. Not to mention an influx of illegal immigration bringing with it crime from another group that has disproportionately committed crimes.

None of these points really distinguish America from any other Western nation. What does distinguish it is: the increased availability of guns.

But anyway, if we want to stop murders of women, how about we train them so that they are on more equal footing as regards gun proficiency?

How about we ban gun sales. This seems an eminently more sensible option to me.

But yes, I view any person, regardless of what they do, as more immune to punishment if they are likely to be carrying a weapon that can counter attack the weapon wielded by their would be number, so really, if the numbers tripled, I'd expect that murderers would find themselves on the opposite end of a gun barrel more often than present.

I see no reason why increased gun ownership would reverse the present trend. More guns means more illegal guns means more gun deaths.

And the difference between gun deaths and car accidents? Cars aren't designed to kill.

 

[Prince_James]

redarmy11:

"This isn't an argument for giving the frightened middle-classes more guns. This is an argument for removing the institutionalised prejudice and inter-generational poverty that consigns ethnic minorities and their descendants to the bottom of the scrap-heap. But, even taking what you say at face value:"

If the middle-classes had more guns, they could combat the violence of said minorities more effectively, by you know, shooting them before they themselves are shot.

Moreover, America has become increasingly non-racist in recent years, with no impact whatsoever on the black propensity to crime, and no matter what is given in order to present to blacks in America jobs, nothing has lifted them out of poverty. Is the ball not in the black's court?

"1. Increased numbers of non-whites compared to other Western nations is balanced by... increased numbers of whites. Unless gun crime is somehow related to blacks forming extra-large gangs?"

Yes, there are more whites in America than any other country besides Russia, but the relative peace of the white population cannot overcome the crime produced by the aforementioned minority. Remember: 75 percent of the prison population in America is black. Remove that and you have 25 percent of the criminals you have now. Would not this put America more in line with most the other first world countries and be quite a monumental accomplishment, considering the size of the population?

But yes, blacks create massive, national gangs, with tens of thousands of members. The Bloods and Crips are the most famous. What do they most often do? Shoot eachother.

"2. Surely pumping more guns into the market will just worsen the situation? There's lots of traffic across the line dividing legal and illegal firearms - increasing the numbers of guns will work in the favour of violent blacks as much as defenceless whites."

There is indeed an exchange of illegal and legal firearms, but is it not better to better arm the law-abiding citizenry and somewhat increase the stock-holdings of the crime-seeking segment if that crime-seeking segment will be incapable of successfully committing their crimes or being killed in the process? They are all ready practically all armed, whereas millions of the law-abiding.

"None of these points really distinguish America from any other Western nation. What does distinguish it is: the increased availability of guns."

Are you saying that Canada, Ireland, the UK, Germany, France, and Italy, et cetera, have millions of illegal immigrants swarming into their borders per year?Specifically Mexican illegals? If so, I would like to see your proof of that.

"How about we ban gun sales. This seems an eminently more sensible option to me."

The criminals will still have them and the women will still be defenseless. If criminals will always have weapons and always have the intent to kill, and we cannot rid them of that, the only way we can react is by strenghtening ourselves.

"I see no reason why increased gun ownership would reverse the present trend. More guns means more illegal guns means more gun deaths."

Imagine two towns. In one town, guns are banned and no one armed lives there. In another guns are legal, and everyone who lives there is armed. Both towns are equal to eachother in all other respects. Which town would an armed criminal wish to attack?

You do know that criminals have themselves voiced the unlikelyhood of their victims fighting back with armed or other force as part of the reason why they picked them, yes? This is also why strong, tough looking guys, are not often the victim of muggings and the like. The presumption of likely violence.

"And the difference between gun deaths and car accidents? Cars aren't designed to kill. "

Yet both can be put to that end. Moreover, guns were invented in China for the purposes of fireworks and guns today are still used for peaceful purposes (marksmanship).

 

[lixluke]

The poll is so black-and-white. Why is this so?

Rules of logic.
There are 2 and only 2 positions in any debate. Pro/Con. For/Against. Positions might have completely different reasoning behind them. But different reasonings do not make them different positions.

 

[lixluke]

Thinking is not your strong suit is it?

No it is not his stong suit. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

 

[sniffy]

So Prince James you're saying "guns don't kill people rappers do"?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Surely you'd feel differently if a member of your family was shot in the face?
I really don't understand the American gun laws., we hear lots of reports over here in the UK, some of which may be true. I think it's very dangerous allowing the general public access to guns, you are asking for trouble. I read a recent interview with Kurt Russell, where he voiced his support for gun ownership. His logic was that what if a riot kicked off in your home town, you'd want some sort of personal protection! If every clown has a gun then you will get to the point where an argument results in a gun murder.
Here in the UK handguns were banned after a guy walked into a school and shot a number of children. The only people that lose out are the few gun geeks that for some reason feel good about shooting off their guns, well tough shit for them.

It's called sarcasm.

 

[lixluke]

Guns do kill people.
They sure as hell don't bake cakes.

Oh wait people kill people? Right.

 

[wsionynw]

It's called sarcasm.

No, really?

 

[Neildo]

If every clown has a gun then you will get to the point where an argument results in a gun murder.

Wrong. Never heard of mutually assurred destruction? Better check those statistics with communities where guns outnumber people. It's the liberal cities that have most of the gun crime as criminals have no problem breaking anti-gun laws, but law-abiding citizens follow the law and can't own guns in those cities which leaves them defenseless.

Guns are the best tools of defense. It evens the odds greatly. Take a woman vs a burly man, even put a baseball bat in her hands, and she'll still be overpowered. Now toss a gun in her hands or even both their hands, and things are a lot more even for her now.

It seems to me that the dubious benefits of having a gun in your home are far outweighed by the dangers of having a gun in your home.

And just what are those dangers of having a gun in your home? There aren't any. The only dangers are idiotic people that don't follow gun safety guidelines. You know, the ones that don't even bother to lock their guns up? Or ones that do, but put it in a display case that you can easily bypass. Those same idiots would be a danger with anything else. They probably leave knives in their baby cribs or something, lol.

Guns do kill people.
They sure as hell don't bake cakes.

Oh wait people kill people? Right.

I can kill you with a pencil. I can kill you with my bare hands. I can kill you with a baseball bat. I can kill you with a frying pan. I can kill you with your necklace. I can kill you with your socks. I can kill you with a glass bottle. I can kill you with a flag pole. I can kill you with a barstool. I can kill you with a spoon. I can kill you with a television set.

I say we ban all items known to man, that outta stop murder! Oh wait, I forgot about my hands tho..

- N

 

[wsionynw]

I say we ban all items known to man, that outta stop murder! Oh wait, I forgot about my hands tho..

- N

I think the point trying to be made is that why should private citizens be allowed to own fire arms when they are potentially very dangerous and serve no purpose other than to kill? We all know a cricket bat can be used to kill someone, but just how much damage can a knife or cricket bat or a pair of socks do? You ever heard of a guy holding up a bank with a pair of socks?
We could argue the whole people being the problem not the guns issue all day long and get nowhere!
Perhaps we should be asking ourselves why so many people feel the need or the want to own a gun?

 

[sniffy]

Gee hope I get the chance to jump out of bed and unlock the gun cabinet and load up the gun first!

 

[RubiksMaster]

I am strongly in favor of gun-rights, and strongly against gun-control (except in the case of dangerous persons that wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone for fun).


Here's something that every anti-gun person should think about:

If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words??


Edit: I voted that it's every human's right, but I don't exactly feel that way. I think some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but they sure as hell shouldn't be outlawed for everybody.

 

[leopold]

Guns do kill people.
They sure as hell don't bake cakes.

Oh wait people kill people? Right.

yes, people kill people

if you load a gun with the most lethal cop killing bullits you can find then lay the loaded gun on a shelf in your closet the chances of that gun jumping down and running out into the street and killing someone is utterly laughable.

 

[leopold]

And just what are those dangers of having a gun in your home?
- N

having it taken away and used against you.
but that can apply to anything anywhere

 

[lixluke]

I can kill you with a pencil. I can kill you with my bare hands. I can kill you with a baseball bat. I can kill you with a frying pan. I can kill you with your necklace. I can kill you with your socks. I can kill you with a glass bottle. I can kill you with a flag pole. I can kill you with a barstool. I can kill you with a spoon. I can kill you with a television set.

I say we ban all items known to man, that outta stop murder! Oh wait, I forgot about my hands tho

I guess you do not know the definition of function.
Stop comparing apples and oranges because you obviously have no idea what this debate is about.
Notice:

Guns are a fact of life but they have only one function.

To wound or kill. They make it so easy.

Pro-gun and Anti-gun people are both aware that a gun is not the same as other objects such as a pencil. Guns were invented and designed specifically for harming living beings. You can use anything under the sun as a weapon. On the otherhand, not everything under the sun is designed to be a weapon.

Guns/weapons are what is being debated here because they are specifically designed to injure/kill.
Should they be abolished or not?

We are not debating things that are specifically designed for other purposes.

You argument is total garbage in this debate. Get lost.

 

[wsionynw]

I am strongly in favor of gun-rights, and strongly against gun-control (except in the case of dangerous persons that wouldn't hesitate to shoot someone for fun).


Here's something that every anti-gun person should think about:

If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words??

.

How do you know if someone is dangerous and likely to shoot another person for fun, until it's too late? Why give anybody a gun since we are all potential killers? Can I or anyone else say for certain that if I owned a gun I'd never use against another human or animal?
Would it not serve society better to outlaw all private ownership of guns, since it's only the military, the police (and some farmers) that can argue they need guns?

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Unfortunately not everything under the sun is designed to be a weapon.

That's very unfortunate. Don't you wish it was different?

 

[Neildo]

Gee hope I get the chance to jump out of bed and unlock the gun cabinet and load up the gun first!

That's the point of mini-safes that hold a handgun you can keep near your bed that are activated by a finger combination for quick access. Gun safes are for storage. The same way it's a pain in the butt having to run outside and hop in your car garage, open the door, all while trying to flee from a burglar.

I think the point trying to be made is that why should private citizens be allowed to own fire arms when they are potentially very dangerous and serve no purpose other than to kill?

Guns aren't meant to kill, they're meant to defend yourself. I can shoot you in the leg or arm and you won't be dead. I can shoot you in the side and you won't be dead. I can hit you with a baseball bat and you won't be dead. I can hit you with one and also kill you, yes. I can shoot you and also kill you too. I can take a frying pan and knock you unconcious or I can beat you with it till you're a bloody pulp.

Face it, anything can be used to kill with. Yes, some are tools that aid you more, but that's about it. Obviously the person with the better car is most likely gonna beat you in a race and the person with the better item to defend themself is gonna usually overcome the other person too. Which side would you rather be on?

And again, it's absolutely ridiculous that people want to ban guns to make themselves safer. The reason why you should not be for banning items of self-defense is because well, criminals do bad deeds. Criminals are the ones you need to defend yourself from. Criminals don't follow laws. Criminals will break the law and still have guns when you follow the law and don't. All getting rid of guns will do is make you a bigger victim unable to defend yourself because that criminal sure as hell will have one! All you're doing is setting yourself up to be a bigger victim.

We all know a cricket bat can be used to kill someone, but just how much damage can a knife or cricket bat or a pair of socks do?

Considering most assaults are with knives, there you go. Any weapon can deal lots of damage so long as the person knows how to. And yep, I can strangle you to death with a pair of tube socks. Hey, you asked. The very basics comes down to physical strength. All you have to do is overpower someone. That can be done with absolutely no extra tools. People will usually always be outmatched. The best thing about guns is that it's a tool that doesn't require brute strength or something else that can tip the favor towards another person. It's the most simplistic item that balances things out for the would-be outmatched victim.

You ever heard of a guy holding up a bank with a pair of socks?

No, but it's possible. Heck, the person wouldn't even need to use socks, just his bare hands. Grab some chick and threaten to snap her neck and there ya go. Same with a knife. Same with a baseball bat. Just beat down a few people till they're nice and bloody to show people you mean business. Anything can be used as an offensive tool.

I guess you do not know the definition of function.
Stop comparing apples and oranges because you obviously have no idea what this debate is about.

Yeah, and you have no idea of what reality is. If you think function is the only limitation on an item, you're nuts. It doesn't matter what the function of an item is because people will find numerous uses for it. I don't just use toothpicks to clean my teeth with, I clean between my fingernails too. I don't just use my mp3 player to play music, I also use it as a portable disc drive. I don't just use headphones to listen, I also use them as a microphone. I don't just use a knife to cut vegetables, I also use it as a defensive tool and to cut fabric or scrape something clean. And you know the white phosphorus used to light up areas in Iraq? Welp, now they're being used offensively. Look where your logic got you. Intended function doesn't mean shit in the real world.

Guns were invented and designed specifically for harming living beings.

Guns are the offshoot of rocks. Cavemen would throw rocks to assault or defend themselves. Later came the spear. Later came the bow and arrow. Later came the rifle. Later came the handgun. Everything so far mentioned is a multi-purpose tool. Defending one's live is the main priority there is. Why do you think you lock your doors at night? Why do you think you take certain routes that you do being sure to stay away from the bad parts of town?

Guns are for the common sense people that know they have only themselves to count on and know that eventually they'll run into trouble or trouble will run into them. When you hear a buglar break into your house and you make a call to the police while the criminal is at your, or your childs door, let's see how much you will want something to defend yourself then as you still have 5 more minutes until the police show up.

Unfortunately not everything under the sun is designed to be a weapon.

Unfortunately or fortunately? Unfortunately infers that you wish everything were designed to be a weapon. If you wanna talk about unfortunate, it's unfortunate that everything under the sun can be used as a weapon. It doesn't matter if it were designed to be or not.

Guns/weapons are what is being debated here because they are specifically designed to injure/kill.
Should they be abolished or not?

No, they shouldn't be abolished. Why do you think the U.S. doesn't get rid of their nukes even though they don't want others to have em? Because those that already have them will continue to have them so getting rid of them only makes the U.S. weaker compared to those other countries. Good intentions when it comes to life and death only works if everyone follows through. It's a simple fact of life that people won't and one side always wants to have the upper hand. It's human nature.

So while you go out and follow law getting rid of your guns, your ignoramous self forgets that not everyone wants to be like you. The criminals that don't follow the law won't give up their guns. There's a reason why they're called criminals because they break laws. So all you're doing is disarming yourself letting others have more powerful over you. Mind you, these are criminals we're talking about and they will put that power over you to good use.

You argument is total garbage in this debate. Get lost.

No, it's because I'm using common sense and reality against you and it doesn't jive with your fantasy image of a peaceful utopia. Even the most peaceful of people recgonize the simple fact of protecting ones self from danger. I know ladies that are pro-life, pro-animal, all that jazz, yet still own a firearm for protection, because unlike you, they're still connected to reality.

And you get lost, you fuckin' little fantasy hippie with no comprehension of reality. If you don't want a gun, don't use one, but the moment you try and put my life in jeopardy by limiting myself with what I can defend myself, you've overstepped your boundries and become just as life-threatening as the criminals I'm trying to protect myself from.

- N

 

[leopold]

Would it not serve society better to outlaw all private ownership of guns, since it's only the military, the police (and some farmers) that can argue they need guns?

you are assuming that you will ban murder in the process, which is not the case.

i don't know about you but i would much rather come upon a person dead of a gunshot to the head than, say, being hacked to death with a machete.