Gun Control

[OverMind]

First and foremost, thank the non-existent Gods that a forum for serious discussions finally exists. I can finally leave my unnatural habitat that is the "Off-Topic" forum and form my own niche here.

So, what's your position on Gun Control?

[HeavyDDR]

Well, I don't honestly know.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people, but the gun is a major factor in the killing. I'll just say that.

[ZakFrost]

If you really want to kill someone you're going to kill them, one way or another. What gun control will do is cut down on hunting and killing some who you don't really want to kill, which is good, I guess.

[PhantomFan]

I think that while people can have the right to own a gun, it becomes a problem if you are an addict on drugs or have some mental problems. Times like that and you could have teens or young adults who need help going around killing people at their schools, which is really a tragedy. On the other hand, people should be examined before the are given rights to own a gun. Those who have some sort of problem that may require therepy should not be able to own a gun, or we have things like the VT shooting. All in all, what it might come down to is whether it is worth the risk of shootings from insane people just to have the right to own a gun for your own protection, because you have to think of other people's safety as well

[klokwerk]

my god, you said exactly what o was going to say.

And DDR's right, Guns don't kill people, People kill people. If i sit a gun in the ground it's not going to turn around and kill someone.

[HeavyDDR]

I think that while people can have the right to own a gun,
At first I thought you said "I think that white people can have the right to own a gun."

Ho ho. Serious laughs in a serious discussion.

Edit: Also, you can't just GET a gun, you know. (In most states anyway.) You have to sign a sheet that asks for a bunch of things. (Health problems, past experiences, etc.) and then someone (Governor? Not too sure.) has to check over it and claim whether it's safe to give such a man a weapon. The gun also depends on the situation. If it's just for for protection, it's usually just a pistol. If it's for hunting, which I think has a lot of lower limits, you can get more stuff but only for such situations.

Of course this is in the states.

[PhantomFan]

I know that
But I'm just saying that the VT shooting could have been prevented with more gun control

[HeavyDDR]

I wasn't aiming that directly at you. Just so you know.

[PhantomFan]

well, since you replied to my post, it is understandable
and you do know that I'm not racist in any way [about the whole "white" thing]

[HeavyDDR]

and you do know that I'm not racist in any way [about the whole "white" thing]
I misread it...

[PhantomFan]

I just want you to know that I'm not
before anyone starts to judge

[xellos88]

This:you really want to kill someone you're going to kill them, one way or another

[TwilightSuzuka]

Coming from a family that hunts for the meat we eat(hehe that rhymes) I think people should be alowed to own guns, but with that said I know alot of people out there that are complete imbasols and dont know sh** about how to use one or what a gun shoudl be used for. Like, or example, people will say they bought a gun for self defense, if you want to defend yourself why dont you go take some martial arts classes or something.
So yeah, I have mixed feelings.

[xellos88]

Like, or example, people will say they bought a gun for self defense, if you want to defend yourself why dont you go take some martial arts classes or something.
And what if the guy that assaults you has a gun? ¬_¬

[klokwerk]

then you need a gun

[HeavyDDR]

The flaw in that plan is that if that person attacking you has a gun, you're dead.

Unless you plan on deflecting those bullets with your fist.
And then jump in the air and do a summer salt
As Abraham Lincoln tried to pole-volt
Onto Optimus Prime
But you'll collide and the air
And both get hit by a Care Bear stare...!

This is the Ultimate Showdown, of Ultimate Destiny!
Good guys, bad guys, and explosions,
far as the eye can see,
and only one can survive, I wonder
who will it be,
this is the Ultimate Showdown...

[TwilightSuzuka]

Yeah, I know what you guys mean.
I was just stating that because I know alot of people that have guns for self defense and they dont know how to use them, but yeah most of the time with martial arts you cant really fight a guy with a gun unless they are right next to you.

[Rakatung]

I'm going to quote the Queen song "Put Out the Fire":

"You know a gun never killed nobody
You can ask anyone
People get shot by people
People with guns"

I don't understand why people should be allowed to carry weapons, unless have a good reason (like hunting) since well... if noone had guns, you wouldn't need a gun to protect you from other people, since they don't have guns either

... yeah i kinda lost focus on that last sentence...

[GRAWP]

The whole "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people" thing is stupidly flawed. Where I come from, Guns are illegal, except for hunting rifles and the like, which only farmers are allowed to have. Australia got rid of guns after Port Arthur, and it's not a suprise that we have very low murder rates. If you're going to say that a person will kill you regardless of whether they have a gun or not, think about school massacres, like Virgina and Columbine. Those would never have happened if those kids didn't have access to powerful weapons. And saying that you need guns to defend against people with guns is dumb too. If guns were banned, no-one, including dangerous and/or unstable people would be able to get them, which eliminates the need for them.

[xellos88]

Those would never have happened
ypu have any proof of that? If a crazy person really wants to kill someone else they will, it's not like murder was invented with guns.guns were banned, no-one, including dangerous and/or unstable people would be able to get them
Just like underage people cant get porn or alcohol? just like people cant buy any illegal drugs? Criminals would still find a way.
I admit that more rigurous control is needed (for qhat i heard in USA it's stupidly easy to get a gun), but banning something doesnt means it magically disapears

[DarkWarrior]

There's also the problem of the underground, you see. If the country makes it illegal, then want for them will go up in the black market, where only the wrong people will be getting them.

Also, the removal of firearms rights is one of the many preludes to government takeover, but that's another issue entirely.

[ChaosVincent1]

for anyone who says "Guns kill people":
It's just as logical as saying "Spoons made Rosie O'Donell fat"

Somebody has to pull the trigger...

Here's a pic of someone who implemented a gun ban in Germany which has since been lifted.
http://downwiththeinternet.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/hitler.jpg
So, I will officially call anyone who wants to ban all guns a Nazi.

[WillPhanto1]

@ChaosVincent1: I would have went with Fascism or Totalitarianism, since the term Nazi gets throw around alot.

I posted this before the time warp,
The whole point of the Second Amendment is to protect the other Amendments. It's not only can people protect themselves from criminals and invaders, but also protect their rights from getting infringed by the government itself. So if the government became so corrupt that voices of the America people are ignored or silenced, we can rise up take back or country and restore our rights.

Also, the Virginia Tech guy was quite disturbed, not to mention he planned his attack well. I doubt having guns inaccessible to him would have stopped his attack. He could have easily used other weapons such as, axes, hatchets, swords, bow&arrows, chains, whips, knifes, chainsaws, and common household or outdoor items.
In West Ambler Johnston shootings he killed two people in the early morning, something that could have been done just as well with a common knife like you would use to cut up your food.
The Norris Hall shootings, he chained up the three main entrance doors shut, and place a note saying that they were hooked up to a bomb (which wasn’t true.). So he could of gone on his rampage, causing people to panic, try to go to the doors, only to find them chained shut and notes saying that they were rigged to a bomb, which would have caused them to panic more, causing them to make mistakes and giving the V.T. killer a easier time killing handling them and killing them.

Violence is a weed, we can try to cut at the top, but it will always come back that way. You must pull it out by the root, and the root is it the human heart.

[GcarOatmealRaisinCookies]

The second ammendment is...
http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/malmal_lovesyou/larrythecableguy.jpg
But seriously, A gun is just a piece of metal until someone loads it and makes it a weapon.

[ChaosVincent1]

Hitler actually did take guns from Jews. It's just a little piece of history that gets brushed aside for a political agenda.

[GRAWP]

ChaosVinnie, you and WillPhanto1 are both funny. I think banning guns is the sensible thing to do, therefore I MUST hate Jews, Gays, disabled people, and I MUST love gas chambers, Brown uniforms, and the Fuhrer. Please think of more sensible insults/arguements. And as for the charming young man who made Virginia Tech famous, has anyone EVER managed a mass killing with close-range weapons designed for other purposes? NO. And knives can never cause as much damage as A: They lack real power and B: Knife-maniacs are easier to outrun than bullets. Still, I know that Americans will continue to shoot each other to pieces in the name of freedom. Shame.

[V2NT1]

To be perfectly honest, there would only be one way to safely ban guns outright-

Eliminate the existence of guns, bombs, and other modern weaponry.

Impossible, idealistic, and unrealistic, indeed. However, other than hunting, one of the greatest drives (certainly not the only one) for gun ownership is fear- that someone will try to harm them or infringe upon their rights, or as a precautionary measure so that others are discouraged from trying to harm them, which is why the Second Amendment even exists- protection.

Now, don't get me wrong. Plenty of people have abused that right, including those who sell guns to people without background checks. But it is very possible (as already mentioned) that by limiting guns in the public market, those looking to purchase guns might get satisfaction through more underhanded sources and means, which would only worsen the problem.

I think the best solution we actually have is cracking down on the gun salespeople/retailers, as well as the groups who give out licenses to carry guns, who do not do thorough background checks for mental instability or criminal history for their customers.

I think, for now, that would be at least a step in the right direction.

[DarkWarrior]

Impossible, idealistic, and unrealistic, indeed.
More than you know. You guys are all looking at this from a "Bad people have guns and they hurt people with them, so ban guns and the problem will go away." standpoint. To refute this logic:
A) Banning guns will drive people underground.
B) Bad people are bad people. They will do the exact same thing with other common objects. It's happened before, and the inability to easily get guns will not deter them. Note: Inability to easily get them. Not inability to get them.
C) The psychopaths who attacked people in shootings similar to VA Tech are still mentally disturbed. With or without guns. Banning them based on that kind of logic doesn't actually help solve the problem. It takes away one available tool. It's like the video games cause people to kill logic. By taking away the games, you're not solving the person's dementia. It still needs to be fixed, and that is not a fix.
D) What about the people who don't live in the best of areas? Don't they deserve security?
E) And what of the people who worked in law enforcement? Surely they have made enough enemies. Ones that would want revenge. And a gun would certainly be a nice bit of reassurance for them.

Basically, it all comes down to this basic logic, that has been mentioned a few times already:
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

The gun is merely a tool. Nothing more. The question is "How is it used?" And, much as you can try to limit it, it won't work.

[V2NT1]

I actually quite agree. The only thing I am really saying, is that the suppliers should be far more carefully selective (run thorough background checks) as to who they distribute guns and licenses to. Even if this will not actually end the problem, it is a step in the right direction.

I also agree that simple banning of guns would make things worse. But doing nothing won't help us, either. I'm not suggesting new laws, but rather, a stronger enforcement of existent laws.

[Henriksson]

I see a pattern in murder per capita and the availability of guns. Less guns = Less murder.

[DarkWarrior]

But that doesn't matter in the least.

http://www.yugiohtheabridgedseries.com/forum/f24/t2671/#p28

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Absolutely none. Citizens should also have the right to have military technology.

[Henriksson]

Er... exactly why is that to be desired?

[WillPhanto1]

Seeing how most people are getting dumber by the day, access to military technology may not be the best of ideas. Even if a revolution became necessary, I don't think missiles would be used against us, nor needed by us.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, not sometimes infringed or that some Arms shall not be infringed.

Also, if we ever have another revolution against the government, we'd actually stand a chance against the army if we were allowed access to their equipment.

[WillPhanto1]

Well seeing you've been banned, answering you is probably pointless, but here it goes.
Our army is a volunteer based army, people join to serve and protect their follow citizens. If it came to government vs. people in a revolution, I bet alot of people in the military will become confused, and some might join the revolution.

However, talking about a revolution is becoming really pointless here, since things will have to get far much worst for it to matter.

Lets turn the subject a little. . . .has anyone EVER managed a mass killing with close-range weapons designed for other purposes? NO. And knives can never cause as much damage as A: They lack real power and B: Knife-maniacs are easier to outrun than bullets.
Actually, yes. What do you think people used before guns, or before they were reliable? And some of the most horrific murders were committed without guns. Mass killers can plan for months about their attacks. Enough time for them to train with the weapons of choice, and get fit enough to handle the strenuous, exercise, for lack of a better word, involved.

[Henriksson]

I think guns should not be treated like a piece of metal. It's dangerous technology that the enforcements of law should have access to, not the average Joe.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

It's okay to call the cops when an armed criminal breaks into your house, because they'll get there. They'll then proceed to take a picture of your dead body. What makes you think criminals are going to obey gun laws?

If we're going to ban guns because they can kill people, we may as well ban cars too since more people die in car crashes than gun shots.

[klokwerk]

You can't stop people from getting what they want, if they want a gun, they will try to get one, if legal or not.

[DarkWarrior]

Absolutely none. Citizens should also have the right to have military technology.
Military is made up of citizens. The word you're looking for is civillians. And no, I disagree. The Military's technology is generally far too advanced for the generally technologically ignorant people of the civillian sector."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It says the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, not sometimes infringed or that some Arms shall not be infringed.

Also, if we ever have another revolution against the government, we'd actually stand a chance against the army if we were allowed access to their equipment.
Doesn't mean it's wise. You'd have access to the equipment, but how many people would know how to use it? The military, at least, has training & some restraint. Same can't really be said for civilians.

In all honesty, there's a damned good reason that the military keeps secrets & technology from people.
Not 100% related, but I feel it helps convey my point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_the_Worlds_%28radio%29

[TheRealFolkBlues]

Military is made up of citizens. The word you're looking for is civillians. And no, I disagree. The Military's technology is generally far too advanced for the generally technologically ignorant people of the civillian sector.
The average Joe during the American Revolution had the most advanced and up-to-date weaponry.

It doesn't matter if people are too "ignorant", it's a right regardess.Doesn't mean it's wise. Doesn't mean it's wise. You'd have access to the equipment, but how many people would know how to use it? The military, at least, has training & some restraint. Same can't really be said for civilians.
Places with concealed carry rights are one of the most peaceful places in America. It shows that these people have training and restraint.

[lunchbox]

The most advanced weaponry during the American revolution was a musket and a bayonet.To think that todays "average joe" should deserve advanced military technology is both a dumb and horrible idea.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

The most advanced weaponry during the American revolution was a musket and a bayonet.
Your point? In their perspective, a musket and bayonet was very powerful.

And what about the future? In the future, the weapons we have today will be obsolete.To think that todays "average joe" should deserve advanced military technology is both a dumb and horrible idea.
How?

[Henriksson]

Hand guns are very rare murder weapons in countries with gun bans. Guess three times why.

[WillPhanto1]

Hand guns are very rare murder weapons in countries with gun bans. Guess three times why.
And what's the most common weapon I ask you? Knifes, axes, regular garden tools? Getting rid of guns doesn't get rid of the will to murder.
And usually the only place where random gun violence is a problem is big cities, and causes there of violence wouldn't change if guns became outlawed. They'll just them the same way they get drugs, or switch to long knifes.
Idiots who misuse guns will always be idiots. And I for one I'm tired of dumbing everything down for them, or taking freedoms away from everyone just because these people do stupid things. I say if they make the choice to do something stupid, they face consequences. It was their choice, they pay for it.

[Henriksson]

Idiots who misuse biological weapons will always be idiots. And I for one I'm tired of dumbing everything down for them, or taking freedoms away from everyone just because these people do stupid things. I say if they make the choice to do something stupid, they face consequences. It was their choice, they pay for it.

See what I did there? If you really can't live without a piece of metal, there is no hope for you.

Any society that is willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security is realistic.

[killshot]

What do biological weapons have to do with this argument? Guns have purposes other than killing fellow human beings. Biological weapons do not. Any society that is willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security is realistic.
I think you mean the illusion of security. I for one, am not willing to give up even a small freedom in exchange for the illusion of security you are proposing. Just how, may I ask, would banning guns make the world a safer place? Banning guns would have little to no effect on the murder rate. Gun violence is a mere symptom of a larger problem that can't be solved by throwing legislation at it.

[WillPhanto1]

I can live without a gun, but I can not live without liberty. Also, biological and chemical weapons can be made in people's garages if they have the know-how.
Like I said before, removing weapons doesn't remove the intent to harm.

[Henriksson]

Gun violence is a mere symptom of a larger problem that can't be solved by throwing legislation at it.
I did not say that gun ban is the ultimate solution to murder, all I'm saying is that it's an important step towards progress.Like I said before, removing weapons doesn't remove the intent to harm.
But it helps to hinder that intent. Also, the people that makes sure everything is all right, the police and the military, has an easier job without gun-waving idiots.I can not live without liberty.
You think your country is free? You think everything will be better with more weapons?

Liberty is the liberty to never risk being shot to pieces by evil-doers.

[darkarcher]

I think a point that no one seems to have made yet is that guns can already be bought off the black market. Even if there is a gun ban, people who want guns can still get guns, and the people who would be victims have even fewer ways to protect themselves.

[WillPhanto1]

Actually we did make that point, DarkWarrior talked about it the most. Liberty is the liberty to never risk being shot to pieces by evil-doers.
Liberty has nothing to do with safety. Liberty is were an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will. And when somebody (individual or otherwise) tries to oppress another body (individual or otherwise) he/she/they should have the right to defend them-self/selves.

[xellos88]

i said that >_>
It's true that if guns never were invented we would have less murder, but if you make a law against using them then you'll get lots of criminals with guns and unarmed civilians.

[Henriksson]

It's too easy for that "defense" to be used for evil deeds.

[WillPhanto1]

Every form of defense can be used for evil. Even a shield can be used for evil. And you can't always tell if someone has evil or good intentions by just looking or listening to them. Should we just assume that everyone is evil and let our governments put shock collars on everyone just to make sure no one can do anything bad?

[DarkWarrior]

The average Joe during the American Revolution had the most advanced and up-to-date weaponry.

It doesn't matter if people are too "ignorant", it's a right regardess.
Doesn't mean it should be practiced. Just because "It's a right" doesn't mean "It's a good thing to do." Never, ever do something just because you can. You need to think things through.Idiots who misuse biological weapons will always be idiots. And I for one I'm tired of dumbing everything down for them, or taking freedoms away from everyone just because these people do stupid things. I say if they make the choice to do something stupid, they face consequences. It was their choice, they pay for it.

See what I did there? If you really can't live without a piece of metal, there is no hope for you.

Any society that is willing to give up a little liberty to gain a little security is realistic.
Different scale, argument invalid.But it helps to hinder that intent. Also, the people that makes sure everything is all right, the police and the military, has an easier job without gun-waving idiots.
And people in poor neighborhoods are stranded without real defense.You think your country is free? You think everything will be better with more weapons?

Liberty is the liberty to never risk being shot to pieces by evil-doers.
Thing is, they will always exist. Removing the means does not remove the cause.It's too easy for that "defense" to be used for evil deeds.
The most inane, seemingly obvious useless objects can be used for evil.

[lukeh]

As a not so wise person and I once said on IRC: Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE do. I think it's possible to make sure that people don't get hold of the guns in the first place. That would make things a lot better.

[DarkWarrior]

Not a viable option, for reasons explained in this topic.

[Henriksson]

And people in poor neighborhoods are stranded without real defense.
That's an entirely different problem.

[WillPhanto1]

Henriksson, you know you can't relay on the police all the time. They're not superheroes, they can't always come in the nick of time to save you.

[Henriksson]

Neither can you overestimate crocs. At the end of the day, we're all fairly good people. Of course, there are factors that make people violent, but that's a completely different topic. I said it in my previous post but noone seemed to notice.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

A girl at a library near my house got raped and beaten. No cops to the rescue.

<span style='color:purple;'>Blatant flame, user suspended for this.</span>

[WillPhanto1]

Neither can you overestimate crocs.
What do crocodiles have to do with anything? . . .Of course, there are factors that make people violent, but that's a completely different topic. I said it in my previous post but noone seemed to notice.
Are you saying the cause of gun violence and the violence itself are two different problems? That's just stupid. It doesn't matter what you do to the result of a problem if you don't fix the underline cause. And though not everyone is evil, doesn't mean everyone is good, or will not do evil things. Short from brain washing, you can really change what's going on in peoples heads. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to talk to them, that's most likely what I'll do first, but talking doesn't always work, and you'll need to be able to defend yourself or protect others when the time comes.

[Underling]

desu

[WillPhanto1]

what the hell is your point, this could happen anywhere... nobody suggested gun control solves all crime and seeing as she didn't manage to shoot the guy, i guess the right to bear arms didn't help much either...
The point he was making was that police don't always come in time. And the girl he was talking about probably didn't have any kind of weapon, or other means of self-defense.
So what's your point, that we're not even suppose to fight back? That we should let ourselves become victims and just hope we live through it, or that they'll get them at some point or another? I'd rather fire my gun and fight for my right to live, so I can see tomorrow, see my dreams take flight. I rather swing my sword into my enemies to protect those that I love so they too may see their dreams of life swore high along with mines.
Weapons are not just for killing, they also for saving, to protect life.
The good people with weapons with their desire to protect is stronger then those wish to use weapons to destroy.
Destroying is a empty feeling, to grow, to protect that grows is a full feeling.

[Underling]

desu

[Henriksson]

Are you saying everything could have worked out better if the girl had a gun? <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'>

[WillPhanto1]

Perhaps that could of helped the poor girl, but in my opinion, if she'd been trained in Martial Arts, that alone could have saved her. But if they take away one form of defense, they'll take away the form below that one, and they'll repeat the cycle until even knowing Martial Arts will become illegal.

[Underling]

desu

[WillPhanto1]

When I was talking about Martial Arts becoming illegal, I was speaking of higher level Martial Arts. Not the basic self-defense kind, I should of been more clear on that. There are hundreds to thousands of lethal techniques in the Martial Arts. A person can make himself or herself into a deadly weapon. The overall point I was making is that if guns were banned, the other, seemly obsolete forms of defense or offense would become the most (legal) advanced weapons people can get. And the fist, when after conditioning and training, can be a serious weapon in it's own right.

[Nina]

Even if guns were completely made illegal, criminals would still find ways to get their hands on em. The same way Prohibition didn't work out, etc etc. All that gun control does is take guns away from innocent, law abiding citizens and keeps them from protecting themselves from robbers, etc. Take away guns, and criminals will know that it's safe to break into someone's house. I'm completely against gun control.

[Nina]

Will, the "fist" won't do anything for you with an illegally acquired gun pointed at your face. You have to fight fire with fire.

[Underling]

desu

[WillPhanto1]

Will, the "fist" won't do anything for you with an illegally acquired gun pointed at your face. You have to fight fire with fire. You have read all of this thread right? I've been making a strong case against gun control. I was just pointing out that the fist was still a weapon, and under the logic some people have about weapons, Martial Arts would become illegal just to prevent people from using their fists or whatever properly in a fight to lower chances of them using violence. Which of course, against someone with the intent to harm or kill, and who have illegal weapons (or in this case, illegal knowledge.), people would be completely defenseless. i'd rather they got away and hope the police catch them later than they be shot, you can't justify lethal means against petty thieves and vandals...
Using a gun on "petty" thieves and vandals probably is too much, they only need a good ol' fashion ass kicking. But there are far worse people out there then just the petty vandals. They're far more dangerous, and their victims don't always live long enough to hope they get caught.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

petty thieves and vandals...
Defending my property.

[Underling]

desu

[klokwerk]

STEAL HERE, DIE HERE.

That's the risk that the guy runs trying to steal from me.

[Underling]

desu

[klokwerk]

I hold the thief to be morally inferior.

I work hardf to get what I want, and the thief tries to take that all away.

[WillPhanto1]

Okay, I think killing a petty theft is too much. But people can't try to wrong people and not think that they won't fight back. When somebody breaks into your house, you have every right to defend your loved ones, yourself, and your property. Thefts wound have more confidences breaking into a house in a gun banned world, than a house were chances are that the owner has a gun.
Personally, unless I knew they were packing heat, I'd just grab my nunchaku and knock some sense into anybody that breaks into my house and tried to steal from me. But not everyone has the body to fight someone with a melee weapon or their bare fist, their only way of defense would be having a firearm.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

I don't give a shit, you have no right to kill some punk-ass burglar.
Except I have a right to defend not only myself, but my property. Ever heard of property rights?

[WillPhanto1]

And loved ones, don't forget about protecting loved ones.

[Underling]

desu

[Teh]

There are hundreds to thousands of lethal techniques in the Martial Arts. A person can make himself or herself into a deadly weapon.
However, the intended point of most martial arts, including several "dangerous" one, is to protect oneself and others, not to cause harm. Guns, however, were invented for the sole purpose of killing and/or injuring, whether a human or an animal, and that continues to be the thing that guns are best for.

Also, a civilian should not feel compelled to take the law into their own hands simply because they own a weapon that can be used for that purpose. Initial protection can lead to a vigilante mentality, and that only hurts the community. Do not forget the issue of Bernard Goetz.

[WillPhanto1]

However, the intended point of most martial arts, including several "dangerous" one, is to protect oneself and others, not to cause harm.
If the sole intention of the Martial Arts was only to protect and not destroy, why were such lethal techniques invented in the first place? Granted, only the most disciplined practitioner of an Martial Art was allowed to learned such techniques. But still, the inventors of those arts must have saw the necessity of having such deadly techniques.Guns, however, were invented for the sole purpose of killing and/or injuring, whether a human or an animal, and that continues to be the thing that guns are best for.
That's the purpose of all weapons, regardless of which weapon it is. To train to use any weapon is to train to injure and kill. Bladed or blunted, close-range or long-range. To think otherwise is naive.Also, a civilian should not feel compelled to take the law into their own hands simply because they own a weapon that can be used for that purpose. Initial protection can lead to a vigilante mentality, and that only hurts the community. Do not forget the issue of Bernard Goetz.
Violence isn't necessary to be a vigilante. An vigilante is someone who sees the government or police being ineffective in enforcing the law (or what's right.), and who acts with Vigilante justice, which does not necessary mean in a violent way.
You have a point, vigilantes often go too far, and have their own view of justice, which can be flawed like anybodies' opinion. However, one can easily call Revolutionary heroes vigilantes.

[DarkWarrior]

Except I have a right to defend not only myself, but my property. Ever heard of property rights?
Right to life trumps right to property.

[Face]

If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night how are you to know if they are armed or not? Are you going to take the chance that they are unarmed, or that they will just take a few things and leave without harming your or your family? Perhaps they have knives, guns, or other weapons. Perhaps they want to rape your wife and your daughter as well. Maybe it someone who just wants to kill you for fun.

There are a lot of "what if's," but, the point is that if someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night you cannot be sure of what their intentions are. If there is an intruder in your home and they are in a position where they might cause harm to you or your family, you are perfectly justified in using force against them. If there comes a point in which you or your family are no longer in immediate danger, such as the person has left your home and is running away, then you would no longer be justified in using lethal force against them.

Also, strictly following the statement "Right to life trumps right to property" would mean that it is perfectly alright to take things necessary for your life from other individuals. You could take another person's food, water, shelter if you have none of your own. Now what is that person going to do?

[Teh]

My opinion is, if somebody is robbing your house, simply owning a gun will not necessarily save you. Your will to drive away the thief may be strong, but it probably won't be as powerful as the criminal's urge to escape. If a trapped animal sees no exit, it will fight. If this criminal happens to be armed as well, you may be at a serious disadvantage. Even if you manage to surprise them, you may find that you can't overpower them simply by waving a gun. In the criminal's mind, if they get caught, they are going to jail anyway, so they might as well destroy those in their way.

If you truly are facing a homicidal maniac, your possession of a gun may not stop their urge to kill. People who are messed up enough to find killing other people fun will probably not be deterred by one of their intended victims being armed.

I am, of course, not saying that you should just sit there while somebody runs rampant in your home, but I am saying that guns do not instantly solve all disputes. We who have grown up in an environment where action heroes can take out legions of "bad guys" armed with only a handgun tend to think that guns are capable of almost supernatural feats. A gun is only as capable as the person who wields it, though, and will not ensure victory over an adversary.

[WillPhanto1]

You make a good point, but who says I don't know how to use a gun properly. If I'm facing a scared criminal, chances are he'll be panicky and throw his bullets like they were candy, not even taking a fraction of a second to line up his aim to his target, while I would remain calm, and keep a cool head, and be able to target him, and hit him where I want.
And in case of homicidal maniac, there's no doubt me having a gun wouldn't hinder his urge to kill (he or she might actually get off on it), in which case lethal marksmanship would be needed to take him down as quickly as possible. And when facing a homicidal maniac, you really don't have time to wait for the police come, your only choice is to defend yourself, and use lethal force when it's necessary.

[Chidori]

chances are he'll be panicky and throw his bullets like they were candy, not even taking a fraction of a second to line up his aim to his target, while I would remain calm, and keep a cool head, and be able to target him, and hit him where I want.
There's a huge difference between you saying that now and how you would react if there were a gun pointed at you. I highly doubt you would be calm with a cool head if you have a volly of bullets headed towards you. Unless you're John Mclane that is.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

You don't have to shoot them, just showing the gun will most likely scare them away. That, and if I shoot them in the arm/leg, I can then call the cops.

What about my right to life?

[TheRealFolkBlues]

<i>Post censored by dixonij.</i>

[WillPhanto1]

I grew up around guns, and I don't fear them, the question is the person holding it. If it's some punk, who's holding the gun wrong (like having sideways) or holding it unsteadily, my chances of survival are high (even if I myself don't have a gun), but if it's someone who actually knows how to use gun, then I'd be a little worried.
That's what it comes down to when it's gun versus gun, it's the skill of the gunman behind the gun, not the gun it self. You ever see that scene in pulp fiction, where the guy was hiding from Jules and Vincent, and then bursts into the room with a .44 mag and unloaded at them, but missed every shot because he was panicking and had his eyes closed? Having a hand cannon didn't help him. Also most law biding citizens learn how to use a gun, and gun safety, when they get guns (Or at least they should) .
I also want to make it clear that you are never to use a gun just to scare a person, never bluff with a gun. If you take out a gun, or any other weapon, and point it at someone, there are only two things you do; Try your best at that point to resolve the problem, or shoot, nothing more. Only use a weapon for defense when you have the intent to use it. No blacks, no Mexicans and they prefer shotguns.
Okay, What the f*** is that suppose to mean? Not cool man, not cool.

[TheRealFolkBlues]

<i>Post censored by dixonij.</i>

[dixonij]

<span style='color:3B5998;'>NO RACIAL STEREOTYPES.</span>

[WillPhanto1]

kudos dixonij.

[Chidori]

Man, you still sound like you're turning the entire situation into a movie. Even if you did grow up around guns you would still be shit scared if you are looking directly at one and as you said you yourself don't have a gun. So you without a gun against whoever it may be with a gun, you're going to be scared unless you have some magical way to make your body impervious to bullets.

Unless of course you have already been in this situation and were calm as a cucumber.

[Teh]

Also most law biding citizens learn how to use a gun, and gun safety, when they get guns (Or at least they should) .
No matter how true this is, there is no way that you can prepare somebody for being put into a combat situation in the middle of the night against an unknown entity. Simply being an accurate shot on the target range does not certify that your hand will be steady against a real person. It also does not ensure that you will be able to kill somebody, whether they are doing wrong or not. It is very easy to freeze up in situations such as this, and it is very likely that this criminal is more accomplished in the way of murder than you (certainly if you are a law-abiding citizen).I also want to make it clear that you are never to use a gun just to scare a person, never bluff with a gun.
I agree that this is a stupid and dangerous thing to do, especially against an armed intruder. However, a normal person who doesn't want anything but to get an intruder away from their family will probably try to do just that. I presume that the typical reason one buys a gun is not to kill enemies, but to frighten them away; some people might even think of a gun as a sort of safety blanket, a comfort to assuage their fears of murderers and muggers. These people probably want nothing to do with killing a person, even if said person has just invaded their home. You may say that you have the strength of will to fight an armed man and win, but how many average fathers and mothers who own guns themselves can say that? Most people would be terrified if confronted with a weapon by some stranger, even if they are armed themself.it's the skill of the gunman behind the gun, not the gun it self.
This is exactly the point that I have been making; how much skill in a gunfight can an average person have?... But now I'm just repeating myself. That's it for now.

[WillPhanto1]

I wouldn't say I would be "calm as a cucumber." as Chidori put it, but I know panicking would just get me killed. And because you'll be scared, doesn't mean other people would. And the skill of a gunfighter is like any other skill, you just have to build it, and like I said before, the purpose of training to use any weapon, is training to injure or kill. A person should know this well when on the target range. And an average person who doesn't practice marksmanship will of course be of little use with a gun, but a person who buys a gun should practice with it so he or she can make good use with it.

(I noticed I've been posting mostly in this thread lately, and I just want to unsure you that I'm not some gun-nut trying to push my opinion on you, it's just that this is the only thread that's been interesting lately.)

[Henriksson]

ugh... you people sicken me...
We're talkin' about valuable property here, of course I have the right to shoot that burglar. <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley2.png'>

[WillPhanto1]

We're talkin' about valuable property here, of course I have the right to shoot that burglar.
Sarcasm only works when you make a point with it. That property could be very valuable, irreplaceable, and important. A person can break into your house to steel raw information about you along with your valuables. So not only would you lose your TV, money, your favorite clock, etc, you can very well lose your accounts, credit, and Identity, which would be harder to restore.

It would take the police some time to get there as well . Hell, the guy could have studied the police patrol patterns to insure they're at the farthest from your house at the time they break in. You'll need the ability to protect yourself.

I see what you're getting at. Your ideal is that we must keep everyone safe, we need to make sure no one can hurt anyone else. But order to accomplish such a thing you'll have to get rid of Liberty and Individualism to ensure that people don't get the thinking patterns that lead to violence or resistance towards the law (just or not). And you'll have to restrict so many other freedoms to ensure you can keep Liberty and Individualism thinking down. Then the feeling of the people to use violence will increase, and a revolt will become inevitable. And things would just go back the way they were, or might even be worst then before. That's were it all crashes.

If someone makes the choice to hurt others, and to do wrong, it's his or her choice, and he or she takes the consequences, whether in be their punishment after they're caught, or at the hands of the person they tried to wrong at the time they try to wrong him or her, or both. People need to take Responsibly for their actions, and others will have to be able to defend themselves or others when somebody decides to break the just laws of the state and the moral laws of life.