Why arming everyone with guns is not a good Idea.

[bobhikes]

It will EVENTUALLY get corrupt. Someone in power does not automatically get corrupt but they can and will if people allow it.

There's a time for peace, but there is nothing immoral about self defense which is natural.

Never said it was immoral, never even mentioned it. What I have said is that people with guns kill other people so they should be regulated. Someone has likened the killing to that of a car. I have said in the past I believe in registration like that of a car. License with required test, registration of gun ( with required inspection), and insurance for accidental or improper discharge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Don't you know how many burglaries were stopped BECAUSE they had a weapon.

So you're okay with killing someone over property?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah and the people that revolt against the government with guns always turn out to be better. My point is no matter what government you put in power it will always be corrupt. Bloodshed is never the answer. People with guns are no better than people without guns. The people with guns are just able to kill easier.

Given a choice for citizens.....
1) Able to kill more easily
2) Able to be killed more easily
I'll pick the former, & I vote that way.

 

[Revoltingest]

So you're okay with killing someone over property?

This is tricky.
The only answer permitted under the rules is <no>.
But given how useless the cops & courts are, it should be otherwise.

 

[bobhikes]

Given a choice for citizens.....
1) Able to kill more easily
2) Able to be killed more easily
I'll pick the former, & I vote that way.

I vote for making both hard.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given a choice for citizens.....
1) Able to kill more easily
2) Able to be killed more easily
I'll pick the former, & I vote that way.

Why's that?

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Does this extend to other sports or hobbies?

No. Only the engagement with the Dirty Harry/Wild West culture Bob Costas was blasted for a few years back. I thought I made that clear with my allusion to "the people who leer at them like some fetish item".

As a harmless hobby, I find occasionally shooting rifles out in the country very enjoyable.

What I find stupid is the mentality that more/bigger guns is a reflection of someone's masculinity.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Bingo!
I was wondering who'd be the first to make it about the "penis".
This is the big problem with the most vocal anti-gun types....
- Lack of a reasoned & evidenced argument.
- Resorting to sexual insults.
It's particularly fun when this sexism addresses women & guns, making it about their penis envy.

I'll refer you to my above post in this thread.

I was very specific in terms of what I was referring to.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

So you're okay with killing someone over property?

You've never had someone invade your house, have you?

You have someone who breaks in your house in the middle of the night. You have no idea what they have planned for you. It's become a full home invasion. Sometimes burglars don't just take stuff, but scare and intimidate others and basically break in the house and scare you Are you going to let them take your stuff and do who knows what to you and your family? They are an intruder. Are you going to wait for them to do something really bad?

I'd rather not do that if I don't have to. But I probably wouldn't have to anyway. If they knew someone was armed they'd probably run away and you probably wouldn't have to fire a shot. But any mugger who robber who threatens another life should know what happens when they try to take on an armed person.

 

[Glaurung]

Let me ask you, do you seriously feel safer knowing you have no way to defend yourself against criminals or corrupt governments? I wouldn't. The police can't teleport. It takes time for them to get there.

It's pure fantasy to believe that the average gun-owner is capable of using their guns to competently defend themselves. Sure, here and there you may find a case where a gun saved the day, but there are many more where it either did nothing, or even made things worse.

If I am mugging you, and I see that you're armed. I am all the more likely to just shoot you outright long before you get anywhere near your weapon.

But any mugger who robber who threatens another life should know what happens when they try to take on an armed person.

Like this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/open-carry-robbery_n_5953044.html?section=australia

 

[Father Heathen]

No. Only the engagement with the Dirty Harry/Wild West culture Bob Costas was blasted for a few years back. I thought I made that clear with my allusion to "the people who leer at them like some fetish item".

As a harmless hobby, I find occasionally shooting rifles out in the country very enjoyable.

What I find stupid is the mentality that more/bigger guns is a reflection of someone's masculinity.

It wasn't "made clear" because some here don't make any distinction and have pigeonholed people into the dirty harry/wild west stereotype merely for owning a gun or for supporting the 2nd amendment.

 

[Father Heathen]

So you're okay with killing someone over property?

I'm okay with killing someone who forced their way into my home, who's intentions and capabilities are unknown, and who could pose a serious threat to me or my family. I value my life and the lives of my family vastly higher than the life of anyone seeking to prey upon us, so yeah, I would prefer to err on the side of caution than gamble with hesitation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why's that?

I prefer that more power be in the hands of little people, & not so much with government.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll refer you to my above post in this thread.
I was very specific in terms of what I was referring to.

I saw it.

 

[Mindmaster]

The need for guns really is caused by the guns themselves. You can't randomly take them away from someone without taking them away from everyone including the government. (The UK figured that out at least.) Mexican standoff, really. Until such law passes, I think you need a gun just to protect yourself from the reams of idiots having them. I'm not against them for that reason, but if they could all be taken away at the same time -- that's what I'd support.

My argument against normal citizens having guns is simply along the lines of having no confidence in their decision making ability. Much like you won't hand a gun to a toddler, lol. The people who are the most ardent of gun supporter as also the fundamentalists, and lowest educated in the USA. People who see things in absolute right and wrong or in other binary ways have no business with guns, nor do the intellectually challenged. You should be tested, and if you don't show up with normal psychology or normal thinking then no gun. You should have to visit a psychologist/psychiatrist to even purchase one, and have to have the permission in hand. Am I being ridiculous? When the penalty for screwing this up is: "Someone dies", then I think we need to take this to a whole new level of evaluation.

 

[David1967]

Both the Brits and the French did as such by making illegal possession of any gun a felony that, in the case of the U.K., could land one up to 10 years in prison (only rarely that high though), and this very much had the effect they attempted to create by significantly lowering the overall violent crime rates in both countries.

Also, attempts to try and confront someone breaking into your home is in most cases a huge mistake-- better to call 911 in most such cases, and the studies reflect this.

It's a good idea to cite studies used as evidence for controversial claims.
So often, people say "statistics" as thought that alone makes a cogent argument.

And people with a strong opinion of a controversial subject such as this tend to cite statistics that favor their cause.

 

[David1967]

There's quite a big of crime, actually more than people think in Europe. I've known some Brits that have had some drug lords there. And really it should not be illegal for someone wishing to defend themselves.

You should call but you should stand up for yourself and your family. You cannot count on the police the entire time. It takes time for them to get there and they are usually too late when they arrive. Don't you know how many burglaries were stopped BECAUSE they had a weapon. There's even videos of it when someone had the video surveillance on.

I don't know how criminal react over there in Europe but quite a few criminals in the US are push overs. Once they even see that you have a gun, they will run off. Even if they have you outnumbered and out gunned. Most criminals don't know how to use a gun properly and use fear and intimidation to push you around.

People on the street should not be defenseless either. You have any idea how many less muggings there would be if they knew the person was armed. If a burglar sees two houses and knows one owner has a weapon while the other doesn't, who do you think he's going to rob? He's going to rob the one that doesn't have a weapon. Same with muggers.

No one should be defenseless.

I agree. And as a police officer I have some experience behind my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You've never had someone invade your house, have you?

I have, actually. My question stands.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

It's pure fantasy to believe that the average gun-owner is capable of using their guns to competently defend themselves. Sure, here and there you may find a case where a gun saved the day, but there are many more where it either did nothing, or even made things worse.

If I am mugging you, and I see that you're armed. I am all the more likely to just shoot you outright long before you get anywhere near your weapon.


Like this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/open-carry-robbery_n_5953044.html?section=australia

Pure fantasy? I don't think so.

If you know anything about muggers, you know they are bullies, and what are bullies? They are cowards. They rely on fear and intimidation. Once you stand up to them they end up becoming push overs even when they have the victim outnumbered and outgunned.

If my weapon was concealed, you wouldn't know I had a gun, now would you. So, no, you'd be in danger because you'd be caught off guard.

Most criminals don't want to have a shoot out. They'd rather get what they want, push around defenseless people, because it's easier. They don't want conflict. So when they come up against conflict, they panic. Guess what corrupt governments want? Gun control. Because it's easier to run over someone with your military than it is to fight against a population that is armed to the teeth. I mean it's common sense. Why would a criminal risk his life to take down someone they know is armed. They usually won't even fight back once they see an innocent with a gun, unless they have an army of gang members backing them up. But even then, they just end up being push overs.

Here is an example of guns saving the day.

 

[Thief]

I've never fully understood these random mass shootings in the US. I mean, I understand that one could psychologically snap and go on a rampage of some sort, but it almost always ends with a level of carnage that is far less effective than renting a van and slamming it into a bus station full of people.

All in all, guns are stupid and the people who leer at them like some fetish item (a seemingly enormous epidemic in the US) are sick and presumably have a very troubled relationship with their own penis (if not someone else's).

and I agree....except.....
I want my gun to protect myself from the sickos.