Firearms

[Deadmanwalking_05]

And that is why the private citizen should be able to own them,in the case of self-defense.

Dynamite is a high explosive,it can do way more damage than a gun in the wrong hands.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

You feel entertainment (the least essential reason to exist) justifies the gun market. Which kills thousands every year?

I mean, I bet it's fun to blow things up. You don't see people carrying nitroglycerine and dynamite around. Why? 'Cause it's fucking dangerous.

If guns could be guarenteed to be only used for sport, fine, go crazy. But they're not.

How about the thousands of lives that are arguably saved due to concealed carry? Is that not justification for firearms, just like it is pepper spray, tazers, or stun guns? (Tazers also have recorded and well documented fatalities, especially in the hands of police).

In addition, even then people buy explosives in the form of fireworks all the time, including short sticks of dynamite. It's fucking dangerous, but still legal, even though it has been recorded killing people, purely for the entertainment.

If you could guarantee that knives would only be used for eating, fine, go crazy. But they're not.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Fire extinguishers and airbags don't kill.

Airbags can kill.

If something is going to try and kill me, don't I have a right to protect myself?

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

You want everyone to be disarmed of guns because you don't like them,gun or not people will still hurt/kill others because it is the dark side of humanity.

Guns make this easier though, do you want to aid the 'dark side of humainity'.

Those that defend themselves and families don't matter to you because you have the attitude that if "I don't like it,It has to go",with disreguard to others views on the subject.

I don't have that attitude. I don't like Boyzone, but they don't have to go because they give some people pleasure, and don't kill. To defend your family? Does that justify killing another, why not use a taser. Why kill, think of the victim's family.

Telling me that I should give up my guns because"It might make the world safer"

Safer for who?

Not for me,not for my family.

I'm not saying you shouldn't protect your family, use a taser, and protect somebody else's family.

You chose to read and post in this thread,for what purpose?

To state your opinion or to stirr up trouble?

To state my opinion, because I believe guns are wrong.

If the general populus didn't have guns then criminals wouldn't 'need' guns.

Whatever you (i.e. non criminal - hopefully) carry, the criminal will carry one worse. You have a pistol, he/she'll have a machine gun.

You have a machine gun, they'll have bazookas.


I guess, answer me this, why carry a gun instead of a taser or pepper spray for protection?

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Splintered

How about the thousands of lives that are arguably saved due to concealed carry? Is that not justification for firearms, just like it is pepper spray, tazers, or stun guns? (Tazers also have recorded and well documented fatalities, especially in the hands of police).

A shitload less than guns though.

In addition, even then people buy explosives in the form of fireworks all the time, including short sticks of dynamite. It's fucking dangerous, but still legal, even though it has been recorded killing people, purely for the entertainment.

I never said I agreed with fireworks.

Airbags can kill.

I know, but they save more lives than they kill. Unlike guns. Also their intended purpose is to save, they will keep getting updated so that they are more effective. Guns keep getting updated so that they're more dangerous.

If something is going to try and kill me, don't I have a right to protect myself?

Yup, but you don't need a gun to do that.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

And what I'm saying is that guns do fail,tazers fail,pepperspray can fail.

I'm not saying to forget those options,but to add them as you see fit,go with what you're comfortable with,I'll opt for my dads old Model 12 anyday if the other options fail,and would stake my life on it.

Besides I don't see machine guns or rocket launchers around here.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

You will never understand the gun culture,and those in the gun culture will never understand you.

You want everyone to be disarmed of guns because you don't like them,gun or not people will still hurt/kill others because it is the dark side of humanity.

None of us are saying guns are the cause of all violence. They just make violence a hell of a lot easier, because that's what they were made for.

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Those that defend themselves and families don't matter to you because you have the attitude that if "I don't like it,It has to go",with disreguard to others views on the subject.

It doesn't bother me that you don't want to have a gun,knife,ect for personal protection that's fine. That is your right,but respect my rights as well.

What are you defending you and your family from though? Could it be... other people with guns? The whole idea of banning firearms is to prevent a majority of the population from owning one, thus you no longer have to assume everyone around you is armed and dangerous. You don't have a gun, and nor does the bastard breaking into your home (which lets hope never happens).

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Telling me that I should give up my guns because"It might make the world safer"

Safer for who?

Not for me,not for my family.

According to rather extensive evidence (such as the statistics posted by LiUsAiDh), it does make places safer. It certainly made Australia safer.
Not to say it's an easy cure since there are a hell of a lot more causes of violence than weapons, but it certainly seems an effective step to take.

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Who are you to tell me how I "should" live?

Did I tell you that you had to have a gun?

Did I force anything down your throat?
You chose to read and post in this thread,for what purpose?

To state your opinion or to stirr up trouble?

This isn't about telling you how you should live, it's an interwebz argument. We're just giving our reasons for believing guns should be banned, just as you've given your reasons for liking them.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

So you would rather I use pepper spray or a tazer while the guy that might do me and mine harm would use a firearm,and most likely kill the afore mentioned,the way I see it is if I break into someones home they have every right to shoot me on the spot,I would do the same if someone broke into my house.

Criminals don't announce their intentions before things break loose,and so what if that person does have a family everyone one this earth has some sort of family unit that gives a damn about them,nevermind the fact that if they don't want to be shot they shouldn't be messing with Me and My Family in the first place by breaking into my home or trying to pull a stick up out in public.

It's one of the things criminals find out around here,it goes with the "Job".

It sounds more and more like you would actually rather protect the criminal than the victims of said criminal.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

And what I'm saying is that guns do fail,tazers fail,pepperspray can fail.

I'm not saying to forget those options,but to add them as you see fit,go with what you're comfortable with,I'll opt for my dads old Model 12 anyday if the other options fail,and would stake my life on it.

What possible advantage do guns have over tasers and pepper spray, other than killing. Why bother with guns.

if the other options fail

You're saying you'd try pepper spray & tasers before your trusty gun? From what you've been saying, I don't believe you.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

A shitload less than guns though.

Then why do police officers carry firearms then? Shouldn't tazers be sufficient?

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

I never said I agreed with fireworks.

Then how about fertilizer, another commonly available explosive?

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

I know, but they save more lives than they kill. Unlike guns. Also their intended purpose is to save, they will keep getting updated so that they are more effective. Guns keep getting updated so that they're more dangerous.

I disagree on two points:

First, do you have a source that states that guns save less lives then they take? Given the scenario of a family of five being attacked by a murder, a firearm would save the five family members, while taking the life of a single murderer. A 5:1 ratio is very good in my books. Therefore, I can easily imagine where firearms save more lives then they take.

Second, guns are also updated so that they are safer. From biometric locks being integrated on to the firearm itself, to stronger and better safeties. In fact, many guns like Glocks have been redesigned multiple times for better safeties. Different types of actions are also available, from requiring the hammer to be manually cocked, to firearms that have no hammers to prevent accidental firing.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Yup, but you don't need a gun to do that.

I don't need a tazer either, nor do I need pepper spray, nor do I need a baton. Are we purposing that they should be taken away from me as well? Keep in mind that there are no non-lethal weapons, and only those known as "less lethal", now.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

So you would rather I use pepper spray or a tazer while the guy that might do me and mine harm would use a firearm,and most likely kill the afore mentioned,the way I see it is if I break into someones home they have every right to shoot me on the spot,I would do the same if someone broke into my house.

So trespassing gives you the right to end a life?? Does it fuck.

And if you tasered him/her first, they couldn't shoot you.

Criminals don't announce their intentions before things break loose,

When somebody holding a gun enters your house, it gives you a clue.

and so what if that person does have a family everyone one this earth has some sort of family unit that gives a damn about them,nevermind the fact that if they don't want to be shot they shouldn't be messing with Me and My Family in the first place by breaking into my home or trying to pull a stick up out in public.

So yet again, does that remove their right to live?

It's one of the things criminals find out around here,it goes with the "Job".

No, being arrested should be part of the job, not being murdered.

It sounds more and more like you would actually rather protect the criminal than the victims of said criminal.

I would protect both equally.

Otherwise you're as bad as them. If you shoot a burglar, you're worse. Because you're a murderer.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

A security Alarm is a good first line (If your security alarm is wired into the police and fire departments that's good,same as if your security alarm is covered in fur,walks on four legs,barks,has sharp teeth,and is Wired)

A phone call to 9-1-1 (Or what have you) is the second line of defense.

A designated safe room (Where you and other members of your family gather) is the third line.

The fourth and last ditch line of defense is you and your weapon (Be it a knife,gun,baseball bat,hammer,ect)

Note as said above The firearm is the LAST line of defense,and in some cases the only line.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

But what about an ND (Accidental discharge) from the home invader while he's getting hit with a jolt?

Yes an ND is still possible but the likely hood is somewhat reduced with a firearm.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Then why do police officers carry firearms then? Shouldn't tazers be sufficient?

I don't know why. They shouldn't. A ploiceman killing somebody doesn't make it right.

Then how about fertilizer, another commonly available explosive?

How about it? I don't understand your point.

First, do you have a source that states that guns save less lives then they take? Given the scenario of a family of five being attacked by a murder, a firearm would save the five family members, while taking the life of a single murderer. A 5:1 ratio is very good in my books. Therefore, I can easily imagine where firearms save more lives then they take.

Hey, psst, try the wars. The gang shootings. The statistic isn't out there because it's so obvious. Also, how do you know the family of 5 would have been killed, you can't say.

Second, guns are also updated so that they are safer. From biometric locks being integrated on to the firearm itself, to stronger and better safeties. In fact, many guns like Glocks have been redesigned multiple times for better safeties. Different types of actions are also available, from requiring the hammer to be manually cocked, to firearms that have no hammers to prevent accidental firing.

Safer for the user, not the person getting shot. That defeats the point of a gun. They're intended to kill.

Keep in mind that there are no non-lethal weapons, and only those known as "less lethal", now.

Less lethal beats lethal in my books.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

But what about an ND (Accidental discharge) from the home invader while he's getting hit with a jolt?

Yes an ND is still possible but the likely hood is somewhat reduced.

Although possible, the chances of 'ND' hitting and killing all you family whilst he/she is being tasered, is rather limited somewhat.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

I don't know why. They shouldn't. A ploiceman killing somebody doesn't make it right.

The reason police officers carry firearms is because a tazer does not provide nearly the security that a firearm can. A man can recover from a tazer hit, a pepper ball hit, and a baton hit. He can not, however, recover from a .45.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

How about it? I don't understand your point.

I'm not sure I understand yours either.

Fertilizers are powerful explosives, and have been used in terrorism. They have killed many people. Should we ban them?

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Hey, psst, try the wars. The gang shootings. The statistic isn't out there because it's so obvious. Also, how do you know the family of 5 would have been killed, you can't say.

How are wars within the scope of this debate? Are you purposing that one country try and disarm all other countries, just like the current state disarms the people? Last time I checked, gun control really doesn't apply on a global level.

Gangs also don't care about gun controls. They're already breaking the laws: Why don't they go out and get the most firepower they can get?

You can't say the opposite either, so we're at a dead standstill in this case.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Safer for the user, not the person getting shot. That defeats the point of a gun. They're intended to kill.

And killing can be saving; ergo the legal classification of "Justified homicide". If a criminal is going to kill someone, haven't they forfeited their right to life? Are you purposing that we actually let criminals kill people, so that the criminals themselves will come unscathed?

True, a gun can be turned against the owners. So can a knife, and so can a lawn chair.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Less lethal beats lethal in my books.

To what end?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

I've always been taught to meet leathal force with leathal force.

Question Liusadh....

Have you ever been in a violent encounter?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Fertilizers are powerful explosives, and have been used in terrorism. They have killed many people. Should we ban them?

Do guns provide nutrients for crops?

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Do guns provide nutrients for crops?

No, but they do put food on people's plates (Hunting).

[Deadmanwalking_05]

And help harvest the fields and gardens of pests (Doves,crows,rabbits,woodchucks,and deer)

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Splintered

The reason police officers carry firearms is because a tazer does not provide nearly the security that a firearm can. A man can recover from a tazer hit, a pepper ball hit, and a baton hit. He can not, however, recover from a .45.

Before he recovers, handcuff him. You don't need him permanently non-recoverable.

Fertilizers are powerful explosives, and have been used in terrorism. They have killed many people. Should we ban them?

Fertilisers aren't my area of expertise. If there are non-explosive fertilisers then they can be used instead of explosive ones. Then explosive ones should be banned.

If all fertilisers are explosive, then that's crap, and I'm not sure, it's a bit of a dilemma.

Crap! That reminds me, faeces can be used as fertilisers can't it!?! So it's not as if the world doesn't have enough, use poo. And ban explosive fertilisers.

Gangs also don't care about gun controls. They're already breaking the laws: Why don't they go out and get the most firepower they can get?

Gun controls make it harder for them to get guns. I don't know why they don't get as much firepower as they can get..... Oh, yeah nuclear bombs aren't legal.

And killing can be saving; ergo the legal classification of "Justified homicide". If a criminal is going to kill someone, haven't they forfeited their right to life? Are you purposing that we actually let criminals kill people, so that the criminals themselves will come unscathed?

How can you prove that a person is going to kill somebody.

True, a gun can be turned against the owners. So can a knife, and so can a lawn chair.

Yes, but it's easier to kill with a gun than with a lawn chair.

Less lethal kills fewer people, ergo, it is better.

Have you ever been in a violent encounter?

Many.

My dad abused my mum, and nearly killed her on a few occasions.

Also, my grandfather tried to smash a wine bottle over my head when I was 6.

And most relevant, two years ago grandpa tried to shoot my mum, with the intention to kill.

There are others, I'd list them, but I feel I've made my point.

[Cicero]

Food can come from a lot of other sources, and hey, humans did a lot of effective hunting before guns were invented. And I'll add that most hunting that goes on in the world nowadays is far from the 'legal' kind (poaching).

Also, there are also far more effective ways of controlling pests.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Before he recovers, handcuff him. You don't need him permanently non-recoverable.

Some times you do. If a criminal has a gun, and he's shooting at you, what option do you have but to roll over? Even gun control can't eliminate the presence of firearms in the hands of criminals.

As much as it's desirable to handcuff him before he gets to you, sometimes you can't.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Fertilisers aren't my area of expertise. If there are non-explosive fertilisers then they can be used instead of explosive ones. And explosive ones should be banned.

If all fertilisers are explosive, then that's crap, and I'm not sure, it's a bit of a dilemma.

Crap! That reminds me, faeces can be used as fertilisers can't it!?! So it's not as if the world doesn't have enough, use poo. And ban explosive fertilisers.

Dung doesn't do as much as you would think it does. Part of the agricultural stability of the United States depends heavily on fertilizers. Many fertilizers are highly explosives, and those that aren't are either a.) Highly expensive or b.) Highly ineffective. (At least, this is colloquial advice. I'm not a master farmer, nor do I have a master list of all fertilizers. In all fairness, neither do farmers).

Fertilizers are explosive, however. They were the main explosive in the Timothy McVeigh bombings, IIRC.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Gun controls make it harder for them to get guns. I don't know why they don't get as much firepower as they can get..... Oh, yeah nuclear bombs aren't legal.

Nuclear bombs are different the firearms. An AK-47 can be made for $100. A nuclear bomb takes several years and several million dollars. Gun control makes it harder for legitimate citizens to purchase firearms. Why would criminals, who already buy their weapons illegally, be effected by more laws?

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

How can you prove that a person is going to kill somebody.

Reasonable belief. If a person is charging at me with a knife, I have a legitimate belief that my life is danger. If a person is pointing a gun at me, I have a legitimate belief that my life is in danger. Finally, if they are swinging a bat at my head, I have a legitimate belief that my life is in danger.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Yes, but it's easier to kill with a gun than with a lawn chair.

Less lethal kills fewer people, ergo, it is better.

In my mind it doesn't mean it's better. As much as I would love to use a pepperball launcher on a criminal instead of a gun, I know a pepperball launcher won't stand a chance against a determined criminal. Neither will a tazer or baton.

A gun, will.

Originally Posted by Cicero

Food can come from a lot of other sources, and hey, humans did a lot of effective hunting before guns were invented. And I'll add that most hunting that goes on in the world nowadays is far from the 'legal' kind (poaching).

Also, there are also far more effective ways of controlling pests.

I think the number of legal hunters within the United States, Canada, Britian, the UK, and essentially every country excluding Africa and parts of South America, far outweighs the number of poachers.

Also, while food can come from other sources, I would like to be in control of where the food I put in my body comes from.

Finally, while hunting has been done without firearms, it has not been done as effectively or as cleanly with a firearm. True, I do love bow-hunting as well, but are they not just as bad as guns in that regard?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

I'm talking about outside the family.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Hell I've been in quite a few fights that might have ended without me having to go to the hospital,might have caused someone else to go to the morgue or ICU ward but I wouldn't have had to pull a pig sticker out of my left forearm (The bastard was trying for my throat) I didn't do anything but walk into a dive resturant to get directions,three old boys started some shit I tried to avoid it but it still happened,I survived but just barely,it ended when the owner pulled a shotgun and told them to hit the floor.

[LiUsAiDh]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Some times you do. If a criminal has a gun, and he's shooting at you, what option do you have but to roll over? Even gun control can't eliminate the presence of firearms in the hands of criminals.

If the guy's shooting at you, taser him, take his gun and handcuff him.

As much as it's desirable to handcuff him before he gets to you, sometimes you can't.

If you can't taser him in time, you won't be able to shoot him in time either.


I think the fertiliser thing we can put to rest, until somebody who knows something about fertilisers crops up. Geddit haha. Wow I made a joke

Gun control makes it harder for legitimate citizens to purchase firearms. Why would criminals, who already buy their weapons illegally, be effected by more laws?

Because of the people who the gun dealers buy off wouldn't be selling them. Also it would be easier for policemen to arrest everyone holding a gun, than to distinguish who is meant to have one and who isn't, in which time said gun dealer/gangmember, has probably fucked off to shoot somebody else.

Reasonable belief. If a person is charging at me with a knife, I have a legitimate belief that my life is danger. If a person is pointing a gun at me, I have a legitimate belief that my life is in danger. Finally, if they are swinging a bat at my head, I have a legitimate belief that my life is in danger.

How do you know they're actually going to follow through and kill you though. They might realise their wrongs and stop, and let you live. Therefore they become a good person. Who you'd have just killed. You also don't know the reason that they're doing it, what if their family is being threatened, okay they're weak for giving in to the kidnapper's demands or whatever. But that doesn't remove their right to live, they're just as much victims as you.

In my mind it doesn't mean it's better. As much as I would love to use a pepperball launcher on a criminal instead of a gun, I know a pepperball launcher won't stand a chance against a determined criminal. Neither will a tazer or baton.

Why won't a taser won't stop a criminal, taser, then cuff him. Voila, threat gone.

I think the number of legal hunters within the United States, Canada, Britian, the UK, and essentially every country excluding Africa and parts of South America, far outweighs the number of poachers.

You'd be surprised. I lived in the countryside until very recently and it wasn't that rare I'd see blokes with shotguns and lurchers.

And no, they weren't legit, they were on our neighbour's land.

I know, after 12.5 years of living in the countryside, two legit hunters.

Also, while food can come from other sources, I would like to be in control of where the food I put in my body comes from.

Buy an apple tree and some local chicken then.

Who knows where wild animals have been and what parasites and diseases they carry.

Finally, while hunting has been done without firearms, it has not been done as effectively or as cleanly with a firearm. True, I do love bow-hunting as well, but are they not just as bad as guns in that regard?

You ever eaten pheasant shot by a shotgun? Regrettably, I have, clean and effective, no.

I'm talking about outside the family.

I don't see the relevance; you think it's less scary and upsetting to see your family try to kill other members of your family.

I really don't see your point.

I mean, you think he was less likely to kill her because she was his daughter, ha, fat chance, the only thing that saved her was that the gun was broken.