• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A collection of gun/gun control/ gun culture links for your research pleasure

Mindmaster

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Orbit said:
Given current events, you might find these links useful:


More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows

America’s Complex Relationship With Guns

America's gun problem, explained
Click to expand...

I'm extremely against violence, but guns let you live the 15 minutes it takes the police to reach you. They might not work every time, nor be a perfect solution, but it's better than the bad guys winning every single time. It's sort of like a fire extinguisher, hopefully, you will never need in your life, but when you do you'll be sure damn glad you had it. The science / opinion is irrelevant, you either survive a violent encounter or you are a victim. Who plays odds with their lives?
 
Aldrnari

Aldrnari

Active Member
Common, now. We all know the best way to deal with gun violence is to shoot the people perpetrating gun violence. More guns for everyone!

 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Mindmaster said:
Who plays odds with their lives?
Click to expand...
Most people do, on a regular and daily basis, without any regards to the danger. It's kind of in the same vein as insisting you shouldn't be legally required to buckle your seat belt, even though they significantly reduce injury and save lives, and even save money with medical treatments. People who think they need a gun to be safe aren't much different, and they put themselves and others at a greater risk of injury and death over their foolish and destructive decisions.
Mindmaster said:
The science / opinion is irrelevant, you either survive a violent encounter or you are a victim.
Click to expand...
The science is still relevant, and either way you are still a victim of a violent encounter regardless the outcome.
And "violent encounter?" Most violent encounters leave all involved alive and guns would be overkill. We live in a posh, comfy, and relatively secure Western nation, not a war-torn unstable nation where violence is a common part of life.
 
Aldrnari

Aldrnari

Active Member
Mindmaster said:
I'm extremely against violence, but guns let you live the 15 minutes it takes the police to reach you. They might not work every time, nor be a perfect solution, but it's better than the bad guys winning every single time. It's sort of like a fire extinguisher, hopefully, you will never need in your life, but when you do you'll be sure damn glad you had it. The science / opinion is irrelevant, you either survive a violent encounter or you are a victim. Who plays odds with their lives?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but question: does someone need to defend themselves with an assault rifle or a submachine gun. A pistol, or even shotgun I can understand...
 
Mindmaster

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Aldrnari said:
I don't disagree, but question: does someone need to defend themselves with an assault rifle or a submachine gun. A pistol, or even shotgun I can understand...
Click to expand...

Most AR15s are used for target practice or small game hunting, the only ones you can buy fire at the same rate as a pistol with a smaller bullet. Just to give you an idea on its bullet size... .22(most common), .223 (AR-15), .380(9mm (2nd common)), .40, .45 (third most common). The AR-15 has more energy, more power at range, but tiny bullets. The .40 and .45 are twice the diameter and weight of .223. Machine guns of any kind are already illegal, so not worth addressing. :D

I've seen tests with small capacity magazines and it had absolutely no effect in reducing the shooters performance for the most part. So just because an AR-15 has a 30 round mag and a glock has a 17+ isn't going to make much of a difference. They sell up to 30 round for glocks, and the bullet is larger/fire rate is the same. Theoretically, the glock in close quarters is more dangerous.

Shotguns do extreme target damage, much more than pistols but have the added problem of spraying ammo all over the place. They also cannot be operated with one hand, which is potentially an issue. People do not "get up" from torso up shotgun wounds, I think they're overkill and much deadlier than the AR-15 or pistol for most purposes. They make gruesome and gory wounds, not clean holes that a doctor can fix.

The short of this is, the liberal position on guns is not founded very much on the realities of the weapons.
 
Mindmaster

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Most people do, on a regular and daily basis, without any regards to the danger. It's kind of in the same vein as insisting you shouldn't be legally required to buckle your seat belt, even though they significantly reduce injury and save lives, and even save money with medical treatments. People who think they need a gun to be safe aren't much different, and they put themselves and others at a greater risk of injury and death over their foolish and destructive decisions.

The science is still relevant, and either way you are still a victim of a violent encounter regardless the outcome.
And "violent encounter?" Most violent encounters leave all involved alive and guns would be overkill. We live in a posh, comfy, and relatively secure Western nation, not a war-torn unstable nation where violence is a common part of life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it just takes one bad guy that's all I'm getting to. Do you see people arguing against fire extinguishers? See, that's the stupidity of the thing... It's like saying a hammer is bad because someone could possibly kill someone with it. It doesn't even matter if all the guns are banned, people will still kill people. The problem is a psychiatric one, not a firearms issue.

Per your safety argument, yeah you are safer with a gun no matter what you think. The thing that often isn't published is how many crimes are completely prevented by a firearm. If you own one - your chance of being robbed, raped, murdered, and anything else go to near absolute zero. In fact, if you are a pacifist you don't even need to fire the damn thing most of the time just shake it at the attacker so it even works in that case. You don't necessarily have to use it to gain the effectiveness - it's like the nuclear deterrent, if you had to fire it you can, but most people aren't that stupid to test you.
 
Enoch07

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Debater Slayer said:
Some (not all) pro-gun people seem to think it's that simple. I generally respect the ones who can reason for their stance beyond merely saying "I have the right to own a gun" full stop.
Click to expand...

That is all that is needed though. Just as any other human right provided to us by the Constitution. I can list several reasons as to why I should have a gun. But it boils down to it is a right provided by the Constitution, so there is no need to justify it beyond that.
 
Koldo

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Enoch07 said:
That is all that is needed though. Just as any other human right provided to us by the Constitution. I can list several reasons as to why I should have a gun. But it boils down to it is a right provided by the Constitution, so there is no need to justify it beyond that.
Click to expand...

There is, because the constitution can be amended.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Mindmaster said:
I'm extremely against violence, but guns let you live the 15 minutes it takes the police to reach you. They might not work every time, nor be a perfect solution, but it's better than the bad guys winning every single time. It's sort of like a fire extinguisher, hopefully, you will never need in your life, but when you do you'll be sure damn glad you had it. The science / opinion is irrelevant, you either survive a violent encounter or you are a victim. Who plays odds with their lives?
Click to expand...
It might be safer to slip out the back, rather than confront an intruder, and a fire extinguisher is unlikely to kill a wayward daughter sneaking in at 0300h, or a curious toddler.
Aren't handgun owners and their family members statistically more likely to get shot than non gun owners?
It doesn't even matter if all the guns are banned, people will still kill people.
Click to expand...
But not as effectively, easily or at the same rate. Haven't bans in other countries decreased homicide rates?
The problem is a psychiatric one, not a firearms issue.
Click to expand...
[/quote]And here you have a point. frightened people are more compliant and willing to exchange freedom for security. Right of center politicians like this. If guns make these people feel less powerless all the better. The guns are no threat to the politicians, and endorsing gun rights can even enhance chances for re-election.
Aldrnari said:
I don't disagree, but question: does someone need to defend themselves with an assault rifle or a submachine gun. A pistol, or even shotgun I can understand...
Click to expand...
But these are generally illegal for ordinary citizens, and wouldn't you prefer to be shot with a NATO or Remington .223 round ("mouse rounds"), than a shotgun, hunting round or even a moderate caliber handgun round?
Hubert Farnsworth said:
In the US, someone on the terror watch list can purchase a gun, and someone using legal medical marijuana cannot. This is obvious verification that the vast majority of politicians are complete imbeciles.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't know. The guns don't hurt the politicians' political fortunes, and support from the gun industry may even help it.
Pro gun positions are popular, at least for Republicans. Pro cannabis -- not so much.
Not so imbecilic.;)
 
Mindmaster

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Valjean said:
It might be safer to slip out the back, rather than confront an intruder, and a fire extinguisher is unlikely to kill a wayward daughter sneaking in at 0300h, or a curious toddler.
Click to expand...

Esh, my 3 year old niece knows not to touch guns - it can't be all that hard to sort out. Who the hell shoots people before they ID the target or confirm they have a weapon? The scenario is unrealistic, most people hearing you chamber a round will **** their pants. There is no need to fire, and anyone you know is going to respond to verbal prompts.

If your daughter is wayward, she knows you carry so she's not sneaking up on you in the dark. Past that, Darwin rules... can't stop stupid...
 
S

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Enoch07 said:
But it's not amended. And it is still a right so that is all that is needed.
Click to expand...

Debater Slayer said:
Some (not all) pro-gun people seem to think it's that simple. I generally respect the ones who can reason for their stance beyond merely saying "I have the right to own a gun" full stop.
Click to expand...

When statistics prove that strict gun control lowers gun violence or that more guns do not prevent violence, they go back to the constitution as their last argument.
 
Enoch07

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
suncowiam said:
When statistics prove that strict gun control lowers gun violence or that more guns do not prevent violence, they go back to the constitution as their last argument.
Click to expand...

Chicago, which has some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S. Which also has one of the highest gun violence statistics in the U.S. is proof enough, that making it harder to obtain legal weapons does little to suppress gun violence.
 
S

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Enoch07 said:
Chicago, which has some of the most strict gun laws in the U.S. Which also has one of the highest gun violence statistics in the U.S. is proof enough, that making it harder to obtain legal weapons does little to suppress gun violence.
Click to expand...

Chicago has open borders. No city can implement such control without being able to control its borders.

Sure you can point to Chicago as a failure, while I'll point to UK, Australia, Japan, South Korea and many more Western countries as being successful. Why is it that these nations hundreds if not thousands of times bigger than Chicago are so successful?

Well, there goes your argument. So back to the constitution with ya.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top