Just now, TheDivineHustle said:

Who's to say they have you in their sights first? It would all depend on their intentions. What if they miss their shot? What if they don't actually know how their weapon works, as evidenced by a lot of the Taliban in Afghanistan who have no idea how their weapon works? You have a chance to draw and fire, as opposed to standing there and becoming another nasty statistic.

 

If they don't know how to use their weapons, I'd rather run for my life and call for the cops who'd bring a fitting response team (GIGN/GIPN/RAID) rather than trying to play the hero and die like an idiot.

10 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

If they don't know how to use their weapons, I'd rather run for my life and call for the cops who'd bring a fitting response team (GIGN/GIPN/RAID) rather than trying to play the hero and die like an idiot.

Well, I guess that's a matter of personal decision. I for one wouldn't stand to get slaughtered.

 

 

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Well, I guess that's a matter of personal decision. I for one wouldn't stand to get slaughtered.

 

If you can run away, technically you don't get slaughtered. And if you can't run away, then you'll get slaughtered anyway because you won't have time to attack or retaliate. Therefore, allowing a civilian to carry a gun wouldn't change anything to the situation. Therefore, it's pointless to give him one.

 

It's not complicated really. If arming civilians was such an easy solution to possible criminality and terrorist attacks, why would we bother paying millions of currency in taxes to train and pay police officers? If we have police officers, that's for a reason. They have training, and they know what to do. A civilian doesn't, and is just a liability if he's allowed to carry a gun, because you don't know what he might do with it.

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by Hystery

Just now, Hystery said:

 

If you can run away, technically you don't get slaughtered. And if you can't run away, then you'll get slaughtered anyway because you won't have time to attack or retaliate. Therefore, allowing a civilian to carry a gun wouldn't change anything to the situation. Therefore, it's pointless to give him one.

 

It's not complicated really. If arming civilians was such an easy solution to possible criminality and terrorist attacks, why would we bother paying millions of currency in taxes to train and pay police officers? If we have police officers, that's for a reason. They have training, and they know what to do. A civilian doesn't, and is just a liability if he's allowed to carry a gun, because you don't know what he might do with it.

Did you see the video? I posted it afterwards.

2 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Did you see the video? I posted it afterwards.

 

For one case where a shopper managing to shoot down the robber trying to get him/the cashier, how many cases of guns handled badly and shooting a family member/friend? And how many cases of guns being stolen and used for crimes, or sold to the black market only then to be used for crimes? One good doesn't compensate ten wrongs.

 

Other than that, that's pretty off-topic since it's not even about terrorism, but I'll take half the blame for that.

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by Hystery

9 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

For one case where a shopkeeper manages to shoot down the robber trying to get him, how many cases of guns handled badly and shooting a family member/friend? And how many cases of guns being stolen and used for crimes, or sold to the black market only then to be used for crimes? One good doesn't compensate ten wrongs.

 

 

 

I'm for certain that there are more than just one case like this. The same can happen with a knife. A knife or a car can be handled badly, and end up cutting a family member or a friend. A new driver can hit the wrong pedal and kill people. Accidents happen, and they happen with guns too. It doesn't seem too difficult for these terrorists to get into Europe with AK-47's, so there's clearly a flaw somewhere. 

 

What happens when there is a robbery in an area where the nearest police officer is 30 minutes away? What happens if no one is able to get to a phone to notify the police? What if the intention of the suspect is to kill people? What if there isn't anywhere to run? Maybe then someone with a weapon jumping in at a good time and shooting the criminal could save countless lives?

 

Maybe this case where a man carrying a weapon saved an officer's life?

 

 

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

16 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

What happens when there is a robbery in an area where the nearest police officer is 30 minutes away? What happens if no one is able to get to a phone to notify the police? What if the intention of the suspect is to kill people? What if there isn't anywhere to run? Maybe then someone with a weapon jumping in at a good time and shooting the criminal could save countless lives?

 

That's a lot of 'ifs' just to justify the carrying of a weapon, don't you think? If, if, if. If we go that way, better never getting out of our houses unless we have tanks or armored cars, because you never know what might happen. There's always a part of unknown. Just because it exists doesn't justify to take drastic decisions such as arming civils. I, for instance, wouldn't live in a society that prefers to trust into guns to save them rather than their own police officers, and where I'd be suspicious or afraid of any passerby because I don't know if they have a gun or not and what they might do to me with it. Cultural thing.

 

16 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'm for certain that there are more than just one case like this. The same can happen with a knife. A knife or a car can be handled badly, and end up cutting a family member or a friend. A new driver can hit the wrong pedal and kill people. Accidents happen, and they happen with guns too. It doesn't seem too difficult for these terrorists to get into Europe with AK-47's, so there's clearly a flaw somewhere.

 

You don't happen to accidently kill people with a knife. And that's why we deliver driver licenses, to make sure people know how to handle their cars. I'll never get those kinds of comparison, they're kinda ludicrous. Also, if terrorists already can get themselves AK-47s, what is it going to be if civilians can get weapons themselves? It'll provide material for a black market. Which in turn will make it even easier for terrorists to get weapons. No thanks.

Edited August 27, 20178 yr by Hystery

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

-snip-

Okay, but how many times has that happened? You're pointing out things that happen very, very rarely. That is nowhere near enough reason to justify legalizing fully automatic weapons, or 50 cal shit. And so help me God if the next words out of your mouth are, "That's enough times..."

35 minutes ago, HomerS said:

Okay, but how many times has that happened? You're pointing out things that happen very, very rarely. That is nowhere near enough reason to justify legalizing fully automatic weapons, or 50 cal shit. And so help me God if the next words out of your mouth are, "That's enough times..."

It would appear that a growing majority of Americans disagree, and so do I. Americans want stricter gun laws because it's too easy for criminals to obtain weapons at this point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Americans support an outright ban on owning weapons altogether. I feel the same way to an extent. Americans don't believe that stricter gun laws would reduce mass shootings.

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-only-2-americans-name-gunsgun-control-among-nations-most-important

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx?g_source=Gun+control&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

That's a lot of 'ifs' just to justify the carrying of a weapon, don't you think? If, if, if. If we go that way, better never getting out of our houses unless we have tanks or armored cars, because you never know what might happen. There's always a part of unknown. Just because it exists doesn't justify to take drastic decisions such as arming civils. I, for instance, wouldn't live in a society that prefers to trust into guns to save them rather than their own police officers, and where I'd be suspicious or afraid of any passerby because I don't know if they have a gun or not and what they might do to me with it. Cultural thing.

 

 

You don't happen to accidently kill people with a knife. And that's why we deliver driver licenses, to make sure people know how to handle their cars. I'll never get those kinds of comparison, they're kinda ludicrous. Also, if terrorists already can get themselves AK-47s, what is it going to be if civilians can get weapons themselves? It'll provide material for a black market. Which in turn will make it even easier for terrorists to get weapons. No thanks.

I'm for certain that there are cases where people have been accidentally killed and injured by knives. It's also clear that people don't know how to handle their cars in comparison to guns considering that more people die from car accidents than guns in the US. It's why Approximately 5% of Americans feel that gun control is the most important political topic, because it isn't. 

 

The black market  will always have material regardless of the law. Strict gun laws actually strengthen the black market. I can't purchase a gun legally, so I'm going to go Black market and purchase one that way. The same concept is applied to Marijuana in the US, and guns are no different. While people think that these laws are making them safer, they're aiding in the growth of underground markets which in turn arm these terrorists to begin with. 

 

You can't rely on law enforcement to do everything for you. They're here to protect you, but the level of faith you have in them is a bit concerning. It's almost like a blind trust, that calling the police will solve all problems. 

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It would appear that a growing majority of Americans disagree, and so do I. Americans want stricter gun laws because it's too easy for criminals to obtain weapons at this point, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Americans support an outright ban on owning weapons altogether. I feel the same way to an extent. Americans don't believe that stricter gun laws would reduce mass shootings.

 

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/gallup-only-2-americans-name-gunsgun-control-among-nations-most-important

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx?g_source=Gun+control&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

 

And who said the American people were intelligent? I am American and I would like to think I'm smarter than the average (I'm sure you would as well). Also I don't really want an outright ban either. For sport, and collection in my opinion guns are perfectly fine. However for open carry and concealed carry... *sigh. Here's what I think we should do and is most likely the safest: All guns (yes including Uzis, Barrett 50 Cals, and M4A1s) should be legal on a range or in a collection. However if they were to be found off your property or the shooting range you would be fined and the weapon confiscated. For transportation from your property to the range the guns need to be unloaded, and in a sealed container. And I await your rant about your, "right to bear arms"...

39 minutes ago, HomerS said:

 

And who said the American people were intelligent? I am American and I would like to think I'm smarter than the average (I'm sure you would as well). Also I don't really want an outright ban either. For sport, and collection in my opinion guns are perfectly fine. However for open carry and concealed carry... *sigh. Here's what I think we should do and is most likely the safest: All guns (yes including Uzis, Barrett 50 Cals, and M4A1s) should be legal on a range or in a collection. However if they were to be found off your property or the shooting range you would be fined and the weapon confiscated. For transportation from your property to the range the guns need to be unloaded, and in a sealed container. And I await your rant about your, "right to bear arms"...

That is a terrible idea that'd never work or be allowed to work. Most Americans wouldn't stand for it, nor most politicians. Intelligence isn't exactly relevant when it comes to something as simple as the 2nd amendment because it's so clearly written. Most Americans actually see the value of the Constitution, and that doesn't (shouldn't) require any level of intelligence, just some basic knowledge of American fundamentals and history. Most Americans aren't even against banning assault weapons, and that's something that I didn't know. What you describe will never happen because it won't solve anything, and most Americans see that (thankfully). 

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

7 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

The black market  will always have material regardless of the law. Strict gun laws actually strengthen the black market. I can't purchase a gun legally, so I'm going to go Black market and purchase one that way. The same concept is applied to Marijuana in the US, and guns are no different. While people think that these laws are making them safer, they're aiding in the growth of underground markets which in turn arm these terrorists to begin with. 

 

Yes, black market will alwaysh ave material regardless of the law, you are right. But if you allow more guns to be in circulation, it's only logical that the black market offers will in turn grow bigger and allow for more criminals or terrorists to get weapons. That's just how it is. Also, it's not comparable with marijuana. You don't use marijuana to kill other people. I'm favorable to a controlled market of marijuana to allow users to buy their susbtance safely and not having to deal with dealers and other shady characters.

 

7 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

You can't rely on law enforcement to do everything for you. They're here to protect you, but the level of faith you have in them is a bit concerning. It's almost like a blind trust, that calling the police will solve all problems. 

 

Of course I can. I can rely on the law enforcement do solve any problem that isn't law abiding (and not "everything"). Because that's their job. They're trained and paid and voluteer to take the risk to do it, not me. That's not blind trust, that's a trust any citizen should have, because we aren't trained to solve non-law abiding situations. LEOs are.

6 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That is a terrible idea that'd never work or be allowed to work. Most Americans wouldn't stand for it, nor most politicians. Intelligence isn't exactly relevant when it comes to something as simple as the 2nd amendment because it's so clearly written. Most Americans actually see the value of the Constitution, and that doesn't (shouldn't) require any level of intelligence, just some basic knowledge of American fundamentals and history. Most Americans aren't even against banning assault weapons, and that's something that I didn't know. What you describe will never happen because it won't solve anything, and most Americans see that (thankfully). 

 

I'm always amused to see americans screaming "SECOND AMENDMENT!" every time a topic switches to gun control. It's a constitution. A constitution almost 200 years old. Do you know how many times we changed/reformed our constitution in France during this period of time? Five times. Our current constitution is the fifth version. Every time the context and situation required for our constitution to change, we did it, to fit with the current context and situation so it wouldn't fall outdated and hold us back. Maybe it'd be time for americans to think about modernizing their constitutions a little as well to fit better with modern society. Because the whole "we need guns in case our government turns into tyranny" is definitely outdated by now.

5 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Yes, black market will alwaysh ave material regardless of the law, you are right. But if you allow more guns to be in circulation, it's only logical that the black market offers will in turn grow bigger and allow for more criminals or terrorists to get weapons. That's just how it is. Also, it's not comparable with marijuana. You don't use marijuana to kill other people. I'm favorable to a controlled market of marijuana to allow users to buy their susbtance safely and not having to deal with dealers and other shady characters.

 

 

Of course I can. I can rely on the law enforcement do solve any problem that isn't law abiding (and not "everything"). Because that's their job. They're trained and paid and voluteer to take the risk to do it, not me. That's not blind trust, that's a trust any citizen should have, because we aren't trained to solve non-law abiding situations. LEOs are.

 

I'm always amused to see americans screaming "SECOND AMENDMENT!" every time a topic switches to gun control. It's a constitution. A constitution almost 200 years old. Do you know how many times we changed/reformed our constitution in France during this period of time? Five times. Our current constitution is the fifth version. Every time the context and situation required for our constitution to change, we did it, to fit with the current context and situation so it wouldn't fall outdated and hold us back. Maybe it'd be time for americans to think about modernizing their constitutions a little as well to fit better with modern society. Because the whole "we need guns in case our government turns into tyranny" is definitely outdated by now.

That's not how black market sales work. The idea behind a black market is for customers to be able to purchase items that have been outlawed. If the government has decided to ban something, the black market will sell the item and make a huge profit, since it's not available for purchase legally anywhere else. Naturally, if something is made legal, sales within the black market will shrink, not grow. Why would I purchase something black market if I can purchase it legally through the state? This is the concept that most of these purchasers of illegal items have, which is why black markets lose money when the government legalizes different things. Alcohol, marijuana, and guns are all mutual to the same concept. Just look at the prohibition and how successful that was. Their use isn't relevant at all. 

 

I'm a devout supporter of law enforcement. I trust and respect them, and I appreciate the work they do to keep us safe. But I've never heard anyone in their right mind state that they are 100% dependent on law enforcement and completely trust them to ensure their safety 100% of the time. A lot of people are rudely awakened that way when they need the police and see that they aren't there to help like they thought they'd be. That may not be the case in France or Europe but in the US a lot of people can't rely on the police to keep them safe because they'd be dead.

 

Try visiting impoverished neighborhoods in Baltimore and Detroit and ask them how much they rely on the police to keep them safe. The neighborhoods where police response times are slow and careless, and "snitching" makes you and your family a target. The neighborhoods where the police mistreat the people of lower income and barely work to actively conduct investigations into different crimes.

 

I challenge you to come to Baltimore, walk around at night in an alley (and get mugged because you WILL, especially if you're white) and then call the police. Then you'll see the response time I'm talking about, and you'll see the carelessness of the officer that arrives. Tell me how assured you feel that the perp will be found. Report the results back here. 

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

@TheDivineHustleis spot on on the black market's mechanics and respect to the cops. I respect them too, but (hypothetically) if I hear shots fired in my office and on my desk lay my gun and my cell, I would pick up the gun, because merely calling for the cops would take what, 15-30 seconds? Unfortunately, in my experience the law enforcement more often tracks down perpetrators rather than prevents crimes in progress.

 

But hey, TDH... I walked Eutaw Place and Druid Hills at night and I'm white as snow :P Yeah, I had a gun to my face, but it were actually the five-oh. Guys mistook me for a dealer lol.

 

Seriously, I even hanged out one night with some local hood boys and listened to their stories. They were nice. For gangbangers.

 

 

Edited August 28, 20178 yr by Hastings

Some of y'all need to read up on D.C. v. Heller.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

 

In DC v Heller, Justice Scalia plainly states that banning a certain class of firearms (handguns in this instance) is extremely unconstitutional. In the full Heller decision, it also addresses the argument of "well, AR15s weren't around when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, so they should be banned / restricted / whatever". The Court addresses that by stating that just because a type of firearm was not in existence at the time of inception of the 2nd Amendment, does not mean that the firearm doesn't fall under the 2nd's protection.

 

If you want gun control, move to Chicago or use two hands. But please don't impose ridiculous legislation and beliefs upon other Americans that hold the right to protect themselves very close to their heart. These rights were plainly addressed in our Constitution, and in our Republic the Constitution is the law of the land. 

10 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

That is a terrible idea that'd never work or be allowed to work. Most Americans wouldn't stand for it, nor most politicians. Intelligence isn't exactly relevant when it comes to something as simple as the 2nd amendment because it's so clearly written. Most Americans actually see the value of the Constitution, and that doesn't (shouldn't) require any level of intelligence, just some basic knowledge of American fundamentals and history. Most Americans aren't even against banning assault weapons, and that's something that I didn't know. What you describe will never happen because it won't solve anything, and most Americans see that (thankfully). 

 

Here's the thing I love. You're not seeing the full picture. I'm going to directly quote the amendment, "A well regulate militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed." You do realize this gives you the right to bear arms, in a well regulated militia. You need to read the full sentence. You have no right to bear arms outside the organized militia. This was made when we didn't have a full army, and were fearful of the British coming back. You can't take a quote out of context. For example New York Penal Code 250.65. This penal code is showing that you don't have to ID yourself to an officer unless lawfully detained. Now if it says, "You must ID yourself to an officer of the law when being lawfully detained...". If you took that out of context you now have, "You must ID yourself to an officer of the law...".  And I don't think you see many officers quoting that yet that's exactly what you're doing with the second amendment. Now have fun butchering your own prized laws, and shouting your American rights while waving the Confederate flag.

1 hour ago, HomerS said:

 

Here's the thing I love. You're not seeing the full picture. I'm going to directly quote the amendment, "A well regulate militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear and keep arms, shall not be infringed." You do realize this gives you the right to bear arms, in a well regulated militia. You need to read the full sentence. You have no right to bear arms outside the organized militia. This was made when we didn't have a full army, and were fearful of the British coming back. You can't take a quote out of context. For example New York Penal Code 250.65. This penal code is showing that you don't have to ID yourself to an officer unless lawfully detained. Now if it says, "You must ID yourself to an officer of the law when being lawfully detained...". If you took that out of context you now have, "You must ID yourself to an officer of the law...".  And I don't think you see many officers quoting that yet that's exactly what you're doing with the second amendment. Now have fun butchering your own prized laws, and shouting your American rights while waving the Confederate flag.

Please refer to my above post of DC v. Heller, as the Militia point was directly addressed by Scalia. From the above link;

 

"Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people."

 

The last words of the Amendment state "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I don't want to break shit down barney style as to what "the People" means.

12 minutes ago, TA120 said:

Please refer to my above post of DC v. Heller, as the Militia point was directly addressed by Scalia. From the above link;

 

"Additionally, the term “militia” should not be confined to those serving in the military, because at the time the term referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to such service. To read the Amendment as limiting the right to bear arms only to those in a governed military force would be to create exactly the type of state-sponsored force against which the Amendment was meant to protect people."

 

The last words of the Amendment state "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I don't want to break shit down barney style as to what "the People" means.

 

First off let me say: Oh God Scalia...

 

Anyway. Do note. I never said anything about banning firearms outright. Don't put words in my mouth here. How about you read my post above. What I want to restrict is where we can have guns. There is absolutely no reason for you to even carry a hand gun in civilized society. You and every other American needs to think to themselves, "What are the odds I'm going to somehow accidentally run into a crime? What are the odds someone is going to come into my home either trying to murder me or take my stuff?". The last part of the amendment I'll have to look into. For some reason it's impossible to find direct quotes from the second amendment. I'll get back to you once I educate myself on the topic.

2 minutes ago, HomerS said:

 

First off let me say: Oh God Scalia...

 

Anyway. Do note. I never said anything about banning firearms outright. Don't put words in my mouth here. How about you read my post above. What I want to restrict is where we can have guns. There is absolutely no reason for you to even carry a hand gun in civilized society. You and every other American needs to think to themselves, "What are the odds I'm going to somehow accidentally run into a crime? What are the odds someone is going to come into my home either trying to murder me or take my stuff?". The last part of the amendment I'll have to look into. For some reason it's impossible to find direct quotes from the second amendment. I'll get back to you once I educate myself on the topic.

Not allowing Americans to carry weapons for self-defense is the implication of an outright ban, because they can't be used for anything other than recreation...

 

You don't need to carry a gun, but you have no right to tell me what I need to carry. If you want to remain unarmed, you have every right to do so, but I'm going to carry, and I do carry, and there's nothing that anyone can do about it.