Guns are bad, mmmmkay?

#151 Posted by magicalclick (22461 posts) -

I watched the movie, "The Brave One". Aside from that, USA is probably the best country to defend themselves from zombies.

#152 Posted by one_plum (6348 posts) -

I watched the movie, "The Brave One". Aside from that, USA is probably the best country to defend themselves from zombies.

Chances are, survivors will kill each other instead for guns and bullets.

#153 Posted by CommandoAgent (752 posts) -

@airshocker said:

Why is it that people around the world can't seem to understand that guns aren't inherently dangerous? People are.

The vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who DO NOT have permits or are not allowed to legally own a gun. So really, I'm not sure what you people are talking about.

Yes, people are dangerous, which is why more people with guns means more gun violence. I love when detractors make my point for me. Thank you!

Quite True. So lets try this debate lets say i want to debate with someone on a either political, world, health issue in America peacefully what happens if i disagree with that person? quiet for recently i would be threaten at gun point thats how i feel.

#154 Edited by Boddicker (2535 posts) -

If he had been stabbed with a flat-head screwdriver would you then be saying tools are bad.

People kill people.

Guns are just the easiest tools, but they're still just tools.

#155 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9185 posts) -

My dad has this giant safe full of weapons at his house. Never been used for anything other than shooting paper targets.

Don't really see how they're bad, or how you could look down on him for having them.

#156 Edited by Marduke1913 (46 posts) -

@farrell2k: if more people drove drunk would you take away everyones car? It just bothers me some asshole I don't know suggests I shouldn't have a gun because other people don't understand how to be responsible with one. I'm not going to suffer because of other peoples stupidity. and for the record, I think citizens should be able to carry whatever arms police are allowed to carry. since when did Americans rely so heavily on protection from others instead of our own tight communities?

(@farell2k not calling you an asshole specifically, I'm just speaking in general)

#157 Posted by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

Lets just get this over with. We all want gun violence to go down, which it is. We all want people to be more responsible with guns. Stricter gun laws only make it harder for people that buy guns LEGALLY. Making stricter gun laws only benefits criminals since they do not give two shits about the law and obtain weapons usually through illegal means.

A gun is designed to shoot bullets. At targets, at people, even watermelons. It's a tool that has a lot of restrictions and rules to ensure the safety of citizens that used them and that are around them. It is part of our constitution for us to be able to own and use guns. Some people buy guns with no intention of ever firing them at people, but at targets, such as clay shooters (myself). My over/under browning shotgun wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to shoot clay targets.

Everybody agrees we want less school shootings, gun violence, and crime in general. But punishing legit owners of guns does absolutely nothing in lowering the crime rate. If a kid wants to snap at school, he'll just build a bomb or use a knife. Should we ban fertilizer or nails because they're common things in bombs? You can't stop violence 100 percent because if somebody wants to hurt someone they'll find a way.

Your intention is a good intention. You don't want people to get hurt. You have to realize this is the real world and it's unavoidable.

And this is the stupid argument that every gun nut gives, and it is complete bullshit. The outrght gun ban in Japan has nearly eliminated ALL gun violence. The Yakuza are even afraid to be caught with a gun. England with its very strict gun laws has about 35 gun murders per year. Canada and its strict laws experiences less than 200 gun murders per year. Australia's gun control measures also worked. They have .13 gun related deaths per capita vs 3.6 per capita for the usa. Gun control, when taken seriously, works well. Bans work even better.

#158 Posted by thegerg (14863 posts) -

@farrell2k: FYI, there is not an "outrght gun ban in Japan."

Ignorance FTL.

#159 Edited by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k: FYI, there is not an "outrght gun ban in Japan."

Ignorance FTL.

and LOL at japanese gangs not having guns.

#160 Posted by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

@farrell2k: if more people drove drunk would you take away everyones car? It just bothers me some asshole I don't know suggests I shouldn't have a gun because other people don't understand how to be responsible with one. I'm not going to suffer because of other peoples stupidity. and for the record, I think citizens should be able to carry whatever arms police are allowed to carry. since when did Americans rely so heavily on protection from others instead of our own tight communities?

(@farell2k not calling you an asshole specifically, I'm just speaking in general)

No, but I would take away their licenses, ban them from driving, and increase fines and punishment by a lot. An immediate 5 year jail sentence without parole for driving drunk would go a long way to solving that problem.

#161 Edited by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k: FYI, there is not an "outrght gun ban in Japan."

Ignorance FTL.

Yeah, for hunting rifles with very strict regulation. It's as close to an outright "ban" as you will ever get.

http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

Japan's gun policies are notoriously strict. Civilians cannot possess handguns, automatic assault weapons, semi-automatic assault weapons, military rifles, or machine guns. Japanese civilians aren't even allowed to own swords.

Without a license, a Japanese citizen isn't even permitted to touch a firearm. Failure to follow this law can result in up to 10 years in prison.

Japanese civilians hold a mere 710,000 guns, with 0.6 firearms for every person. In 2008, there were 11 gun homicides. For perspective, there are 122,800,000 people in Japan. That year is not an anomaly. In 2006 there were 2 gun homicides and in 2007 there were 22, a national scandal.

#162 Posted by thegerg (14863 posts) -

@farrell2k: If you know that no such ban exists you probably shouldn't reference it. The fact that you know what you're saying is wrong makes you a liar, rather than simply an ignorant person.

#163 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

82 people were shot in Chicago over 4th of July weekend this year in Chicago, one of the most anti-gun cities in the US. Only 10 in Houston, the city with some of the most lax gun laws.

That is all. You can shut up now.

#164 Edited by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k: If you know that no such ban exists you probably shouldn't reference it. The fact that you know what you're saying is wrong makes you a liar, rather than simply an ignorant person.

You're grasping at straws and personal attacks tell me that you now understand that your pro gun argument is weak and not based on sound logic, and that you are lashing out in defense of your cognitive dissonance on the matter.

#165 Posted by thegerg (14863 posts) -

@farrell2k: Pointing out that what you posted is untrue is hardly "grasping at straws." Acknowledging that one who knowingly makes untrue claims is a liar is not making a "personal attack."

#166 Posted by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

@thegerg said:

@farrell2k: Pointing out that what you posted is untrue is hardly "grasping at straws." Acknowledging that one who knowingly makes untrue claims is a liar is not making a "personal attack."

Yeah, but you already know it is not untrue. The Japanese have for all intents and purposes outright banned private gun ownership. Until you can come up with something better than attacking me on a stupid technicality, you lose, plain and simple.

#167 Edited by dave123321 (33797 posts) -

I've never been shot or shot anyone. So they seem safe for me

#168 Posted by thegerg (14863 posts) -

@farrell2k: You claiming that a ban exists when it does not exist is not a "stupid technicality." You lied to make a point.

#169 Posted by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@purplelabel said:

Lets just get this over with. We all want gun violence to go down, which it is. We all want people to be more responsible with guns. Stricter gun laws only make it harder for people that buy guns LEGALLY. Making stricter gun laws only benefits criminals since they do not give two shits about the law and obtain weapons usually through illegal means.

A gun is designed to shoot bullets. At targets, at people, even watermelons. It's a tool that has a lot of restrictions and rules to ensure the safety of citizens that used them and that are around them. It is part of our constitution for us to be able to own and use guns. Some people buy guns with no intention of ever firing them at people, but at targets, such as clay shooters (myself). My over/under browning shotgun wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to shoot clay targets.

Everybody agrees we want less school shootings, gun violence, and crime in general. But punishing legit owners of guns does absolutely nothing in lowering the crime rate. If a kid wants to snap at school, he'll just build a bomb or use a knife. Should we ban fertilizer or nails because they're common things in bombs? You can't stop violence 100 percent because if somebody wants to hurt someone they'll find a way.

Your intention is a good intention. You don't want people to get hurt. You have to realize this is the real world and it's unavoidable.

And this is the stupid argument that every gun nut gives, and it is complete bullshit. The outrght gun ban in Japan has nearly eliminated ALL gun violence. The Yakuza are even afraid to be caught with a gun. England with its very strict gun laws has about 35 gun murders per year. Canada and its strict laws experiences less than 200 gun murders per year. Australia's gun control measures also worked. They have .13 gun related deaths per capita vs 3.6 per capita for the usa. Gun control, when taken seriously, works well. Bans work even better.

You have yet to answer my question, as the anti-gunner of the argument. Give me a logical way for a smaller stature/elderly/etc person to defend themselves from a burglar/aggressor other than a gun. Other than training in hand to hand combat or a bow/crossbow, its pretty much tasers/pepper spray. Both of which are not nearly as effective as a gun. Now before you say "well, that's just being paranoid" - I personally know of 3 families (one of which being my folks) that have had home robberies or attempted home robberies while they were there. My parents are getting up there - my dad is in no shape to bust out the baseball bat in that circumstance like he might have been 20 years ago. And also - one of these 3 resulted in 3 dudes literally beating the crap out of a friend in a home robbery because he happened to be in the living room. So you can read me all your stats about gun violence - I don't really care if some other idiots misuse guns, my father has had a gun since and I feel better knowing he stands a chance against a robber if they try again (which coincidentally, someone did). You have NO RIGHT to take that away and leave people defenseless. What about THEIR right to life?

#170 Edited by Xeno_ghost (676 posts) -

@farrell2k: America will never give up it's Guns, for one the gun industry makes big money and two Americans love there guns, they always have.

Plus there is evidence of less crime in areas where conceal carry policy is applied.

#171 Edited by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@farrell2k: America will never give up it's Guns, for one the gun industry makes big money and two Americans love there guns, they always have.

Plus there is evidence of less crime in areas where conceal carry policy is applied.

What, some NRA funded "evidence"? Then why do pro gun states that are more favorable to open and concealed carry have ore gun violence? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html Because guns are the problem, that's why.

#172 Edited by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@xeno_ghost said:

@farrell2k: America will never give up it's Guns, for one the gun industry makes big money and two Americans love there guns, they always have.

Plus there is evidence of less crime in areas where conceal carry policy is applied.

What, some NRA funded "evidence"? Then why do pro gun states that are more favorable to open and concealed carry have ore gun violence? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html Because guns are the problem, that's why.

Why have you ignored the question I proposed to you? What gives you the right to tell someone they can't defend their home with a gun? And if the answer is "statistics say gun owners are more likely to blah blah blah", statistics are meaningless when you are faced with an assailant or burglar. Call the police? Good luck. Better hope the response time is they live with you. Am I happy that my parents bought a gun to defend their home? I'm not happy about the circumstances surrounding the reason to purchase one, but I am happy they did it.

#173 Edited by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

@leif3141 said:

@farrell2k said:

@xeno_ghost said:

@farrell2k: America will never give up it's Guns, for one the gun industry makes big money and two Americans love there guns, they always have.

Plus there is evidence of less crime in areas where conceal carry policy is applied.

What, some NRA funded "evidence"? Then why do pro gun states that are more favorable to open and concealed carry have ore gun violence? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html Because guns are the problem, that's why.

Why have you ignored the question I proposed to you? What gives you the right to tell someone they can't defend their home with a gun? And if the answer is "statistics say gun owners are more likely to blah blah blah", statistics are meaningless when you are faced with an assailant or burglar. Call the police? Good luck. Better hope the response time is they live with you. Am I happy that my parents bought a gun to defend their home? I'm not happy about the circumstances surrounding the reason to purchase one, but I am happy they did it.

Your question is nonsense. It's as nonsensical as asking: How does an old person with a gun defend himself from a person with a sniper shooting at him from 1/4 mile away? , or How does a concealed or open carrier defend himself from someone who quietly walks up behind him and shoots him in the head?

The only answer to both those scenarios is no one having a gun!

You gun weirdos have this idea that a gun is some form of absolute protection, a solution to every problem. It's not, and they make all of our lives more dangerous, as demonstrated by real evidence, not hypothetical questions...

#174 Edited by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@leif3141 said:

@farrell2k said:

@xeno_ghost said:

@farrell2k: America will never give up it's Guns, for one the gun industry makes big money and two Americans love there guns, they always have.

Plus there is evidence of less crime in areas where conceal carry policy is applied.

What, some NRA funded "evidence"? Then why do pro gun states that are more favorable to open and concealed carry have ore gun violence? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html Because guns are the problem, that's why.

Why have you ignored the question I proposed to you? What gives you the right to tell someone they can't defend their home with a gun? And if the answer is "statistics say gun owners are more likely to blah blah blah", statistics are meaningless when you are faced with an assailant or burglar. Call the police? Good luck. Better hope the response time is they live with you. Am I happy that my parents bought a gun to defend their home? I'm not happy about the circumstances surrounding the reason to purchase one, but I am happy they did it.

Your question is nonsense. It's as nonsensical as asking: How does an old person with a gun defend himself from a person with a sniper shooting at him from 1/4 mile away? , or How does a concealed or open carrier defend himself from someone who quietly walks up behind him and shoots him in the head?

The only answer to both those scenarios is no one having a gun!

You gun weirdos have this idea that a gun is some form of absolute protection, a solution to every problem. It's not, and they make all of our lives more dangerous, as demonastrated by real evidence, not hypothetical questions...

The question is NONSENSE?! Apparently YOU don't have loved ones, or you wouldn't make such a statement. Like I said before - MY PARENTS HAVE HAD THEIR HOUSE BROKEN INTO WHEN THEY ARE THERE. I HAVE HAD A FRIEND WHO HAD 3 GUYS BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM IN A HOME INVASION. It's not some "hypothetical" BS when it actually HAPPENS.

You are the one turning the question into NONSENSE by bringing in snipers into the equation. What does that have to do with burglaries and assaults?

Since you a clearly an anti-gun statistics "nut", look at the FBI crime statistics for burglaries - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime/burglarymain . Stats can be used by both sides, you see? Over 2 million burglaries in one year.

As I already stated, some people would stand little chance of defending themselves against a bigger, more experienced aggressor without a gun. You clearly cannot answer the question without illogical dismissals of something that is a lot more common than you think. If no one was allowed to have a gun, a homeowner would pretty much be at the mercy of the burglar. Apparently you are OK with that. Maybe when it does happen to someone you know, you'll change your mind. And also, for the record, I don't even own a gun myself. So when you refer to me as a "gun nut", you are mistaken. I just happen to have a lot more common sense then you have.

You see, I would give you points for validation that with the responsibility of gun ownership comes those who aren't responsible with it. But why is it that all of the responsible owners must be punished for the mistakes of those irresponsible citizens? Are you the type of person who also bans violent media because of a "correlation" between those who commit violence wanting to watch violent media?

#175 Edited by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@leif3141 said:

@farrell2k said:

@leif3141 said:

@farrell2k said:

@xeno_ghost said:

@farrell2k: America will never give up it's Guns, for one the gun industry makes big money and two Americans love there guns, they always have.

Plus there is evidence of less crime in areas where conceal carry policy is applied.

What, some NRA funded "evidence"? Then why do pro gun states that are more favorable to open and concealed carry have ore gun violence? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html Because guns are the problem, that's why.

Why have you ignored the question I proposed to you? What gives you the right to tell someone they can't defend their home with a gun? And if the answer is "statistics say gun owners are more likely to blah blah blah", statistics are meaningless when you are faced with an assailant or burglar. Call the police? Good luck. Better hope the response time is they live with you. Am I happy that my parents bought a gun to defend their home? I'm not happy about the circumstances surrounding the reason to purchase one, but I am happy they did it.

Your question is nonsense. It's as nonsensical as asking: How does an old person with a gun defend himself from a person with a sniper shooting at him from 1/4 mile away? , or How does a concealed or open carrier defend himself from someone who quietly walks up behind him and shoots him in the head?

The only answer to both those scenarios is no one having a gun!

You gun weirdos have this idea that a gun is some form of absolute protection, a solution to every problem. It's not, and they make all of our lives more dangerous, as demonastrated by real evidence, not hypothetical questions...

The question is NONSENSE?! Apparently YOU don't have loved ones, or you wouldn't make such a statement. Like I said before - MY PARENTS HAVE HAD THEIR HOUSE BROKEN INTO WHEN THEY ARE THERE. I HAVE HAD A FRIEND WHO HAD 3 GUYS BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF HIM IN A HOME INVASION. It's not some "hypothetical" BS when it actually HAPPENS.

You are the one turning the question into NONSENSE by bringing in snipers into the equation. What does that have to do with burglaries and assaults?

Since you a clearly an anti-gun statistics "nut", look at the FBI crime statistics for burglaries - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/property-crime/burglarymain . Stats can be used by both sides, you see? Over 2 million burglaries in one year.

As I already stated, some people would stand little chance of defending themselves against a bigger, more experienced aggressor without a gun. You clearly cannot answer the question without illogical dismissals of something that is a lot more common than you think. If no one was allowed to have a gun, a homeowner would pretty much be at the mercy of the burglar. Apparently you are OK with that. Maybe when it does happen to someone you know, you'll change your mind. And also, for the record, I don't even own a gun myself. So when you refer to me as a "gun nut", you are mistaken. I just happen to have a lot more common sense then you have.

You see, I would give you points for validation that with the responsibility of gun ownership comes those who aren't responsible with it. But why is it that all of the responsible owners must be punished for the mistakes of those irresponsible citizens? Are you the type of person who also bans violent media because of a "correlation" between those who commit violence wanting to watch violent media?

And also, for the record, I don't believe a gun solves every situation or that all confrontations as such require gun use, or even that other measures can't be used, but in some situations, a gun is clearly the best choice.

#176 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@leif3141:

Farrel is obviously trolling or stupid, i haven't figured out which yet. You're arguing with a brick wall.

#177 Edited by bforrester420 (1371 posts) -

@leif3141 said:

Hunting is a sport...so is golf. Sport shooting training is similar to hunting like driving a golf club is to golf.

Hunting is killing, which goes back to the original purpose of a gun being to kill.

#178 Edited by DrKillByDeath84 (376 posts) -

@farrell2k: It seems that you suffer from Hoplophobia, you should seek help for that.

#179 Posted by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@leif3141 said:

Hunting is a sport...so is golf. Sport shooting training is similar to hunting like driving a golf club is to golf.

Hunting is killing, which goes back to the original purpose of a gun being to kill.

So there's no differentiation between killing in the name of murder, defense, sustenance, sport (some hunters eat their meat, others don't)? That's a very narrow definition by that standard and ignores the circumstances surrounding each distinction. If you want to look at it that way, how does golf/golf club have a practical value? It doesn't. It has an entertainment value and no practicality at all by your standards. All of the same practical values (entertainment, social aspect, getting off your butt and moving, etc) can also be a byproduct of hunting and sport shooting. Golf clubs can be used to kill as well. Oh btw- if you took away sport hunting/shooting, you'd kill a large section of jobs and the economy as well. Plenty of retailers make their livelihoods by selling to outdoorsmen.

Another practical value of guns - making money. Many people buy guns and sell them for a profit. I understand this shouldn't be a sole reason for a product to be legal, but it is a practical value if one is looking to earn cash.

#180 Posted by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@leif3141:

Farrel is obviously trolling or stupid, i haven't figured out which yet. You're arguing with a brick wall.

I'm starting to realize this :D

#181 Edited by farrell2k (5811 posts) -

@DrKillByDeath84 said:

@farrell2k: It seems that you suffer from Hoplophobia, you should seek help for that.

Considering that the U.S. is the most gun violent country in the modern world, your assumption does not apply, but what is clear is that the people who are so irrationally paranoid of the world around them that they need to be armed 24/7 to feel safe clearly suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder, exhibiting common symptoms like assuming that other people will exploit, harm, or deceive them if they are not armed, even if no evidence exists to support this expectation. The "jack booted thugs" are hiding around every corner, the "criminals"are always out to get them. They're always suspicious of the "gubment", despite they fact that they elect them "gubment" themselves. They're constantly suspicious of others and always on watch for the "bad guys". It's classic Paranoid Personality Disorder, a serious mental disease.

It gets even worse when you confront a gun nut about it too. They exhibit more classic symptoms of it such as perceiving those who question the needs for guns as an attack on their character or reputation, always quick to react angrily or to counterattack in a personal manner, like claiming that you are in fact the one who suffers from an illness, when in fact it is they, considering that your position is based on evidence and logic, while their is based on emotion and irrational paranoid of the world around them.

#182 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70810 posts) -

Having been in the military and i know how to handle a weapon. I know how much of a responsibility and i don't need a gun. I don't know why anyone would need one

#183 Posted by thegerg (14863 posts) -

Having been in the military and i know how to handle a weapon. I know how much of a responsibility and i don't need a gun. I don't know why anyone would need one

FYI, it's not always about "need."

#184 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12829 posts) -

I don't know why anyone would need one

We have a major pillhead problem around here, and people are all the time getting their shit broken into. I already had to use a gun when my apartment got broken into in the mid-90's while I was home. I hope it never happens again but I wouldn't put it past some stupid druggie. I live in a nice house well back off the road with plenty of yard around it, a great target for a pillhead looking for a break-in.

I also do a bit of hunting, which is what the long guns are for.

I also just like to collect guns, the same way someone may collect knives or stamps. Hell some of them I've never even fired. I nearly got my hands on a blunderbuss last year but it slipped away. :.-(

#185 Posted by PurpleLabel (301 posts) -

@DrKillByDeath84 said:

@farrell2k: It seems that you suffer from Hoplophobia, you should seek help for that.

Considering that the U.S. is the most gun violent country in the modern world, your assumption does not apply, but what is clear is that the people who are so irrationally paranoid of the world around them that they need to be armed 24/7 to feel safe clearly suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder, exhibiting common symptoms like assuming that other people will exploit, harm, or deceive them if they are not armed, even if no evidence exists to support this expectation. The "jack booted thugs" are hiding around every corner, the "criminals"are always out to get them. They're always suspicious of the "gubment", despite they fact that they elect them "gubment" themselves. They're constantly suspicious of others and always on watch for the "bad guys". It's classic Paranoid Personality Disorder, a serious mental disease.

It gets even worse when you confront a gun nut about it too. They exhibit more classic symptoms of it such as perceiving those who question the needs for guns as an attack on their character or reputation, always quick to react angrily or to counterattack in a personal manner, like claiming that you are in fact the one who suffers from an illness, when in fact it is they, considering that your position is based on evidence and logic, while their is based on emotion and irrational paranoid of the world around them.

Pretty sure the middle east and most african countries have more gun violence than the states.

#186 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12829 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

Considering that the U.S. is the most gun violent country in the modern world, your assumption does not apply, but what is clear is that the people who are so irrationally paranoid of the world around them that they need to be armed 24/7 to feel safe clearly suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder, exhibiting common symptoms like assuming that other people will exploit, harm, or deceive them if they are not armed, even if no evidence exists to support this expectation. The "jack booted thugs" are hiding around every corner, the "criminals"are always out to get them. They're always suspicious of the "gubment", despite they fact that they elect them "gubment" themselves. They're constantly suspicious of others and always on watch for the "bad guys". It's classic Paranoid Personality Disorder, a serious mental disease.

It gets even worse when you confront a gun nut about it too. They exhibit more classic symptoms of it such as perceiving those who question the needs for guns as an attack on their character or reputation, always quick to react angrily or to counterattack in a personal manner, like claiming that you are in fact the one who suffers from an illness, when in fact it is they, considering that your position is based on evidence and logic, while their is based on emotion and irrational paranoid of the world around them.

Pretty sure the middle east and most african countries have more gun violence than the states.

Source

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people

• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people

• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

#187 Edited by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@farrell2k said:

@DrKillByDeath84 said:

@farrell2k: It seems that you suffer from Hoplophobia, you should seek help for that.

Considering that the U.S. is the most gun violent country in the modern world, your assumption does not apply, but what is clear is that the people who are so irrationally paranoid of the world around them that they need to be armed 24/7 to feel safe clearly suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder, exhibiting common symptoms like assuming that other people will exploit, harm, or deceive them if they are not armed, even if no evidence exists to support this expectation. The "jack booted thugs" are hiding around every corner, the "criminals"are always out to get them. They're always suspicious of the "gubment", despite they fact that they elect them "gubment" themselves. They're constantly suspicious of others and always on watch for the "bad guys". It's classic Paranoid Personality Disorder, a serious mental disease.

It gets even worse when you confront a gun nut about it too. They exhibit more classic symptoms of it such as perceiving those who question the needs for guns as an attack on their character or reputation, always quick to react angrily or to counterattack in a personal manner, like claiming that you are in fact the one who suffers from an illness, when in fact it is they, considering that your position is based on evidence and logic, while their is based on emotion and irrational paranoid of the world around them.

You are a pathetic debater, just to let you know. You can't answer a direct question with a direct answer, try to dismiss it as being BS hypothetical, and resort to petty personal insults. For future reference - let me explain to you what a nonsense hypothetical is - a nonsense hypothetical would be me saying that I need a gun to defend myself from a pirate invasion of the United States. A realistic hypothetical is when you propose a hypothetical situation that actually happens on a daily basis (2 million in one year? Gee...2 million divided by 365? That's over 5000 burglaries a day in the country) and ask for an answer, only to NOT receive one, and then ignore it because you obviously don't have a good answer. Oh, and nice comeback against my "gun nut" statistics where I show you statistical evidence from the FBI directly about break ins in the United States. So go be a little factoid - that's all the anti-gun people seem to be nowadays, and resorting to petty insults.

For your reference, the number of burglaries greatly exceeds the amount of home fires per year (http://www.usfa.fema.gov/statistics/estimates/index.shtm), yet we plan for those in homes with alarms, extinguishers, and oh yea, have building inspectors have to perform fire inspections on buildings before they are allowed to be occupied. So how is that not a bullshit hypothetical scenario then sir, considering they happen WAY LESS than burglaries? Yea, go ahead and ignore all that, Mr Factoid.

#188 Edited by MBirdy88 (7754 posts) -

@airshocker said:
@Ackad said:

Guns are tools of death...just like knives, scissors, hammers, saws, and so on. If you carry any of the things that I mentioned, then you cannot lack common on using it properly. It's some of the idiots in America that are giving guns a bad name.

Guns are tools. Just because they can be used to kill doesn't make them tools of death.

Are you saying everyone in America are idiots? If not you may want to change that last sentence.

So... since they are just tools, and not designed to give you an advantage in harming people... why do you need them again?

Not as a cop. but as a civilian. why do you need a device with incredible harming power which is easy to use, and effective at [insert range dependant on gun here] ....

"But but the UK has higher knife crime" yes we get it "People are the problem" .... but doesn't change the fact that a gun is a million times more effective than any other "tool" at ending life ... intended or not..... the level of exposure and availability to such a lethal "tool" to such a wide variety of people is dangerous.... as already proven.... but I can predict the next response "Mental health specialists fault for not catching it soon enough" .... yea because its that simple... because they are psychic and every obvious killer is soooo not subtle about it... not to mention there are lots of cases where "self-defence card" is played yet the so called "attacker" has a full round shot in him ... HMMMM SEEMS LEGIT.

If you all feel so strongly about having a 1-hit-nuetrilize "TOOL" why not opt for Tazers or something... oh sure they have their own problems.... but they cant as easily end 20 lives in a matter of minutes.

#189 Edited by Master_Live (14206 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit said:
@purplelabel said:

@farrell2k said:

Considering that the U.S. is the most gun violent country in the modern world, your assumption does not apply, but what is clear is that the people who are so irrationally paranoid of the world around them that they need to be armed 24/7 to feel safe clearly suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder, exhibiting common symptoms like assuming that other people will exploit, harm, or deceive them if they are not armed, even if no evidence exists to support this expectation. The "jack booted thugs" are hiding around every corner, the "criminals"are always out to get them. They're always suspicious of the "gubment", despite they fact that they elect them "gubment" themselves. They're constantly suspicious of others and always on watch for the "bad guys". It's classic Paranoid Personality Disorder, a serious mental disease.

It gets even worse when you confront a gun nut about it too. They exhibit more classic symptoms of it such as perceiving those who question the needs for guns as an attack on their character or reputation, always quick to react angrily or to counterattack in a personal manner, like claiming that you are in fact the one who suffers from an illness, when in fact it is they, considering that your position is based on evidence and logic, while their is based on emotion and irrational paranoid of the world around them.

Pretty sure the middle east and most african countries have more gun violence than the states.

Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

I'm so proud.

#190 Edited by thegerg (14863 posts) -

@MBirdy88: TASERs are a great tool, but non-lethal force is no replacement for lethal force.

#191 Posted by schu (9237 posts) -

Why is it that people around the world can't seem to understand that guns aren't inherently dangerous? People are.

The vast majority of gun crime is committed by people who DO NOT have permits or are not allowed to legally own a gun. So really, I'm not sure what you people are talking about.

Also, this is even more reason to be armed. Police aren't always capable of saving people. I might be a cop but I always try and persuade people to get armed.

A device that is easily concealed and capable of killing people at a far distance by simply pulling the trigger is not dangerous?

#192 Edited by leif3141 (117 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@airshocker said:
@Ackad said:

Guns are tools of death...just like knives, scissors, hammers, saws, and so on. If you carry any of the things that I mentioned, then you cannot lack common on using it properly. It's some of the idiots in America that are giving guns a bad name.

Guns are tools. Just because they can be used to kill doesn't make them tools of death.

Are you saying everyone in America are idiots? If not you may want to change that last sentence.

So... since they are just tools, and not designed to give you an advantage in harming people... why do you need them again?

Not as a cop. but as a civilian. why do you need a device with incredible harming power which is easy to use, and effective at [insert range dependant on gun here] ....

"But but the UK has higher knife crime" yes we get it "People are the problem" .... but doesn't change the fact that a gun is a million times more effective than any other "tool" at ending life ... intended or not..... the level of exposure and availability to such a lethal "tool" to such a wide variety of people is dangerous.... as already proven.... but I can predict the next response "Mental health specialists fault for not catching it soon enough" .... yea because its that simple... because they are psychic and every obvious killer is soooo not subtle about it... not to mention there are lots of cases where "self-defence card" is played yet the so called "attacker" has a full round shot in him ... HMMMM SEEMS LEGIT.

If you all feel so strongly about having a 1-hit-nuetrilize "TOOL" why not opt for Tazers or something... oh sure they have their own problems.... but they cant as easily end 20 lives in a matter of minutes.

From a previous post of mine, referring to burglaries in America -

A realistic hypothetical is when you propose a hypothetical situation that actually happens on a daily basis (2 million in one year? Gee...2 million divided by 365? That's over 5000 burglaries a day in the country). So according to FBI crime statistics, there are 2 million breaks per year here on average in America.

So if you have a home breakin, and you are actually home for it, and are not skilled in hand to hand combat or an elderly/short statured/etc against a home attacker...a gun is not appropriate? I agree tasers can be effective- but what if there are two assailants? Tasers haven't really got that covered. Also, better hope you don't miss with a taser, cause its kind of a one hit sort of deal.

FYI, I do believe we could do more to prevent guns from getting in the hands of people who would use it for nefarious purposes - but to just outright ban to most Americans is not the solution. Obviously someone can use a can to devastating effect if they want too, but the people using it for this purposes represents a paltry amount of overall gun owners.

#193 Posted by plageus900 (1001 posts) -

This has gone on long enough.....

#194 Posted by The_Last_Ride (70810 posts) -

@The_Last_Ride said:

I don't know why anyone would need one

We have a major pillhead problem around here, and people are all the time getting their shit broken into. I already had to use a gun when my apartment got broken into in the mid-90's while I was home. I hope it never happens again but I wouldn't put it past some stupid druggie. I live in a nice house well back off the road with plenty of yard around it, a great target for a pillhead looking for a break-in.

I also do a bit of hunting, which is what the long guns are for.

I also just like to collect guns, the same way someone may collect knives or stamps. Hell some of them I've never even fired. I nearly got my hands on a blunderbuss last year but it slipped away. :.-(

Yeah, we don't shoot people who break in here...

#195 Edited by br0kenrabbit (12829 posts) -

Yeah, we don't shoot people who break in here...

I know. Nanny state.

#196 Posted by airshocker (29051 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@airshocker said:
@Ackad said:

Guns are tools of death...just like knives, scissors, hammers, saws, and so on. If you carry any of the things that I mentioned, then you cannot lack common on using it properly. It's some of the idiots in America that are giving guns a bad name.

Guns are tools. Just because they can be used to kill doesn't make them tools of death.

Are you saying everyone in America are idiots? If not you may want to change that last sentence.

So... since they are just tools, and not designed to give you an advantage in harming people... why do you need them again?

Because it's my constitutional right.

#197 Posted by indzman (17259 posts) -

Air, did you ever had to use your weapons on a human on your job? Sorry if it was too personal.

#198 Edited by airshocker (29051 posts) -

@indzman said:

Air, did you ever had to use your weapons on a human on your job? Sorry if it was too personal.

That is too personal.

#199 Posted by indzman (17259 posts) -

@indzman said:

Air, did you ever had to use your weapons on a human on your job? Sorry if it was too personal.

That is too personal.

I understand, np:)

#200 Posted by MBirdy88 (7754 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@airshocker said:
@Ackad said:

Guns are tools of death...just like knives, scissors, hammers, saws, and so on. If you carry any of the things that I mentioned, then you cannot lack common on using it properly. It's some of the idiots in America that are giving guns a bad name.

Guns are tools. Just because they can be used to kill doesn't make them tools of death.

Are you saying everyone in America are idiots? If not you may want to change that last sentence.

So... since they are just tools, and not designed to give you an advantage in harming people... why do you need them again?

Because it's my constitutional right.

Not sure why that is relevant to your personal NEED for one. the kinda "because thats the way its always been" sort of near religious level rationalisation is not comforting either. I'm sure it all boils down to that simple feeling of "Empowerment" "I carry a tool *cough* i mean weapon around that can kill people if they harm me" ... must be a good feeling.... I guess... depends how you look at it.... personally a country that relies on this as a foundation doesn't sound like a safer place at all.... just a place for more "lethal accidents"... or worse.

@ Leif ... you raise good points. but then again most countries would say "don't defend yourself, let them take what they want and sort it out afterward" .... now obviously I'm not sure how it all works... but if both parties have guns.... your just asking for a brutal outcome right? I cant comment on the intelligence e of the average burglar but surely it makes sense to them to have a gun regardless.... legal or illegal.... since they know the home owner likely has a gun....

I'm not calling for a ban anymore... its not my business. but my perception of the US having such powerful devices on their person at all times.... with many grey-area factors to consider.... do you really believe your safer in this environment... hell some proof would be even nicer. Bit I feel more than justified to critisize or attempt to understand the pro-gun mentality ... the "TOOL" and "RIGHTS" excuse just doesn't cut it....

Seems more like a d*ck waving contest and a security blanket for adults... while it use to have a place centuries ago....

It would be like peasants in medievil times walking around with friggin crossbows... (only less cumbersome) ..... are they all really safer? they have a device that is banned by the church for being overly lethal and too efficient at killing..... (overruled eventually obviously... because you know.... religeous authority is a fantasy if royalty steps in.)... bit of a rant analogy but the underlying point is its a weapon ,its purpose is to heavily wound or kill..... its empowering, its dangerous ... it effects peoples brains differently.

The availability of guns on their own bring in many psychological factors that may or may not cause people who would not even think it possible before to commit such acts.