Debate: Guns: Good or Bad?

[MoDTassadar]

I shall start a debate about rather having guns for everyone in America is good or bad.

The non-Americans can join in as well.

[Cryptonic]

Gun Homicides in 2009:

USA: 11,493
Canada: 173

'nuff said

Here are some more recent stats, but I didn't know the year so I didn't use it:
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms

[TimeTrx]

What should be allowed:

• Non-Automatic Rifles
• Shotguns

What shouldn't be allowed:

• Concealables
• Silencers
• Automatics
• Modifying the gun in anyway other than repair

What should be up for debate:

• Pistols

[Brendan]

Not for everyone...

[Chane]

you can choose, weed or guns.

I side with the netherlands :P

[Slaol]

Gun Homicides in 2009:

USA: 11,493
Canada: 173

'nuff said

Here are some more recent stats, but I didn't know the year so I didn't use it:
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...-with-firearms

This. ^
I live in good ol' Texas. Lots of gun support and rednecks. They like to point out that the shooting in Norway recently was the 'Deadliest shooting of all time.', but then they disregard that the U.S. has more gun deaths each year than every nation that isn't in some kind of civil war. People don't need guns for 'protection' if there are less, or no, people with guns for attacking.

[creedkingsx]

I don't mind guns like a pistol here in there, and, you know, basic home defense. But all this stuff like automatic weapons and shotguns and people who have like 18 guns in their living room, alone, is overkill.

Limit it to non-automatic, pistols fine, no shotties, and 1 gun per person, and I am okay with it.

Moderation has been something that the USA has no ability to learn from other countries, see alcohol and McDonalds. This is the only way I can think to force moderation in the idea of guns.

Problem is, this is something that has been as it is for so long that it will never happen.
To many dumbasses alive and scared of change.

[MoDTassadar]

I finally have time to post my response (to my own question xD).

Anyways, I think they should be outlawed and that we should use Enland's system where only the army and the SWAT team can have guns. People think that they can protect themselves with the guns - and they can, but it is rare for this to happen, and more often, guns will be used for bad things like robbing or even murder. Not only that, but if you are attacked by a person with a gun, you will most likely die because if you have no experience with using guns, the criminal will easily shoot you while you miss him. Also, if they were not intending to kill you originally, then they would if you pulled out a gun.

Some might argue that people can still murder and rob with knives, and they are right, but there are more benefits to having criminals use knives instead of guns. People will have a better chance of survival against knives than guns. It will also be easier for SWAT teams and the army to defeat criminals because they have long ranged weapons and the criminals don't.

To top this off, the amendment that gives people the right to have guns was only created in case the British tried to invade us, so we would be able to protect ourselves.

[Bruno]

Canada's got more guns and less homicide, sooo...

Guns don't kill people.

Stupid people kill people.

[AppleyNO]

All I know is that it is a whole lot harder to kill someone with a knife then a gun.

Justsaying.

[creedkingsx]

All I know is that it is a whole lot harder to kill someone with a knife then a gun.

Justsaying.

That depends on the knife. lol

[TimeTrx]

So, the tally is:

Anti-Guns (total ban):

• MoDTassadar
• Cryptonic
• Chane?
• CMG

Pro-Guns (with laws):

• Creedkingsx
• TimeTrx

[creedkingsx]

I wouldn't consider me pro-gun per say, just I understand the entertainment value they can carry and the want for basic home defense. Strict emphasis on basic.
That, coupled with the example we made of prohibition with amendment number 18, I understand it will never happen so it is the best compromise.

[TimeTrx]

I wouldn't consider me pro-gun per say, just I understand the entertainment value they can carry and the want for basic home defense. Strict emphasis on basic.
That, coupled with the example we made of prohibition with amendment number 18, I understand it will never happen so it is the best compromise.

I said Pro-Gun with laws, aka limits on how many, how to use them, etc. Myself I don't like the idea of concealed arms.

[CmG]

anti gun all the way. I totaly fail to see the point to have a gun at home. If no one has guns at home nobody has to fear his neighbours. It's just plain stupid to allow them. Freedom is nice yeah awesome. Still has to be regulated. I wouldn't want to have a gun at home it's just another possibiltiy to die in your own home.

[Slaol]

anti gun all the way. I totaly fail to see the point to have a gun at home. If no one has guns at home nobody has to fear his neighbours. It's just plain stupid to allow them. Freedom is nice yeah awesome. Still has to be regulated. I wouldn't want to have a gun at home it's just another possibiltiy to die in your own home.

The problem with the human brain is we naturally shy away from regulation. We desire freedom. If we were all regulated to get our regiment, and nothing else, we would feel trapped. Our nature is to expect and push towards freedom, regardless of if it is logical. It is why we don't like the idea of destiny, or the idea of knowing EXACTLY when we will die. We strive to feel like we can take control of our situation. Having no gun, even if it is safer feels less in control to us. I am anti-guns. Less die with less weapons. If I could flip a switch and change the world- murder would be legal, but no one would ever feel the need. It just so happens that we have to regulate, because we can not manage to not kill ourselves if there isn't a punishment.

[TimeTrx]

The problem with the human brain is we naturally shy away from regulation. We desire freedom. If we were all regulated to get our regiment, and nothing else, we would feel trapped. Our nature is to expect and push towards freedom, regardless of if it is logical. It is why we don't like the idea of destiny, or the idea of knowing EXACTLY when we will die. We strive to feel like we can take control of our situation. Having no gun, even if it is safer feels less in control to us. I am anti-guns. Less die with less weapons. If I could flip a switch and change the world- murder would be legal, but no one would ever feel the need. It just so happens that we have to regulate, because we can not manage to not kill ourselves if there isn't a punishment.

So, just because people do kill people with guns, I can't shoot my gun at a paper target for sport?

[CmG]

And why do you need those guns at your home. If you only use them for sport? Are u kidding?

[TimeTrx]

And why do you need those guns at your home. If you only use them for sport? Are u kidding?

I don't, was trying to make the point of guns being used for sport. Like a friend of the family has a firearm for hunting deer.

[creedkingsx]

And why do you need those guns at your home. If you only use them for sport? Are u kidding?

Like I said, at this point of the USA, even the government straight made them illegal, every criminal would have one and all the innocent wouldn't.

[CmG]

So what? If they decide to shoot you down you are dead anyway or do you have a gun on your belt like the cowboys had in the wild west?

[creedkingsx]

So what? If they decide to shoot you down you are dead anyway or do you have a gun on your belt like the cowboys had in the wild west?

If a guy breaks in and holds a gun to my wife in the living room and I am the bedroom, I want to be able to grab a gun and shoot him from behind before he can hurt my family.

[Slaol]

If a guy breaks in and holds a gun to my wife in the living room and I am the bedroom, I want to be able to grab a gun and shoot him from behind before he can hurt my family.

Neither person has a gun. Now the situation is what?

[creedkingsx]

Neither person has a gun. Now the situation is what?

He better hope he can take me on. lol

[Apocist]

If you take our guns away, how else can we defend ourselves from oppressors?

'The right to bear arms' allows us to defend ourselves from our government, they should not be the only ones with the ability to control with force.

[creedkingsx]

If you take our guns away, how else can we defend ourselves from oppressors?

'The right to bear arms' allows us to defend ourselves from our government, they should not be the only ones with the ability to control with force.

This isn't so much a relevant point because if the government were to ever decide to dictate the country, they would have to first understand that their military force is made up of citizens, just like us, who have the right of choice.

A government without it's people is doomed to die. Any halfwit can realize that.

[TimeTrx]

Do you really think criminals would not have access to guns if they were banned?

[Necroplant]

Riot control. In medieval times, it was spears and swords that kept the mob back, but a peasant had an equal fighting chance with a soldier even with simple farm tools. There were no arms-control laws back then that said farmers had to keep their tools locked-up and registered with the local government. So revolutions were much easier back then because the peasantry had an equal fighting chance against the king's protectors, as long as they had the numbers.

Modern-day riot control, the mob outnumbers the police still. But they introduce laws like:

-assault on an officer
-killing an officer
-using an unregistered firearm

These laws are excessive punishment for simply resisting. Don't defend cops: a lot of them want to hurt civilians, or lay waste to them if they really want.

The defense contractors are always developing new riot-control methods that make peaceful protest virtually impossible, the latest being the Pain Ray that doesn't cause burns but makes you feel like you're on fire. If a citizen wants to fight back equally, he/she faces a lifetime prison term or even the death penalty for killing "the shining knight", the police officer.

Are guns good/bad? The question is, are they better off in the hands of our police? NO! Police have discharged their firearms in situations where their life wasn't really threatened. A lot of cops are reactionary now and will just shoot first, and they have legal protection to do so. The citizen does not. Yes I know someone who has a gun can do what they did at Columbine.

THAT'S LIFE. We have maniacs. Take away the guns, they'll just use something else. Or they'll use their car to mow people down. Gun legislation doesn't work, because it's just a means to an end. A murderous citizen would do anything possible to kill their enemy, even if guns didn't exist.

[Jim]

I live in a large metropolitan city where more people are killed by officers than people killing eachother. Concealed weapons are legal so people can have redicuolous kinds of fire-arms with them that are not needed and nobody knows can tell they have them. Cops know anyone can have a gun so they are so scared of someone that they pull over or something to shoot them they usually fire first if someone is out of line or baligerant.

[Necroplant]

I live in a large metropolitan city where more people are killed by officers than people killing eachother. Concealed weapons are legal so people can have redicuolous kinds of fire-arms with them that are not needed and nobody knows can tell they have them. Cops know anyone can have a gun so they are so scared of someone that they pull over or something to shoot them they usually fire first if someone is out of line or baligerant.

All the more defense for why Robocops should exist. Robocops follow prime directives. And what if they malfunction? They become the equivalent of a human police officer. I'd be cool with robot cops, it removes emotion from the arrest. Also, cops don't really get punished for any accidental murders. Soldiers in a battlefield are held to tighter rules of engagement than police officers. Usually the most severe punishment a cop will face for multiple abuses is termination, and "free to go!" A soldier faces a court-martial for executing a wounded Taliban soldier in the head.

Yeah, I say remove ALL guns. That includes tasers. If the cop can't handle big dudes, fire them and find someone who can. Putting weak women and puny men into the line of duty is totally irresponsible.

No wonder the cops need guns, most of them are pussies without them.

[Ash]

Do you really think criminals would not have access to guns if they were banned?

Yes, I'm sure the U.S has fabricated a shitton of weapons already by now.

[Necroplant]

Do you really think criminals would not have access to guns if they were banned?

It's funny you mention that, because that is what gun control legislation is like in Canada. Whenever there's a murder committed by a criminal with an illegal firearm, the government proposes further restricting the registered gun owners.

Yes, from time to time, a registered gun owner may kill a person. Doesn't mean everyone should have to suffer for it. But yes, the legal system (in the U.S and Canada) are continuously restricting the situations where you're allowed to use it.

However, of course they have "Stand Your Ground" states, including Florida and Texas, where police apprehension is a simple booking and you're free to go. If Trayvon Martin's family hadn't created such an uproar, Zimmerman would've gone to work the next day with no infractions whatsoever. The murder of Trayvon Martin would've been as unnoticeable as a night spent in the drunk tank.

[Cryptonic]

Do you really think criminals would not have access to guns if they were banned?

Youre acting like if guns were banned, there's be no difference in the number of people carrying firearms.

[Blazer]

Youre acting like if guns were banned, there's be no difference in the number of people carrying firearms.

If guns were banned, criminals would still have their ways to get the guns. The law-abiding citizens wouldn't have them though. It would be a little harder for criminals I imagine.

[Cryptonic]

Do you really think criminals would not have access to guns if they were banned?

If guns were banned, criminals would still have their ways to get the guns. The law-abiding citizens wouldn't have them though. It would be a little harder for criminals I imagine.

They are banned in Canada. Criminals have them. I can go buy one of I wanted.
We have like 1% of the firearm murders that USA does.

America needs to keep the guns away from stupid people, not criminals.

[BorkBot]

Criminals usually don't even use their guns for anything other than threatening if they don't have to, because they know damn well that their chances of getting away with what they're doing are significantly better if they don't leave any dead bodies, so long as they make sure they're not recognised.

Now if you put guns in the hands of common people to "protect" themselves, those criminals have something to worry more about than chances of getting caught. They'll much more readily shoot their victims if it means their chances of getting away unharmed are better.


As for Necroplant's medieval analogy, it doesn't entirely hold up.
The military had the advantage of armour and some level of training, and while farming implements could be used to kill they were far from ideal to use against an organised force with proper equipment. Most notable are bows. While citizens could have access to them, it takes quite a lot of strength and practice to fire a bow at moving targets.

When crossbows became more widely accessible, the pope soon outlawed the use of them against Christians. Reason? Because they're ridiculously easy to use and the force behind the bolts was enough to pierce through platemail worn by knights and noblemen.

Looks familiar? ;)

[Cryptonic]

Criminals usually don't even use their guns for anything other than threatening if they don't have to, because they know damn well that their chances of getting away with what they're doing are significantly better if they don't leave any dead bodies, so long as they make sure they're not recognised.

Exactly this. Most career criminals aren't retards that are dropping bodies all the time. They'd be jailed too quick.
There are so many firearm related murders in USA because everyone is carrying one. As soon as someone has a "heat of the moment" reaction to something someone does to them, one draws on the person.

[Lazers]

Guns are pretty fucking neutral. On one hand, they bring with them a lot more murders (in some ways), but on the other hand, they also protect against other criminal acts, like burglary and assault. See picture & link:

https://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31...ge-statistics/


Also, banning/restricting guns doesn't have much of an impact on the actual crimes caused by them. See: UK

P.S. Canada doesn't apply to this thread because it's a frozen shithole with a small population and not nearly as many hoods/gangs. You'd have to multiply whatever statistics associated with it by about 100 to get accurate results

[Blazer]

Don't touch my guns.

Lazers I love that picture.

[BorkBot]

99% of all statistics posted on the internet are made up, including this one.

Even if they were true, those numbers on that image mean nothing by themselves.

Because it doesn't say:
- Whether the use of guns had any positive influence on the outcome of those encounters, or if they made a difference at all
- What's considered to be "defense against a criminal?" Is using a gun to chase away some homeless bum who is sleeping in your barn counted here? And if so, why the heck would you need a gun for that anyway?
- What is considered to be a law abiding citizen? Does this include cops/guards/law enforcement that could legally bear arms doing their job anyway? Does it include corrupt individuals who are up to their neck in shady practices, but who don't get caught/don't have a criminal record?
- How many of those 6850 cases per day could be avoided altogether if gun possession was made illegal? And how many lives would be spared?

[Lazers]

99% of all statistics posted on the internet are made up, including this one.

Even if they were true, those numbers on that image mean nothing by themselves.

It's not made up. They're statistics from numerous sources, (which you can probably confirm in even some media sites) and mainly are made by prominent political figures or supporters. And, no, they don't mean anything individually, but you must realize that there are NUMEROUS points detailed there. Not just one.

Because it doesn't say:
- Whether the use of guns had any positive influence on the outcome of those encounters, or if they made a difference at all

Of course they made a positive influence. They stopped the crimes without death, no? Also, if you bothered to read the link I posted, you'd actually notice that they PREVENTED extra deaths in cases where people were already dieing

- What's considered to be "defense against a criminal?" Is using a gun to chase away some homeless bum who is sleeping in your barn counted here? And if so, why the heck would you need a gun for that anyway?

Criminal attacks, aka burglary, assault, theft, rape, battery, etc. It's stated in the citations, but you seem to be completely ignorant to them. Please take the time to read before you blunder into an argument

- What is considered to be a law abiding citizen? Does this include cops/guards/law enforcement that could legally bear arms doing their job anyway? Does it include corrupt individuals who are up to their neck in shady practices, but who don't get caught/don't have a criminal record?

No, cops are considered governmental and thus are not citizens. Common sense. The latter may be true, but it would be a negligible percentage.

- How many of those 6850 cases per day could be avoided altogether if gun possession was made illegal? And how many lives would be spared?

Gun control has absolutely nothing to do with actual crime. Maybe fatalities per crime, but not the total number of violent cases. Knives, crowbars, hell, pretty much any blunt object can kill just as efficiently. Guns just make it quick. By the way, just because there is gun control doesn't mean guns don't exist. All it means is that criminals will still get guns while normal citizens cannot.

See: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...tas-study.html

EDIT: Also, I'd like to point out, that crime hotspots like New York, Detroit, Chicago, etc., already possess heavy gun restrictions. Yet, they are the leading cities for violent gun crimes in the States. My point? Restrictions wouldn't do shit, anyway. Criminal will be criminals. They could just make their own fucking guns, or smuggle them/buy them illegally/whatever

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-made-weapons/
https://www.scribd.com/doc/13116475/4-Winds-Shotgun


In the end, restrictions would be like drug laws. Aka nothing, loads of wasted money.

https://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500368_162-4222322.html

Finally:



lol @ Cryptonic repeatedly derepping me because I have a different opinion than him

[BorkBot]

I find your sources questionable if they can't even spell homicide. Bunch of homophobes, lol.

I really wouldn't say the UK, Canada, Netherlands and other western world countries that prohibit gun ownership are doing so badly when it comes to murders per capita.

https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ths-per-capita
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people

[Lazers]

I find your sources questionable if they can't even spell homicide. Bunch of homophobes, lol.

I really wouldn't say the UK, Canada, Netherlands and other western world countries that prohibit gun ownership are doing so badly when it comes to murders per capita.

https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ths-per-capita
https://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...100-000-people

UK is arguable, but yes I can agree on the other countries. Problem is: they don't have as many dumb people

[Necroplant]

As for Necroplant's medieval analogy, it doesn't entirely hold up.
The military had the advantage of armour and some level of training, and while farming implements could be used to kill they were far from ideal to use against an organised force with proper equipment. Most notable are bows. While citizens could have access to them, it takes quite a lot of strength and practice to fire a bow at moving targets.

And your argument doesn't hold up because you forget how poorly-equipped most medieval soldiers/armies were. Nowadays modern militaries issue standard gear, and if they can't, they look pretty silly fighting a war if they can't afford to equip their soldiers.

But back in medieval times, where do you think the army came from? Peasants, the same peasants who get conscripted into an army. The lords and kings were so cheap that they would only arm them with the bare essentials. Even a suit of chain-mail was a luxury item, and oftimes the soldier had to pay out-of-pocket to get a suit of mail or plate armour. Also many front-line infantry regiments didn't all have swords, they were forced to also use farming implements.

Sure, the lord/king would arm his personal guardsmen properly, but these are just a hundred men for example, against a crowd of a thousand for instance. If you saw the first episodes of Walking Dead Season 3, that chick stabs a walker in riot gear UNDER the helmet, which is the soft-spot. All armor has soft spots, and it was impractical to have face-visors as it restricted vision.

Yeah they could just shoot arrows into the crowd. I don't have a record of how many massacres there were versus successful revolts, but they were basically killing their workforce. Also siege weapons were impractical in close quarters.

I wish the lord and defense forces would just TALK to the protestors, back then and in modern times. It's utterly pathetic how there is no dialogue in response to a massive protest movement, and the solution is always brute force. It's quite cowardly and shows how illegitimate a leader is.

[Nick]

We should have guns to protect ourselves from the government army.

Comparison used was pitchfork against spears, guns against assault rifles.

Hmm...

Who is going to supply the commoners with armored tanks, fighter aircraft, chemical weapons and cluster bombs?

I look forward to a rebellion in USA. Lets see if US citizens fare better against their dictatorial governments than people from other countries.

You guys never learn.

[CmG]

And your argument doesn't hold up because you forget how poorly-equipped most medieval soldiers/armies were. Nowadays modern militaries issue standard gear, and if they can't, they look pretty silly fighting a war if they can't afford to equip their soldiers.

They had standart equipment as well. A Peasant with a pitchfork vs drilled soldiers is a huge difference. The Equipment is secondary because peasants usually fail at tactics. No education is bad. Also low morale as well. There are so many factors who play a role in any uprising.

But back in medieval times, where do you think the army came from? Peasants, the same peasants who get conscripted into an army. The lords and kings were so cheap that they would only arm them with the bare essentials. Even a suit of chain-mail was a luxury item, and oftimes the soldier had to pay out-of-pocket to get a suit of mail or plate armour. Also many front-line infantry regiments didn't all have swords, they were forced to also use farming implements. Sure, the lord/king would arm his personal guardsmen properly, but these are just a hundred men for example, against a crowd of a thousand for instance.

Another false argument. This only applies to the early part of the Medieval age. Even the Romans fielded already a professional army. The conscripted peasants were just the fodder for the first wave or for the flanks. Equipped with weapons which didn't require a lot of craftmanship and expensive materials. (spears, axes, maces) They usually had no armor at all. Even leather armor was not affordable. A plate armor was as expensive as a space rocket nowadays in comparison.

Every medieval lord had a standing army with professional soldiers. They needed the rabble only for numbers.

If you saw the first episodes of Walking Dead Season 3, that chick stabs a walker in riot gear UNDER the helmet, which is the soft-spot. All armor has soft spots, and it was impractical to have face-visors as it restricted vision.

Show me how u aim for "weak spots" in a battle when you have no idea whats happening and you just shit your pants and never have seen any Walking Dead. ;)

Yeah they could just shoot arrows into the crowd. I don't have a record of how many massacres there were versus successful revolts, but they were basically killing their workforce. Also siege weapons were impractical in close quarters.

Sure shoot your peasants dead. Not a good idea. If you just could kill the revolt leader and wait until the fear of the afterlife kicks in. Real life is totaly different to the crap u watch daily on TV.

I wish the lord and defense forces would just TALK to the protestors, back then and in modern times. It's utterly pathetic how there is no dialogue in response to a massive protest movement, and the solution is always brute force. It's quite cowardly and shows how illegitimate a leader is.

I suggest you start to read something about human psychology. You seem "as usual" having a lack of realism. ;)

[CmG]

We should have guns to protect ourselves from the government army.

Comparison used was pitchfork against spears, guns against assault rifles.

Hmm...

Who is going to supply the commoners with armored tanks, fighter aircraft, chemical weapons and cluster bombs?

I look forward to a rebellion in USA. Lets see if US citizens fare better against their dictatorial governments than people from other countries.

You guys never learn.

Germany will sell you tanks and awesome rifles bro! We are on the 3rd place worldwide in selling weaponry. The difference is our stuff his high quality. The EU has now an online selling homepage where countries can buy our military equipment we want to sell. We are so awesome! I hope those oil cheiks like our Leopard tanks! ;D

[Lazers]

We should have guns to protect ourselves from the government army.

Comparison used was pitchfork against spears, guns against assault rifles.

Hmm...

Who is going to supply the commoners with armored tanks, fighter aircraft, chemical weapons and cluster bombs?

I look forward to a rebellion in USA. Lets see if US citizens fare better against their dictatorial governments than people from other countries.

You guys never learn.

Confused at what you're trying to convey here. The Arab Spring is a perfect example of how badly-armed rebels can overthrow strong militaries

Also desertion would play a big part, too. I can imagine many soldiers taking the side of the crowd rather than the government

[Nick]

Germany will sell you tanks and awesome rifles bro! We are on the 3rd place worldwide in selling weaponry. The difference is our stuff his high quality. The EU has now an online selling homepage where countries can buy our military equipment we want to sell. We are so awesome! I hope those oil cheiks like our Leopard tanks! ;D

Tanks! Lovely. Time to make some human pancakes. Quells dissent effectively.

[Nick]

Confused at what you're trying to convey here. The Arab Spring is a perfect example of how badly-armed rebels can overthrow strong militaries

Also desertion would play a big part, too. I can imagine many soldiers taking the side of the crowd rather than the government

Since when Arab Spring was won through armed rebellion? Which Arab Spring are you talking about?

Ah, perhaps you are talking about foreign supported rebels.