5 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  It's not just the number of guns here, but you have to look at how many people use these weapons in self defense, recreation, and sport.  The actions of the few do not represent the actions or will of the many.  The gun is a equalizer for the weak and helpless, and the strong but the outnumbered.  My grandmother cannot fight someone off if they break into her house, her gun helps her win the fight.

 

  What?  You subjugated because you cannot have the "FEELING" that you soo desire?  You want to feel safe at the cost of others?  Would you like to go through this again or should I just point you to our last convo we had on this whole issue?

I, for one, never said that a total gun ban is a good thing. Again, it depends on the traditional approach of given society (that works in the UK won't work in the US and vice versa), but I never understood why Americans are so opposed to, for example, certain health standards for firearm owners. Usually they reply that it's a constitutional right and cannot be limited (which is somewhat weak to me as rights are subject to reasonable limitation: for example, as far as I know, certain states have 'stand your ground laws' while others don't. Would you say that those other states violate your rights to own property?)

 

The other argument is that the government would be able to control who gets a gun and who doesn't, but for me that's kinda the whole point.. 

 

As far as the 'grandmother argument' goes (no offence meant, it's just I keep seeing this argument in all gun control debates), well, if I were to break into a house knowing I might get shot I would shoot to kill first. We had an interesting precedent in Russia: in 1960's they introduced a death penalty for rape. As a result, numbers of rape&murder skyrocketed. If you get a bullet for rape, you might as well kill first to negate that risk. Just an analogy. 

Edited September 25, 20187 yr by Hastings

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

I, for one, never said that a total gun ban is a good thing. Again, it depends on the traditional approach of given society (that works in the UK won't work in the US and vice versa), but I never understood why Americans are so opposed to, for example, certain health standards for firearm owners.

One of the reasons why people are opposed to it is because it wont work.  Just because someone is stable today, does not mean that they will not have a mental episode tomorrow.  Another reason why we are not willing to give more ground is because Every time we give some they want more and more and more.  We have seen as examples, in other societies, how this will create a system that is not in favor of these weapons.

 

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

Usually they reply that it's a constitutional right and cannot be limited (which is somewhat weak to me as rights are subject to reasonable limitation: for example, as far as I know, certain states have 'stand your ground laws' while others don't. Would you say that those other states violate your rights to own property?)

  First and foremost, Stand your ground law is about self defence not protection of property.  And I would say that is is a violation of peoples rights if the state stands in and says that you have a duty to retreat and are shunned uppon for defending yourself.

 

  One of the largest reasons, for people getting guns, is for self preservation, not recreational.  No one should be denied, have to ask premonition, or have to go through a background check (That may be bias) or a waiting period to obtain a weapon to defend themselves, and the best weapon is gun.  

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

The other argument is that the government would be able to control who gets a gun and who doesn't, but for me that's kinda the whole point..

  There is no reason for anyone, not even the government, to know if I have a gun or not.  The only people that know i have a gun is who I choose to tell.  The government is the most powerful evil force that anyone has ever seen.

 

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

As far as the 'grandmother argument' goes (no offence meant, it's just I keep seeing this argument in all gun control debates), well, if I were to break into a house knowing I might get shot I would shoot to kill first. 

  If no one knows that someone has a gun, how would you know they have one unless you have been told about it?  Most people are not trying to get into a gun fight when they break into someones home.  They are looking for victims that wont fight back.  

 

10 hours ago, Hastings said:

We had an interesting precedent in Russia: in 1960's they introduced a death penalty for rape. As a result, numbers of rape&murder skyrocketed. If you get a bullet for rape, you might as well kill first to negate that risk. Just an analogy. 

  I dont know how this has anything to do with an indevidual owning a gun without the government knowing.  I mean, you could some how ask all the rapists come in and register themselves so that, when a rape is commuted, you could go get them?

 

  And to counter that, that same government enslaved my family and everyone else in there region because they were of german decent.  That is a good reason right there to not let the government know what you have.

2 hours ago, ToeBius said:

We have seen as examples, in other societies, how this will create a system that is not in favor of these weapons.

 

Ah yes, those damn societies not in favor of these weapons, relying on trained officers to uphold the law, such savages, totally subjugated by invaders and by "the most powerful evil force that anyone has ever seen." Modern time slaves obviously, let's never look their way, it can't be good no matter what.

19 minutes ago, Hystery said:

 

Ah yes, those damn societies not in favor of these weapons, relying on trained officers to uphold the law, such savages, totally subjugated by invaders and by "the most powerful evil force that anyone has ever seen." Modern time slaves obviously, let's never look their way, it can't be good no matter what.

  Are you getting butt hurt Histaria?  We have law enforcement officers that are train and do the best to uphold the law, but by no means can they protect everyone.  Officer's usually, even in your country, show up after the fact.  

 

  Your countries take and take and will continue to take until there is nothing left.  Thats why we dont give any space.

 

  So tell me this, if someone comes up and starts to attack you and fighting back with your fist isnt working so you end up in the hospital.  How did the cops save you?

 

  If a gang of people are breaking into your house, they beat you, rape you, and leave you for dead. All the while you were unable to make a phone call to the police.

  How did they save or help you? The damage is already done and you were left without a means to defend yourself.

 

  Or how about, 7 people are wanting to beat the shit out of you, they dont care if you die, and a wall is in between you and them.  Wouldn't you having access to a gun to protect yourself save you? Or is it the cops that Will save you?  I know for a fact, because this happend to me, that the cops would not save you.  You would get the shit beat out of you, then paramedics would come pick you up, the cops would take a police report, but no justice would happen because you didnt know those people.  

 

  The cops show up after a crime is done, they cannot and will not protect you.  Even if you have a cop one cop for every one person in your country, you will still have people lurking to commit violent act's.  

7 hours ago, ToeBius said:

 <..>  We have law enforcement officers that are train and do the best to uphold the law, but by no means can they protect everyone.  Officer's usually, even in your country, show up after the fact.  

 

<...>

 

  The cops show up after a crime is done, they cannot and will not protect you.  Even if you have a cop one cop for every one person in your country, you will still have people lurking to commit violent act's.  

That's definitely a valid point, police work is more often about handling the consequences than stopping crimes in progress.

 

Re your other arguments, their persuasiveness obviously depends on one's opinion so I'm not going to argue further. 

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

 Are you getting butt hurt Histaria?  We have law enforcement officers that are train and do the best to uphold the law, but by no means can they protect everyone.  Officer's usually, even in your country, show up after the fact.

 

A bit weak on the modified name, lack of effort, C- grade at best. You could have gone for puns at least, hysteria, hysteric, hissyfit, I don't know, be imaginative man, I'm disappointed. Also, starting your looong, absolutely-never-heard-before litany with that kind of school playground intro is laughable. You know what they say, against intelligence, the only weapon of the weaks of mind are insults. Think about that.

 

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

Your countries take and take and will continue to take until there is nothing left.  Thats why we dont give any space.

 

Ah yes, now that's more like you! Yes, you're right, look at them, living in a european communist heaven! The governments took so many things they don't have the right, nor do they own anything anymore! They took their guns, and then they took their rights to own a car, to own a house, yes, indeed, they kept taking and will continue to take until there's nothing left, totally. Look, they're even taking my computer as I'm talking right now? Why? I don't know, but governments take everything until there's nothing left! Look at Australia! Damn, poor aussies, they took their guns, and then their koalas and kangaroos, they don't have anything left! Damn governments, greatest evil force in the universe!

 

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

bla bla bla defend yourself bla bla bla attacked bla bla bla

 

Okay, I'll bite.

 

Yes, cops aren't there to protect you in the heat of a crime happening, unless that crime took some time to resolve, like a store robbery for example. But then, you'll notice that I said "trained officers to UPHOLD THE LAW." Not to protect you, unless it's in some planned event like protests and the like.

 

I've never seen, nor anyone I know, nor anywhere I've heard as far as I can recall, of a situation where someone just got randomly attacked by one or more people. Ain't happening. There's always a reason. But in the event of if indeed I get attacked, for what, getting robbed or something, first I know the guy(s) I'd have in front of me wouldn't have a gun (joy of living in a country where they're regulated 😂), meaning I could actually try to run away to safety if I tried, or call bystanders for support, and second, if I failed in both cases, do you know what? I'd just give them what they want. I'm not on Earth to play the hero, to be like "Hey, did you see how I shot down this bastard who tried to rob me of my 20 euros in my wallet? Damn my penis is so large!". If I get mugged, they can get what they want and leave me alone, because insurances exist for a reason, I'll get repaid anyway. And afterwards I'd just stroll in the police station to fill a complaint that would result in this guy eventually getting arrested. That's how a civilized country works, by letting cops and justice do their work rather than having citizens playing the role of judge, jury and executioner, that's why we don't have people shot dead every week, and that's why we aren't afraid of everything attacking us around every corner like you 'muricans seems to be considering how you always try to justify yourself with "but i could get attacked, muh gunz". Deal with it.

Edited September 26, 20187 yr by Hystery

You’re more likely to accidentally shoot yourself, an innocent person, or a family member than to effectively use your gun in self defense. The facts don’t lie.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systemati

Also, when you introduce a gun to a situation where you assailant doesn’t have a gun, you dramatically increase your chances of getting shot. Those are the un-sexy realities that people who profit off of gun proliferation don’t tell you.

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

A bit weak on the modified name, lack of effort, C- grade at best. You could have gone for puns at least, hysteria, hysteric, hissyfit, I don't know, be imaginative man, I'm disappointed. Also, starting your looong, absolutely-never-heard-before litany with that kind of school playground intro is laughable. You know what they say, against intelligence, the only weapon of the weaks of mind are insults. Think about that.

  You went of the deep end with your wild rant, I responded.  And I am not looning, this is serious, this is about ones preservation, which you seem to not care about.  You prefer to notice all the bad that is done with a weapon while ignoring all the good that is done with it.  

 

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

Ah yes, now that's more like you! Yes, you're right, look at them, living in a european communist heaven! The governments took so many things they don't have the right, nor do they own anything anymore! They took their guns, and then they took their rights to own a car, to own a house, yes, indeed, they kept taking and will continue to take until there's nothing left, totally. Look, they're even taking my computer as I'm talking right now? Why? I don't know, but governments take everything until there's nothing left! Look at Australia! Damn, poor aussies, they took their guns, and then their koalas and kangaroos, they don't have anything left! Damn governments, greatest evil force in the universe!

  Looks like "YOU" are going all loonie pal.  You know exactly what I mean when I say that when people give in to others, more is always wanted.  It is a continuous trend everywhere, from england to Canada all the way to the U.S.  Every time we give some ground its never enough and people still want more.  They say that this will stop gun violence, thwn it doesn't and they want more.

 

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

Yes, cops aren't there to protect you in the heat of a crime happening, unless that crime took some time to resolve, like a store robbery for example. But then, you'll notice that I said "trained officers to UPHOLD THE LAW." Not to protect you, unless it's in some planned event like protests and the like.

  Even if it is a store robbery the cops, more often than not, show up after the crime was done.  Response times arnt 30 secs out or less, thet are minuts out and thats more than enough time to rob a place.  The cops uphold the law after a crime was committed.

 

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

I've never seen, nor anyone I know, nor anywhere I've heard as far as I can recall, of a situation where someone just got randomly attacked by one or more people. Ain't happening.

  Well you must be living no where near society.  These crime happen everyday.  People are attacked for no reason,  by multiple people, even if they know the people in question.  I have lived around this shit all my life, I have lived in a gang ridden city my whole life and the only people you would help, by restricting people from getting guns, are criminals and only criminals.  These crimes are happening, and even if it is one person that is jumping me, I would rather have a gun to defend myself than my fist or a Razer because those dont always work.

 

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

But in the event of if indeed I get attacked, for what, getting robbed or something, first I know the guy(s) I'd have in front of me wouldn't have a gun (joy of living in a country where they're regulated 😂), meaning I could actually try to run away to safety if I tried, or call bystanders for support, and second, if I failed in both cases, do you know what? I'd just give them what they want.

  Even if they had a knife or a machete or a bat, that is still deadly to you and your chances of running to safety are extremely slim.  You act as if criminals are always stupid and wont chase you or stop you.  Go atleast watch some videos of these things happening.  And your going to call on someone else to help you?  What if that person gets seriously injured or killed?  What if no one comes to your aid?  You are left alone.  

 

  All you care about are guns, you dont understand that there are other weapons that can kill you too.  I dont want to get shot or stabbed or beat with a bat or by a bunch of people.  I just want to go home and I know that if someone tries to attack me, I have the option of my gun being used to protect me.  If someone breaks into my house, i have a gun to use to protect me.  My saftey and security are assisted by these weapons and thats why i have them. 

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

I'd just give them what they want.

  And if they just wanted to beat you up for no reason, what would giving them what you think they want of helped?  What if you gave it to them and they still beat you half to death?  Are you ok with almost dying and suffering so that you know that they didnt do it with a gun or knowing that you were protected soo well by your government from guns that this was ok?  When you give in, to criminals, you enable them.

 

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

I'm not on Earth to play the hero, to be like "Hey, did you see how I shot down this bastard who tried to rob me of my 20 euros in my wallet? Damn my penis is so large!".

  Your not playing a hero when you defend yourself.   And even if it was over 20 bucks, no one should get away with threatining me for what i have, for what i have worked hard for.  And wtf is with this penis shit?  We dont carry a gun and say " now I have a big penis" we carry to protect ourselves.  That was soo fucking stupid what you tried to do there.

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

If I get mugged, they can get what they want and leave me alone, because insurances exist for a reason, I'll get repaid anyway.

  They wont leave you alone, they will continue with what they do because you give into their will. 

There is not insurance for everything. The victim is usually left to deal with the repricution of loosing what they had.  Not vice versa.  

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

And afterwards I'd just stroll in the police station to fill a complaint that would result in this guy eventually getting arrested.

  What part of "it doesnt work like that in the real world" do you not understand?  What did the robber do?  Leave you with there information? Did a camera catch all the information  that was needed to show up to his front door and arrest him?  No, those cases usually sit forever unsolved.

 

16 hours ago, Hystery said:

That's how a civilized country works, by letting cops and justice do their work rather than having citizens playing the role of judge, jury and executioner, that's why we don't have people shot dead every week, and that's why we aren't afraid of everything attacking us around every corner like you 'muricans seems to be considering how you always try to justify yourself with "but i could get attacked, muh gunz". Deal with it.

  You are not in a civilized country if you are encouraged to give into criminals.

 

  And we shoot in defence of our lives here.  You act as if the criminal is the innocent party here and that i should give in to these people.  Why should i give up what i worked for?  Why should we let criminals take whatever they want when they want?  Why should i take any chances on my life if someone wants to do me harm?  Is it a better outcome if I am left paralyzed and the criminal if having a good time?  

 

  The gun is a tool for everyone.  Yes people use them in horrid act's, but why should I be punished because of the actions of others?

6 hours ago, Riley24 said:

You’re more likely to accidentally shoot yourself, an innocent person, or a family member than to effectively use your gun in self defense. The facts don’t lie.

  I've never shot myself but I have used my gun in self defence more than once.  And also, when you live in a house with knives, you are more likely to get cut than someone without a knife.  Its a moronic argument there.

 

6 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Also, when you introduce a gun to a situation where you assailant doesn’t have a gun, you dramatically increase your chances of getting shot. Those are the un-sexy realities that people who profit off of gun proliferation don’t tell you.

  If my assailant doesn't have a gun and I pull one out, the assailant is more likely to get shot, not me.  

 

  And the in-sexy realities of gun restriction is the fewer amout of people that have access to a weapon that could save their life.  This is self defence, peoples lives have been saved by using guns.  30,000 people die from guns every year.  More than half of those is suicide.  I live in a country of 350,000,000 people.  15,000 or less is not than many people compared to those killed by other means.

Can't we just all agree that any person who owns a gun should be required to do three things? 

 

1. Be trained and certified to show that you are capable of using a gun and will use it responsibly. 

2. Have a criminal background check to make sure you did not commit a crime so severe that it would warrant you not having a gun.

3. Be required to carry your gun licences everywhere you take your gun so that way you have proof that shows "Hey, I know how to use a gun".   

 

I honestly can't see how any of this is a violation of rights. 

14 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  I've never shot myself but I have used my gun in self defence more than once.  And also, when you live in a house with knives, you are more likely to get cut than someone without a knife.  Its a moronic argument there.

Personal anecdotes are always more reliable than statistics, right? And besides that, part of what they talked about in the article was the tendency for people to mis-report or mis-represent times when they used their gun in self-defense. If you’re telling me that if you didn’t have your gun you’d be dead, I don’t believe you.

 

14 hours ago, ToeBius said:

If my assailant doesn't have a gun and I pull one out, the assailant is more likely to get shot, not me.  

Good god, read the article. 

 

14 hours ago, ToeBius said:

 And the in-sexy realities of gun restriction is the fewer amout of people that have access to a weapon that could save their life.  This is self defence, peoples lives have been saved by using guns.  30,000 people die from guns every year.  More than half of those is suicide.  I live in a country of 350,000,000 people.  15,000 or less is not than many people compared to those killed by other means.

Suicides still count in the statistics, because people with access to guns are more likely to successfully kill themselves. It gives suicidal people an easy way out, whereas when suicide is more challenging, a lot of people don’t go through with it. 

12 hours ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

I honestly can't see how any of this is a violation of rights

  In the U.S. its the wording and the meaning behind the wording that matters.  These rights were put in place for specific reasons.

12 hours ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

1. Be trained and certified to show that you are capable of using a gun and will use it responsibly.

  I whole heartedly agree that if you have a gun, you should be trained in how to use it safely, shoot it, and clean it.  There are morons in the world that arnt exactly the best with weapons.

 

12 hours ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

2. Have a criminal background check to make sure you did not commit a crime so severe that it would warrant you not having a gun.

  That is already in place in the United States and some states have more requirements than the feds require.

 

12 hours ago, TheSandwichStealer said:

3. Be required to carry your gun licences everywhere you take your gun so that way you have proof that shows "Hey, I know how to use a gun".  

  Some states dont require licencing to carry concealed.  I don't even have one, nor do I plan on getting one anytime soon.  I will say though that I have invested thousands of dollars of my own personal money in firearma training that would put most, if not all, police department requirements to shame.  

2 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Personal anecdotes are always more reliable than statistics, right? And besides that, part of what they talked about in the article was the tendency for people to mis-report or mis-represent times when they used their gun in self-defense. If you’re telling me that if you didn’t have your gun you’d be dead, I don’t believe you.

  No, i am saying that having a gun can greatly increase your chances of survival. 

 

2 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Good god, read the article.

  I did read the article, the studies it states are flawed.  And there have been some cases where someone shot someone they precieved to be a burglar just like some cops have shot people they thought had a gun.  Have you ever though about the people that have used a gun in self defence?  

 

  Remember that article, just like many like it, does not tell the whole story or they dig only a inch into something when they have to dig a foot to find out the truth.

 

  I can give you artucles stating the exact opposite of what you showed me.  They used partial studies or flawed studies to prove their point when there isnt any.

 

  I am speaking as a person that has used their weapon in self defence and that may not be here today or of been severely injured if I had not had my gun.  I can speak of my uncle who encounteres 3 people in his house, shot and killed those 3 people and lived.  It turned out 2 of them were connected to murders. 

2 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Suicides still count in the statistics, because people with access to guns are more likely to successfully kill themselves. It gives suicidal people an easy way out, whereas when suicide is more challenging, a lot of people don’t go through with it. 

  So what about the people that didnt kill themselves when they shot themselves?  That has happened a lot.  What are you going to do about people that want to die?  You cant stop that.  How should someone that wants to die, die? Guns are used in self defence all the time, even if its just showing the weapon, more often than not.  Why should we keep people from getting these weapons or asking for permission to get these weapons if they choose to use them for self defence?  

 

  Do any of you have any experience with getting attacked?  Fearing that you may not see your family again?  Or that the next time your loved ones see you is in a casket?  

 

 

Edited September 27, 20187 yr by ToeBius

On 9/26/2018 at 1:29 PM, Riley24 said:

You’re more likely to accidentally shoot yourself, an innocent person, or a family member than to effectively use your gun in self defense. The facts don’t lie.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/defensive-gun-ownership-myth-114262

http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1814426/accessibility-firearms-risk-suicide-homicide-victimization-among-household-members-systemati

Also, when you introduce a gun to a situation where you assailant doesn’t have a gun, you dramatically increase your chances of getting shot. Those are the un-sexy realities that people who profit off of gun proliferation don’t tell you.

  Oh snap, look what I found....

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082

 

  Do you still wish to base evidence off of that article?

6 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  No, i am saying that having a gun can greatly increase your chances of survival. 

And you’re wrong about that. 

 

6 hours ago, ToeBius said:

I did read the article, the studies it states are flawed.  And there have been some cases where someone shot someone they precieved to be a burglar just like some cops have shot people they thought had a gun.  Have you ever though about the people that have used a gun in self defence?  

Yeah, it happens. I never said it didn’t. But the facts say that you’re more likely to shoot an innocent person or yourself than a bad guy who actually deserved to die.

 

6 hours ago, ToeBius said:

Remember that article, just like many like it, does not tell the whole story or they dig only a inch into something when they have to dig a foot to find out the truth.

 

I could say the same to you. Pro-gun articles don’t mention gun thefts, shooting innocent people and family members, or the connection between access to firearms and successful suicide. I’m sure you apply the same objectivity to pro-gun media, right?

 

6 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  I am speaking as a person that has used their weapon in self defence and that may not be here today or of been severely injured if I had not had my gun.  I can speak of my uncle who encounteres 3 people in his house, shot and killed those 3 people and lived.  It turned out 2 of them were connected to murders. 

Larger reality > anecdotes.

 

6 hours ago, ToeBius said:

So what about the people that didnt kill themselves when they shot themselves?  That has happened a lot.  What are you going to do about people that want to die?  You cant stop that.  How should someone that wants to die, die? Guns are used in self defence all the time, even if its just showing the weapon, more often than not.  Why should we keep people from getting these weapons or asking for permission to get these weapons if they choose to use them for self defence?  

You’re asking questions that have already been answered. I can’t force to to accept reality, you’re on your own brother. There are a ton of studies about the relationship between guns and suicide, if you don’t understand by now you’re just ignorant. 

 

6 hours ago, ToeBius said:

Do any of you have any experience with getting attacked?  Fearing that you may not see your family again?  Or that the next time your loved ones see you is in a casket?  

 Oh good god, dude. The romanticism you place on self-defense is super cringed. Yeah, I’ve been attacked. No chance of me seeing it coming. If I had a gun, he probably would’ve taken it from me and might’ve even shot me with it. 

 

Im done talking to you. You’re too deluded with self-defense machismo to be objective.

2 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

And you’re wrong about that. 

  Seriously tell me how I am wrong?  If I use a gun, to defend myself, how how did it not increase my survive ability?

 

4 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Yeah, it happens. I never said it didn’t. But the facts say that you’re more likely to shoot an innocent person or yourself than a bad guy who actually deserved to die.

  What is wrong if I kill someone that is attacking me?  Is someone that attacks me innocent?  Is someone breaking into my house innocent? Is someone car jacking me innocent?

6 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

I could say the same to you. Pro-gun articles don’t mention gun thefts, shooting innocent people and family members, or the connection between access to firearms and successful suicide.

  Some actually do mention that.  And on the suicide part, people can commit suicide with most anything.  Why is the gun such a big problem in your eyes with suicide?  People can OD on pills for suicide. 

 

8 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

I’m sure you apply the same objectivity to pro-gun media, right?

Yes I do actually.  I am not a right wing gun nut that doesn't understand that people do bad things with guns, or people have accidents with guns.  I know they do, but you cant punish me and everyone else for the actions of a few.  You wont even argue against anything else that has been used to kill, murder, or used for suicide.  You only argue against the gun, because in your eyes, guns are the most evil thing in the world and no one should have them unchecked.  Everyone should be looked at as a potential nut job before getting access to guns.  

 

11 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Larger reality > anecdotes.

  The larger reality is that people have and use these guns for self defense and sport.  Because some people do bad things or some people decide to commit suicide with a gun instead of hanging or ODing, that is an argument on your part to control everyone who gets them.  Lets do the same with cars now, why dont we.

 

13 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

You’re asking questions that have already been answered. I can’t force to to accept reality, you’re on your own brother. There are a ton of studies about the relationship between guns and suicide, if you don’t understand by now you’re just ignorant. 

  What do you want?  No one to kill themselves with guns?  What is a preferred measure that you think they should take?  You say it makes it easy, so does ODing. I am not ignorant.  I just choose not to punish everyone for someones actions.  Why dont we register people that have computers?  There are people that gain access to peoples stuff on their computers and ruin peoples lives.  Or even pedifiles that traffic child porn on the internet, why not do a criminal background check on everyone getting a PC?  Register them to the pc too and require reasoning as to why they want a pc.

 

  You are attacking one object that people use for good and you fail to see that good is done with it.

18 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

The romanticism you place on self-defense is super cringed.

  Whats soo cringy about reality? 

 

19 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

If I had a gun, he probably would’ve taken it from me and might’ve even shot me with it. 

  How did this go?  Tell me about it, did he sneak up on you?  Did he walk toward you?  Was there a reason that you were in this position?

 

19 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Im done talking to you. You’re too deluded with self-defense machismo to be objective.

  No, you think that it is impossible to be able to defend yourself and refuse to recognize that people have guns for this purpose along with others.  I am not deluded, I live in this type of society and know what goes on here.  You are lost and deluded and would prefer for someone else to make your life decisions for your and have you live in the manor that they wish.

 

  Its not self machoism, it is what I have seen throughout my life.  

 

  You all can live the life that you wish to live, do not try to think that you know how others should live.  There are realities that have not been experienced by you but has been by others and there is no justification to keep someone from getting a means to protect themselves.  That is what you all fail to understand.

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

  Seriously tell me how I am wrong?  If I use a gun, to defend myself, how how did it not increase my survive ability?

 

Because it also escalates the situation, and if the guy in front of you also has a gun, who tells you he won't come back right in your back once he left after you pointed your fancy gun at him? Nothing. Draw your gun, you take the chance the guy in front does the same and shoots you, or someone around. It doesn't increase shit, it makes things even more dangerous.

 

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

What is wrong if I kill someone that is attacking me?  Is someone that attacks me innocent?  Is someone breaking into my house innocent? Is someone car jacking me innocent?

 Some actually do mention that. 

 

Nice way to not answer the point. He says "you've statistically higher chances to shoot a member of your family or an innocent person than a criminal", you say "What's wrong if I kill someone that is attacking him", which is irrelevant to the original argument. Facts are there. In all your time owning a gun, you statistically will have a higher chance to shoot yourself, someone of your family, or an innocent person. Period. Facts. You can't discuss them, because they're facts, realities. Deal with them.

 

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

And on the suicide part, people can commit suicide with most anything.  Why is the gun such a big problem in your eyes with suicide?  People can OD on pills for suicide.

 

Again, nice way to not answer the point. He says "guns make it more likely for suicidal persons to commit suicide", you answer "but they can commit suicide with anything", which is irrelevant to the original argument. The point is that easy access to a gun makes it easier for someone to kill themselves. You grab the gun, swallow the barrel and press the trigger. Done. It doesn't matter if there are other ways to kill yourself, the point is that having a gun in the house makes it much more likely. Again, facts, from studies, made by people much more intelligent than you and me. Deal with it.

 

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

 Yes I do actually.  I am not a right wing gun nut that doesn't understand that people do bad things with guns, or people have accidents with guns.  I know they do, but you cant punish me and everyone else for the actions of a few. 

 

I don't know what's more sickening. People blatantly ignoring the fact people do bad things with guns and have accidents with guns, or people, like you, who are perfectly aware of those, but prefer to simply not care about them because your selfish enjoyment of owning a weapon is above the safety of others.

 

8 hours ago, ToeBius said:

You only argue against the gun, because in your eyes, guns are the most evil thing in the world and no one should have them unchecked.  Everyone should be looked at as a potential nut job before getting access to guns.  

[...]

I am not ignorant.  I just choose not to punish everyone for someones actions.  Why dont we register people that have computers?  There are people that gain access to peoples stuff on their computers and ruin peoples lives.  Or even pedifiles that traffic child porn on the internet, why not do a criminal background check on everyone getting a PC?  Register them to the pc too and require reasoning as to why they want a pc.

 

And here's the most ridiculous argument from pro-gun people. The comparisons to other objects. Except that it's so stupid, so nonsensical, that it ridicules them more than anything. Here's why.

Ready? It might be a shock.

A. Computer. Was. Never. Designed. Or. Manufactured. With. The intent. To. Traffic. Child porn. NEVER. N. E. V. E. R.

On the other hand, ready? Second shocking reveal.
A. Gun. Was. Designed. And. Manufactured. With. The intent. To. Kill. The. Person. Standing. In. Front. Of. The. Barrel. PERIOD.

 

You all have to stop comparing things that can't be compared. No, you won't register people that have computers. Why? Because computers are a tool that was manufactured to communicate, to program, to record. What other people do with it is a side-effect. Yes, you can register people who have guns. Why? Because guns are a tool that was manufactured to KILL. Nothing else. A gun doesn't protect you. It's not a shield, it's not an alarm, it's not going to magically make things disappear. The only purpose of a gun is to kill. People doing sports out of it are a side-effect that was never intended in the beginning.

 

But look, I'm going to apply the same logic you use there, but the other way around.

 

Look at drugs. They don't kill anyone, right? Sure, there are accidents, like overdoses. But it's on people's fault, isn't it? For not doing it properly. And it does some good, right? It makes people happy for a while. So why are they forbidden? We shouldn't punish everyone just for the actions of a few, should we? Drugs should be allowed.

 

Oh, or another. Look at speed limits. Speeding doesn't kill anyone, right? Sure, there are accidents, like car crashes. But it's on people's fault, isn't it? For not knowing how to drive properly and pay attention to the road and other cars. And it does some good, right? You reach your destination faster, and it's fun to drive fast. So why do we have speed limits? Why do we punish everyone to drive so much slower just for the actions of a few who were speeding and got killed or killed someone? We shouldn't have speed limits.

 

See how stupid it is? And it can be applied to anything, literally. With that logic, you've no restriction, free use of everything, and in less than a month you end in a country in complete anarchy. Everything needs to be regulated. That's how you keep things in check and orderly. That's why laws exist. The fact that you simply choose to disregard that is both baffling and stupid.

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Nice way to not answer the point. He says "you've statistically higher chances to shoot a member of your family or an innocent person than a criminal", you say "What's wrong if I kill someone that is attacking him", which is irrelevant to the original argument. Facts are there. In all your time owning a gun, you statistically will have a higher chance to shoot yourself, someone of your family, or an innocent person. Period. Facts. You can't discuss them, because they're facts, realities. Deal with them.

  Show me the actual fact and not something mentioned and twisted in a magazine.  And with 350,000,000 plus firearms, in this country, why isnt it more common to hear about people, accedently, shooting themselves or a family member or a innocent person?  Because its happened a few times and all the other statistics were takin out of the study, that makes it more likely for me to do that?  

 

  Just because someone says that you are statistically more likely to shoot yourself, your family, or an innocent person, doesnt make that true.  You need hard evidence to prove it.  Not a study conducted to 5,000 people and 2/3rds of the study is left out.

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Again, nice way to not answer the point. He says "guns make it more likely for suicidal persons to commit suicide", you answer "but they can commit suicide with anything", which is irrelevant to the original argument. 

  It is not irrelevant to the argument. Its like saying That "buying a truck makes you more likley to drive drunk than it is if you buy a car".  It is not irrelevant because if someone cant commit suicide with one thing, they will try another.  Most people that commit suicide and survive it, regret it, and its not the gun thats the issue.

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

You grab the gun, swallow the barrel and press the trigger. Done. It doesn't matter if there are other ways to kill yourself, the point is that having a gun in the house makes it much more likely. Again, facts, from studies, made by people much more intelligent than you and me. Deal with it.

  Those are not facts, you show no evidence for anything, all you say is "because people kill themselves with guns, that makes it more likley to kill yourself with guns".

Percentages of suicides involving firearms and poisoning declined from 1999 through 2014, while suicides involving suffocation increased.

  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm

 

  Here, read this.  Its not a political magazine that only pics and chooses what it wants you to see.  FACTS!

 

  Let's ban suffocation devices! (Or heavily restrict them)

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Because it also escalates the situation, and if the guy in front of you also has a gun, who tells you he won't come back right in your back once he left after you pointed your fancy gun at him? Nothing. Draw your gun, you take the chance the guy in front does the same and shoots you, or someone around. It doesn't increase shit, it makes things even more dangerous.

  You seriously have no idea what you are talking about.  If someone is threatening my life, I should be able to exert superior force to defend my life.  You act as if every time, someone defends themselves, everyone ecept the intended target gets hurt.  Most of the time the one in defence and the bystanders get out without a scratch on them.  These people arnt looking to confront someone that is ready for them, do you not get it?  They want the weak people that will give them what they want and not resist or fight back.  The criminal wants to be in control, when you take the control away from them, they panic.

 

  All that you want to do is five into these people and allow no one to have a chance against them, even if it means the victim is the one that must die or be seriously injured.

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

I don't know what's more sickening. People blatantly ignoring the fact people do bad things with guns and have accidents with guns, or people, like you, who are perfectly aware of those, but prefer to simply not care about them because your selfish enjoyment of owning a weapon is above the safety of others.

  Its not sickening, its freaking reality.  Bad people will not stop doing bad things because you reastricted law abiding people from them.  

 

  And I do care about these people, your the prick trying to save lives by taking a innanoment object from people and it will do absolutely nothing to save anyones lives.  All that you will acheave from this is creating new law's, restricting people that wish to have them for good, and wish to be left alone.  What are you going to see? A decrease in gun crimes?  More like a increase in all crimes.

 

  You are only worried about gun crimes and fail to understand all crimes.

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

A. Computer. Was. Never. Designed. Or. Manufactured. With. The intent. To. Traffic. Child porn. NEVER. N. E. V. E. R.

On the other hand, ready? Second shocking reveal.
A. Gun. Was. Designed. And. Manufactured. With. The intent. To. Kill. The. Person. Standing. In. Front. Of. The. Barrel. PERIOD.

  Its not about why it was designed, its about how its used.  The GPS was made for military purposes for christ sake.

 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

You all have to stop comparing things that can't be compared. No, you won't register people that have computers. Why? Because computers are a tool that was manufactured to communicate, to program, to record. What other people do with it is a side-effect. 

  Same argument i am making.  Most people use guns for good purposes, some use them for bad purposes.  People use computers to desteoy peoples lives, under your thought process, that is justifacation to restric it from people.

 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Yes, you can register people who have guns. Why? Because guns are a tool that was manufactured to KILL. Nothing else. A gun doesn't protect you. It's not a shield, it's not an alarm, it's not going to magically make things disappear. The only purpose of a gun is to kill. People doing sports out of it are a side-effect that was never intended in the beginning.

  What is not invited that was designed for something?  Most people, that use guns, only shoot paper target's or clay pigeons.

 

  Swords we're made to kill, bows and arrows were made to kill, knives were made to kill, guillotines were made to kill.  Lets restrict anything That was made to kill.  I can buy a tank if i wand to and i dont have to register it.

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Drugs should be allowed.

  Yes.  It is the indeviduals choice to do what they wish.

 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Oh, or another. Look at speed limits. Speeding doesn't kill anyone, right? Sure, there are accidents, like car crashes. But it's on people's fault, isn't it? For not knowing how to drive properly and pay attention to the road and other cars. And it does some good, right? You reach your destination faster, and it's fun to drive fast. So why do we have speed limits? Why do we punish everyone to drive so much slower just for the actions of a few who were speeding and got killed or killed someone? We shouldn't have speed limits.

  And to drive, legally, you must show that you can pass a test and more people die from car accedents than do from guns.  What did this achieve?

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

See how stupid it is? And it can be applied to anything, literally. With that logic, you've no restriction, free use of everything, and in less than a month you end in a country in complete anarchy. Everything needs to be regulated. That's how you keep things in check and orderly. That's why laws exist. The fact that you simply choose to disregard that is both baffling and stupid.

  I bet you that if the U.S. government did what its supposed to, like it used to, we wouldn't be in anarchy.  Every time the government gets involved, everything gets worse.  I disregard nothing, i know that people will do what they wish even if it is illegal.  You are interfering with the indevidual and trying to control one that cannot be controlled.  You take away someones will and they will fight for it back.  

 

  You wish to be ruled, I wish to be free.  Freedom is about the Liberties of the Indevidual and "NOT" about the manufacturing of false safety. 

So you basically agree for every regulation to be removed because "I want to be free". No more driver licenses, or no more licenses for anything for that matter, no more speed limits, no more drug laws, no regulation in any shape or form for anything, no matter if someone or something suffers from it, regardless of if it actually is useful or not, regardless of the world around you. Because you matter more than the others, your liberties (fucking christ this liberty shit seriously, no one said you'd be forbidden to have guns so cut that crap), and everything revolving around you wanting to do things is more important than the rest of us. The ultimate embodiement of selfishness, narcissism and navel gazing.

 

Society doesn't work like that. Society is living together. Living together implies sometimes having to make compromises to move forward. That's what you don't seem to get, and will probably never get. No wonder so many countries are rated to be better to live in than the US, if that's the vision of society, which is based on individualism all over.

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Because it also escalates the situation, and if the guy in front of you also has a gun, who tells you he won't come back right in your back once he left after you pointed your fancy gun at him? Nothing. Draw your gun, you take the chance the guy in front does the same and shoots you, or someone around. It doesn't increase shit, it makes things even more dangerous.

Don't draw a gun, there is a chance that some one just kills you anyways because he doesn't want a witness. What if down the line, during another robbery attempt (because people who commit violent crimes tend to be repeat offenders), he starts killing people?

 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Nice way to not answer the point. He says "you've statistically higher chances to shoot a member of your family or an innocent person than a criminal", you say "What's wrong if I kill someone that is attacking him", which is irrelevant to the original argument. Facts are there. In all your time owning a gun, you statistically will have a higher chance to shoot yourself, someone of your family, or an innocent person. Period. Facts. You can't discuss them, because they're facts, realities. Deal with them.

Japan and South Korea have much higher suicide rates. This is with firearms being near completely banned. Besides suicide, all the scenarios you list come from not following the rules of firearm safety.

 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

Again, nice way to not answer the point. He says "guns make it more likely for suicidal persons to commit suicide", you answer "but they can commit suicide with anything", which is irrelevant to the original argument. The point is that easy access to a gun makes it easier for someone to kill themselves. You grab the gun, swallow the barrel and press the trigger. Done. It doesn't matter if there are other ways to kill yourself, the point is that having a gun in the house makes it much more likely. Again, facts, from studies, made by people much more intelligent than you and me. Deal with it.

See point above. Having a gun in the house doesn't make people want to kill themselves, there are greater issues at play in their life. You are oversimplifying it.

 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

I don't know what's more sickening. People blatantly ignoring the fact people do bad things with guns and have accidents with guns, or people, like you, who are perfectly aware of those, but prefer to simply not care about them because your selfish enjoyment of owning a weapon is above the safety of others.

The most sickening thing of all is people like you. You accept that the world is a messed up place. You accept that there are sick people in the world. You accept that some people are more physically capable than others, or that there could be more than one attacker.

 

You know people get robbed. Beaten. Crippled. Raped. Have their lives ruined. Killed. All by sick individuals for little to no reason.

 

Your solution? Lol just let the government deal with it after the fact. People who own guns have small penises.

 

People like Toebius, me and others choose to put the safety of ourselves and our families in our own hands. You want to entirely rely on the government for protection. You think people with guns are playing "judge, jury and executioner". We accept that if some one is actively harming us, there really is no question of what is going on.

 

You believe everyone lives in a city, where police response times are under 10 minutes. If a call gets made at all. You choose to remain blissfully ignorant that there are places in the United States where people may live an hour away from the nearest police.

 

The fact is that people have an ability to defend themselves in the United States. And that terrifies you because you are reliant on the government.

 

8 hours ago, Hystery said:

And here's the most ridiculous argument from pro-gun people. The comparisons to other objects. Except that it's so stupid, so nonsensical, that it ridicules them more than anything. Here's why.

Ready? It might be a shock.

A. Computer. Was. Never. Designed. Or. Manufactured. With. The intent. To. Traffic. Child porn. NEVER. N. E. V. E. R.

On the other hand, ready? Second shocking reveal.
A. Gun. Was. Designed. And. Manufactured. With. The intent. To. Kill. The. Person. Standing. In. Front. Of. The. Barrel. PERIOD.

 

You all have to stop comparing things that can't be compared. No, you won't register people that have computers. Why? Because computers are a tool that was manufactured to communicate, to program, to record. What other people do with it is a side-effect. Yes, you can register people who have guns. Why? Because guns are a tool that was manufactured to KILL. Nothing else. A gun doesn't protect you. It's not a shield, it's not an alarm, it's not going to magically make things disappear. The only purpose of a gun is to kill. People doing sports out of it are a side-effect that was never intended in the beginning.

Yes, a majority of guns are designed to kill. Again, firearms are an equalizer.

 

Your phone isn't going to protect you. The police aren't going to protect you. Your precious baseball bat you talked about before isn't going to protect you. They are not shields. They are not alarms. They won't make things disappear. The best scenario out of all your personal solutions is the police showing up to you beaten, missing half the most valuable stuff in your home. If you get lucky, they might find a suspect in a few months, and he will be released after a year or two in prison. And hopefully you won't have any life long lasting injuries.

 

Unlike you and your little baseball bat, I've had years of training with my firearms. I can confidently say that if someone is unfortunate enough to break into my house, they aren't getting out scratch free.

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

But look, I'm going to apply the same logic you use there, but the other way around.

 

Look at drugs. They don't kill anyone, right? Sure, there are accidents, like overdoses. But it's on people's fault, isn't it? For not doing it properly. And it does some good, right? It makes people happy for a while. So why are they forbidden? We shouldn't punish everyone just for the actions of a few, should we? Drugs should be allowed.

 

Oh, or another. Look at speed limits. Speeding doesn't kill anyone, right? Sure, there are accidents, like car crashes. But it's on people's fault, isn't it? For not knowing how to drive properly and pay attention to the road and other cars. And it does some good, right? You reach your destination faster, and it's fun to drive fast. So why do we have speed limits? Why do we punish everyone to drive so much slower just for the actions of a few who were speeding and got killed or killed someone? We shouldn't have speed limits.

 

See how stupid it is? And it can be applied to anything, literally. With that logic, you've no restriction, free use of everything, and in less than a month you end in a country in complete anarchy. Everything needs to be regulated. That's how you keep things in check and orderly. That's why laws exist. The fact that you simply choose to disregard that is both baffling and stupid.

Key points with all your arguments: Drugs aren't used in self defense. Speeding isn't used in self defense. All the punishment for violating laws that you brought up is done retroactively. We don't put electronic sensors in our cars that force us to drive the speed limit. We don't punish people for thinking about doing drugs.

 

Guns in the US are already heavily regulated. A majority of crime committed with them is done by people who couldn't pass a background check, and have previously been arrested for violent crimes and given light sentences.

 

I've said it before and I will say it again, in 2010, 48,000 felons (people who aren't legally allowed to have firearms) attempted to purchase firearms. That is a felony. 44 of them were prosecuted.