in one sentence describe why you are for or against gun ownership

[HAL9000]

hes seeming insuating that the UK has no violent crime or murder 🙄

Who is?!

 

[unxpurg8d]

Good call, absolutely. When I joined this forum my opinion was that gun ownership is a bad idea, that gun ownership is illogical, dangerous and irresponsible, whilst I have been a member it has been pointed out to me that America is incredibly dangerous, that people aren't safe (from what i'm told) without a gun, and that the police in America are not required to keep you safe in any way. Therefore it would seem logical to need a gun, when living in a dangerous place where you have to protect yourself. So perhaps owning a gun is a good idea in America, until at least you guys sort out the police / government.

Wild, wild west, baby!!!! 😎

We're making progress - at this rate you'll be totally over to the Dark side by the 4th of July!!

 

[HAL9000]

Wild, wild west, baby!!!! 😎

We're making progress - at this rate you'll be totally over to the Dark side by the 4th of July!!

That's possible, maybe I should start looking for a gun now as I like to shop around. 🙂

 

[BoomerD]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Jared Loughner could have killed six people with a baseball bat.

I'm sure he could have as well...perhaps not as quickly, nor from any distance, but kill them he could.

Anything that can be used as a weapon can kill people. Not many are as "convenient" as a firearm...but WTF? People have been killing other people as long as there have been people...Firearms are a relatively recent invention...
"Guns" make killing faster and less "personal," it can be done from a greater distance, and without "getting your hands dirty," yet somehow, man has always managed to find a way to kill other men.

Sticks, clubs, bows & arrows, knives, rolled-up newspapers, pencils & pens, rocks, horns/bones of animals...doesn't matter what weapon is used...dead is dead.

 

[Blackjack200]

Hey, if you can protect yourself without a gun, then all the more power to you. But what about the lady who is 5'3'' disabled vet in this thread? Not everyone has wonderwoman bracelets who can deflect bullets. I don't even own a firearm, but I don't think I have the right to deny someone else who does feel they need one.

I scanned the thread and didn't see the post you are talking about, but what about her? If she really doesn't feel safe, maybe she should move to where she does, stay in public places, or take other steps. I cannot imagine that anyone, even the most extreme pro gun, relies exclusively on firearms for security.

From 3000 miles away in another country reading ATOT, I could see how one might come to that conclusion. However, I think it is wrong to expect the police to keep you safe, that is not their job. In this news report from the UK, did the police keep this pregnant woman safe, or did the knife? Have you ever been to America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BweB2wBuZhQ

So what is meant by Protect and Serve?

 

[Numenorean]

I never mentioned coddling them, I'm just not for executing them. Beat the shit out of them by all means, but breaking into someones house shouldn't result in death.

It shouldn't, but it can, and I'm totally fine with that.

I'm not going to be breaking into houses so I don't have to worry about it.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Boom! winning!

 

[HAL9000]

I'm totally fine with that.

Yet another reason why we will never agree, I value human life more than you evidently.

 

[Numenorean]

I scanned the thread and didn't see the post you are talking about, but what about her? If she really doesn't feel safe, maybe she should move to where she does, stay in public places, or take other steps. I cannot imagine that anyone, even the most extreme pro gun, relies exclusively on firearms for security.



So what is meant by Protect and Serve?

Just remember that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

They can't be everywhere all the time. They can't be where every crime is being committed all the time. So why not take steps to protect yourself and your family? If someone breaks into your house and comes after you, you can't just ask them to please wait until the police get there to protect you.

 

[HAL9000]

From 3000 miles away in another country reading ATOT, I could see how one might come to that conclusion. However, I think it is wrong to expect the police to keep you safe, that is not their job. In this news report from the UK, did the police keep this pregnant woman safe, or did the knife? Have you ever been to America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BweB2wBuZhQ

Sorry, I missed this post earlier.

I have been to America! If the police aren't meant to keep the public safe... What are they for?

 

[Numenorean]

Yet another reason why we will never agree, I value human life more than you evidently.

I value human life intensely. This is why I think I should have the right to own a gun to protect that life.

But if someone reduces the value of their life by being a criminal, that's their problem, not mine and I no longer care if they get killed breaking into someone's house. Humanity as a whole will be better off with them dead.

 

[HAL9000]

I value human life intensely.

But if someone reduces the value of their life by being a criminal, that's their problem, not mine and I no longer care if they get killed breaking into someone's house. Humanity as a whole will be better off with them dead.

I disagree, you value human life less than your own property, you are arguing that if someone is trying to rob from you you should have the right to kill them, my TV and my Laptop isn't more important than some random criminals life.

 

[spidey07]

My natural, god given right to defense shall not be infringed.

 

[Blackjack200]

He certainly could have. He just would have had to adjust his plan. Totally possible.

I'm sure he could have as well...perhaps not as quickly, nor from any distance, but kill them he could.

Ok, has anyone, ever, in the history of world, walked into a crowd of peaceful people and beaten six of them to death with a baseball bat while the rest of the crowd watched? Loughner killed six people because of the capability of guns to inflict massive damage very quickly.

Anything that can be used as a weapon can kill people. Not many are as "convenient" as a firearm...but WTF? People have been killing other people as long as there have been people...Firearms are a relatively recent invention...
"Guns" make killing faster and less "personal," it can be done from a greater distance, and without "getting your hands dirty," yet somehow, man has always managed to find a way to kill other men.

Sticks, clubs, bows & arrows, knives, rolled-up newspapers, pencils & pens, rocks, horns/bones of animals...doesn't matter what weapon is used...dead is dead.

So you feel just as threatened if a man approaches you with a club or a newspaper as you do if they approach you with a gun?

 

[Numenorean]

Sorry, I missed this post earlier.

I have been to America! If the police aren't meant to keep the public safe... What are they for?

They do much more "after the fact" cleanup stuff than preventing something from happening. They are a deterrent for those who are less likely to commit a crime vs. there not being a police force. Negative reinforcement, etc.

Police simply cannot prevent all crime. What would really help the crime rates here is harsher sentences for criminals, expansion of the death penalty, etc. But the bleeding heart people who think that some worthless scumbag criminal is worth just as much to humanity as the law abiding citizen don't like that idea.

 

[HAL9000]

They do much more "after the fact" cleanup stuff than preventing something from happening. They are a deterrent for those who are less likely to commit a crime vs. there not being a police force. Negative reinforcement, etc.

Police simply cannot prevent all crime. What would really help the crime rates here is harsher sentences for criminals, expansion of the death penalty, etc. But the bleeding heart people who think that some worthless scumbag criminal is worth just as much to humanity as the law abiding citizen don't like that idea.

Of course they can't but normal people shouldn't be allowed to take the law into their own hands either.

 

[unxpurg8d]

I scanned the thread and didn't see the post you are talking about, but what about her? If she really doesn't feel safe, maybe she should move to where she does, stay in public places, or take other steps. I cannot imagine that anyone, even the most extreme pro gun, relies exclusively on firearms for security.



So what is meant by Protect and Serve?

Stay in public places? Check with the homeless and see how that's working for THEM. I should move? So now you're saying it's the VICTIM of a crime's responsibility to prevent others from doing them harm? Seriously?

I DO feel safe. I feel safe because I'm fairly confident in my ability to protect myself and those I love. You're advocating removing one tool in my ability to do so.

And no, I don't rely exclusively on firearms for security, but it's an excellent foundation for a good self-protection plan. It's like car insurance - I hope to never have to use it, but if I have to I'm going to be darned glad I have it. 😀

 

[Numenorean]

I disagree, you value human life less than your own property, you are arguing that if someone is trying to rob from you you should have the right to kill them, my TV and my Laptop isn't more important than some random criminals life.

I value human life more than property.

I do not value a criminals life more than mine and those I care about. And yeah I probably do value my property and my right to my property not being violated over that of some worthless human who would try to take my life or property. By being a criminal they devalue themselves, not me. If they don't think their life should be valued, then why should I?

 

[Numenorean]

Of course they can't but normal people shouldn't be allowed to take the law into their own hands either.

The law says I can protect myself, through deadly force if necessary. That's abiding by the law, not taking it into my own hands.

 

[HAL9000]

I value human life more than property.

I do not value a criminals life more than mine and those I care about. And yeah I probably do value my property and my right to my property not being violated over that of some worthless human who would try to take my life or property. By being a criminal they devalue themselves, not me. If they don't think their life should be valued, then why should I?

Criminal's are human. Criminal life = Human life.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

The following are facts:

In the US it is legal to own a gun

In the US there is a high rate of gun death

In the UK it is illegal to own a gun

In the UK there is a low rate of gun death

The following is my opinion:

My conclusion therefore is that private gun ownership results in a gun higher death rate.

Your opinion does not take much of what makes this a debate into account.

It also does not take into account many factors which have nothing to do with guns.

You opinion also seems to place the highest value on life itself, which when looking at the nature of things in the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE, does not make sense. Life is obviously an important part of the way the universe works simply because it has arisen and we are part of it, but on an individual level, all of the evidence suggests it has very little value. It is also important to remember that death is of equal importance to life. In fact without death and death in COPIUS AMOUNTS, life would not have gotten further than single-celled organisms. Even organisms theoretically capable of eternal life benefit from death.

Your arguments weigh too heavily on your emotional response to death. I think you should think more about that. Then we can move on to the philosophical morass of altruistic social systems, and finally to the weighing of the value of life within those systems versus the obvious evolutionary mandate of kill or be killed, and finding a balance to codify in law.

Your intellectual exposure to other shores of thought is plainly limited and your responses ring of putrid indoctrination (all indoctrination is putrid).

 

[davmat787]

I never mentioned coddling them, I'm just not for executing them. Beat the shit out of them by all means, but breaking into someones house shouldn't result in death.

Can you envision a home invasion scenario where using lethal force would be acceptable? What if the invader intent is murder or rape? Do you not have a right to defend yourself against this? I guess I am curious where, or if, there is a line where lethal force is acceptable in your opinion.

 

[Linflas]

I disagree, you value human life less than your own property, you are arguing that if someone is trying to rob from you you should have the right to kill them, my TV and my Laptop isn't more important than some random criminals life.

A single human life may be worth more than a TV, stereo, or my house but the principle behind my right to defend myself and my property against a someone taking them from me is far more valuable than that life.

 

[Numenorean]

Ok, has anyone, ever, in the history of world, walked into a crowd of peaceful people and beaten six of them to death with a baseball bat while the rest of the crowd watched? Loughner killed six people because of the capability of guns to inflict massive damage very quickly.

There have been instances where people watched a bunch of others gang rape some woman and they just stood and watched. I bet people would run away more than anything. If not for the security forces that were at that particular event it could have happened.

So you feel just as threatened if a man approaches you with a club or a newspaper as you do if they approach you with a gun?

If anyone threatens me or mine with bodily harm that is a threat period and I would shoot them dead. A threat is a threat and I don't have to categorize them into levels.

 

[Numenorean]

Criminal's are human. Criminal life = Human life.

Criminals are sub-human.