Discussion in 'General Chat' started by Demonic Poring, Oct 10, 2018.
The fake natives died to diseases.
anyone else getting errors?
If the world had no criminals then it would be correct to say that guns aren't necessary for self-defence. If we lived in a time like 'Minority Report' where every crime could be solved, or better yet, prevented before it happened then fine.
But (i) there are criminals and (ii) the police are unable to stop all of them. Should we invest in reducing crime? - yes but, while crime exists should a person be armed to protect themselves?
If you and your loved ones were being robbed by 3 armed people in the middle of the night (or any other time really) would you yourself rather not have a gun?
Sorry, you've lost me. Come again?
He beat the robbers then the government came and arrested him because he defended himself.
Use in yes but reality is different having a gun doesn't magically make you a marksman people miss all the time.
If so, what use the gun we have if we just freeze when got pointed?
I think the solution is reducing as much gun as possible, so we know someone bringing gun is a bad guy or a cop
that's true in most places. Europe and Asia as well most of the citizens of the nations as they stand were not the native people of said area. Most land has been taken from someone else over the centuries so the question is at which point do you stop? Is it just the us and Indians or do you keep going back more? China does this a lot oh we can do(take) that as it was ours in the past. While ignoring it was someone else's before it was theirs as well.
Well, if that happen i don't think i have enough time to search for the gun. Sure its powerful and convenient, but not always handy and risk of self-harm.
I'd rather take something right beside me as a blunt weapon for self-protection
I own mine as I like shooting it's a fun hobby. It is not how ever for defense as it's a gsg522 which is a 22 more so having a kid but no gun safe I don't keep loaded clips the 1 box of ammo I do keep in the house is locked in my wall safe away from the gun. The gun as well has a cable lock through the magazine port out the ejection port. But if I didn't have a 6 year old it would be loaded(the magazine that is not that it would be in the gun) and ready to go.
In all serious note, I think it's almost a catch-22 situation. One would think they need guns for protection cos a lot of criminals have guns. H. But with strict gun laws, the odds of a criminal with a gun is lower. For a common thief or house burglar, at most they would have a knife.
Of course, you can say that having a gun provides more protection. But it also means that the house burglar would similarly have a gun. If I were the burglar, if i see that my victim seems to be reaching for a gun, my reaction would be to shoot him. If the victim had a gun, he/she would probably try to reach for the gun to protect themselves. But if I don't have a gun and the burglar has a knife only, I would be less likely to try my luck. In summary, because both parties have a gun, the probability of someone shooting is very high. In some ways, it's almost a game theory situation.
Not really, not everyone is a sharpshooter and a gun is louder then a knife, or axe. people who wants to kill, find there means to do it. Guns are only the tool for it, if they dont have that, then they get anything else.
I think the solution would be training and the cops come after everything has gone down.
Well if he doesn't care that you aren't fighting back and just kills you anyways you're dead also trying to pull your gun when there is a gun on you is stupid.
I dont live in USA and my country's weapon law is strict as hell. There are 3-4 different kind of permits. (Open carry permit, concealed permit, ownership permit etc). People say guns are useless if you arent a good shooter but there are not only professional killers or snipers out there. I think gun is a good deterrent against common criminals or maybe even against other normal citizens For example most thiefs or muggers dont carry guns here so they tend to run away if victim just shows the gun. Most gunshot victims appear between family feuds, neighbour fights and people who fight over money in my city and most of the time those guns are unregistered ones which bought from Internet. Generally, more victims appear when one side have guns and other side dont. Unexperienced shooters (even robbers) tend to duck or run away if defending side start shooting even if victim is a terrible shot.
Honestly, If I am willing to kill someone so badly that i'm willing to go straight to prison for it, then there's nothing stopping me. There's thousands of ways to kill a man and you don't need a gun to kill someone. For instances, If i want to make it classy, I could ram a car into you at high speed then get out and stab you with a knife when you're unprepared/unconscious. As most people in that situation wouldn't have the first thought of pulling out their gun instantly and their head is in a mess from the car crash.
Note that I don't live IN the US but this point of view came from my military experience. Putting a ban on guns won't stop shit, i don't think it'll cause a drop in the overall crime rate. But limiting gun laws to a degree will prevent a lot of idiotic or accidental deaths cause by gun violence from bad owners. If you want a gun then go for it however be willing to take some test, background check and have some occasionally check up in a year to prevent it going into someone else hands. (Like one of your children)
Can't help to say that
The civil war was a stand up war. Two army's facing each other. The north won by essentially beating the south into submission to the point they didn't want to fight anymore. Kinda how we won WW1 and WW2 too. If the south had then decided to continue fighting a gorilla war against the north, it would have been difficult for the north to avoid getting a bloody nose.
If you want to see how it's done in modern times, look to Northern Ireland, the Taliban, the Kurds and any number of oppressed people fighting back. Look at how many US soldiers were killed and injured by IEDs in Iraq and not through conventional combat. We won the initial fight in Iraq but actual victory didn't happen.
An interesting thing these days is that US police are being outfitted with military gear. It makes you wonder if the "powers that be" fear some sort of revolt.
Sure but a gun makes it trivially easy.
Thanks for your answer. You haven't directly answered the first question though.(i) Should a person be allowed to protect themselves? and (ii) should hey be allowed to own arms to do so?
Your 2nd argument is weak though:
You are admitting that if you owned a gun it would be powerful and convenient for defending yourself but, that it wouldn't always be handy. What weapon is handier than a handgun? Is it more convenient to always carry a baseball bat?
Also, if you owned a weapon for the sole purpose of protecting yourself and your loved ones, I find it hard to believe that your average person would have to search for it. Would you forget it on the bathroom sink?
Lastly yes. guns are dangerous. They're easy to use and very deadly. A blunt object is far harder to wield and has much less stopping power. If you think that a blunt instrument is the best choice for protecting yourself from armed robbers that is your choice but, since you have already admitted that you would fight to protect what's yours - I think it is strange to pick a weapon that is less capable of doing just that.
Anyhow, you with your superhuman abilities, may be able to take on 3 armed gunmen but, what about a single mum, a guy in a wheelchair, old folk- what about them? Would you rather have your old lady (or someone's old lady) taking them on with a broom or a rolling pin?
Separate names with a comma.