Gun Rights

A gun is a very efficient way of killing people. You can kill 4 or 5 people in 10 seconds with a gun but if you only have a knife or some other weapon, you can't.

Of course, you can kill people with anything. And if someone wants to kill they still will. But banning guns means banning an efficient and easy way of killing. It's about damage control.
 
A gun is a very efficient way of killing people. You can kill 4 or 5 people in 10 seconds with a gun but if you only have a knife or some other weapon, you can't.

Of course, you can kill people with anything. And if someone wants to kill they still will. But banning guns means banning an efficient and easy way of killing. It's about damage control.

You can kill 100s of people in 1 second with a good bomb.
 
Funny, but not very to the point...

Yet there are numerous European countries where handguns are largely prohibited which have even higher violent crime rates.

Apart from being rather vague, statistical evidence so far doesn't seem to validate such a statement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your premise seems to be that if Western Europeans owned handguns that the violent crime rate would also skyrocket to match the US. I think that is simply false. There are a number of other similarly developed countries which do allow much less restricted access to handguns where this has not occurred.

I'll correct you: it wasn't me who introduced Western Europeans into this. Also, it has been mentioned, rightfully I think, that gun abuse is a cultural issue as well.

If I had a firearm in my possession, and I saw someone kill a person who was not threatening him in any manner and was getting ready to kill another person in cold blood, I may very well intercede. OTOH if I saw someone breaking into my neighbor's house and I knew nobody was there, I would simply call the police and let them handle it. And if I saw someone speeding, I would do nothing.

And I find the premise of "potential troublemakers" being arrested by "law enforcers" when they are not directly suspected of committing a crime to be authoritarian to an extreme. The open possession of a weapon in the vicinity of a suspected crime may very well make an authority figure a bit more interested in that individual than he would be in others. It should certainly make him more wary for his own personal safety and that of others in the vicinity. But that basis alone should not cause the "potential troublemaker" to be arrested.

It's all very well to say what you might/will do, but laws cannot be based on such vagaries. There's a difference between what people will admit to and what actually occurs in reality.

"And I find the premise of "potential troublemakers" being arrested by "law enforcers" when they are not directly suspected of committing a crime to be authoritarian to an extreme." Indeed. I did not use that as a premise. Law enforcers have a permit to carry. Any private citizen carrying is a potential troublemaker - the key word being potential. Some states allow for this, others don't.

Law abiding? 100%!

:lol: Now that is a non sequitur.

A gun is a very efficient way of killing people. You can kill 4 or 5 people in 10 seconds with a gun but if you only have a knife or some other weapon, you can't.

Of course, you can kill people with anything. And if someone wants to kill they still will. But banning guns means banning an efficient and easy way of killing. It's about damage control.

Indeed. (And that is my premise.)

Also, 'law abiding' citizens still kill people they shouldn't in extreme situations. (And yes, that too occurs in 'more civilized' nations. It seems there is a cultural trend where people think it is alright to use extreme force. It isn't, in my opinion, and lawmakers should not allow citizens to exert private justice. I can see people feeling threatened enough to want to carry, but the net result will not be more safety, but less. Having more guns available will - out of necessity - result in more fatal incidents. Just like having more cars travel will result in more accidents happening - although I do not like that comparison much myself. Cars aren't meant to kill and maim, guns are - by design.)
 
A gun is a very efficient way of killing people. You can kill 4 or 5 people in 10 seconds with a gun but if you only have a knife or some other weapon, you can't.

Of course, you can kill people with anything. And if someone wants to kill they still will. But banning guns means banning an efficient and easy way of killing. It's about damage control.

It also means banning an efficient and (relatively) easy way of defending oneself - a way that physically weaker people require access to moreso than most.
 
It also means banning an efficient and (relatively) easy way of defending oneself - a way that physically weaker people require access to moreso than most.

All in all though, it's for the best. That's why you are far more likely to be shot dead than me.
 
All in all though, it's for the best. That's why you are far more likely to be shot dead than me.

Yeah, and banning guns in the US will change that? No. Banning guns will reduce the number of people able to defend themselves while not likely doing much about the number of people shot to death.
 
Yeah, and banning guns in the US will change that? No. Banning guns will reduce the number of people able to defend themselves while not likely doing much about the number of people shot to death.

Eventually it would. It would take time, but it would eventually.
 
And in the meantime...

Yeah, no thanks.

In the meantime what? in the meantime you have a police force whose job it is to protect you. Demand more of them, get them to do your job, and in a few years, this just won't be a problem.

Is life in the US that terrifying that you cannot imagine going without a gun for a few years? Who is out to get you?
 
To put it very simply, a lot of the arguments against guns are don't take into aco**** socio-economic factors. Yes, America has lots of guns. Yes, we also have a high crime rate. But what don't have that all of the European countries do is a strong network of social safety nets that keeps people from descending to crime in the first place. Institute things like universal healthcare and you'll see that gun crime drop pretty quick.
I don't think people are robbing 7-11s and liquor stores to pay their doctor bills. Maybe if we had socialized heroin...
 
Apart from being rather vague, statistical evidence so far doesn't seem to validate such a statement.
Got a source which shows that violent crime and access to firearms are related in Europe? Or any place for that matter?

Also, it has been mentioned, rightfully I think, that gun abuse is a cultural issue as well.
I don't know when you last visited the US or where you went, but the Wild West days are long gone. I never see people carrying firearms around here, and even Easy Rider rifle racks in pickup trucks became passe long ago. Some people use rifles and shotguns for hunting, but you won't see those unless you go to a range or an area where people are actually hunting. Some of the women might have handguns in their purses to protect themseves in cases of sexual assaults. But I'd certainly never know about it.

My brother does a lot of travelling in his job. He has a carry permit and keeps a handgun locked away underneath his front seat. But he never carries it with him on his person. If I were in the same position, I'd likely do the same thing.

It's all very well to say what you might/will do, but laws cannot be based on such vagaries. There's a difference between what people will admit to and what actually occurs in reality.
That is just it. I question your vision of reality as it exists in the US. Most neighborhoods are just as safe as they are in Europe. The violent crime is typically limited to the "poor neighborhoods". And based on stories I have read in the paper, I would much more likely be a victim of "hooliganism" in Europe than I would in the US.

I lived in NYC for 13 years and never came close to being mugged. I was in Amsterdam for 2 days and almost got mugged. If it wasn't for my highly tuned street sense, I would have been instead of the woman walking right behind me.
 
In the meantime what? in the meantime you have a police force whose job it is to protect you. Demand more of them, get them to do your job, and in a few years, this just won't be a problem.

Is life in the US that terrifying that you cannot imagine going without a gun for a few years? Who is out to get you?

Good lord, this is like asking two people (one deaf from birth, the other born without eyes) whether a fireworks show is better than a rock concert.

The police force - absent teleporter technology - cannot come to my aid as quickly as I can pull a gun from my holster or the nightstand, even if I have 911 on speed-dial. And further, "and in a few years this just won't be a problem" is uninformed or naive. Aside from anything else - guns aren't just a defense against other guns.
 
Good lord, this is like asking two people (one deaf from birth, the other born without eyes) whether a fireworks show is better than a rock concert.

The police force - absent teleporter technology - cannot come to my aid as quickly as I can pull a gun from my holster or the nightstand, even if I have 911 on speed-dial. And further, "and in a few years this just won't be a problem" is uninformed or naive. Aside from anything else - guns aren't just a defense against other guns.

What is it about Irish society that makes guns unneccesary to the degree that they are essential in the US to stop you from being murdered? Care to speculate?
 
What is it about Irish society that makes guns unneccesary to the degree that they are essential in the US to stop you from being murdered? Care to speculate?

Hell if I know, I've never been to Ireland. :p

But you keep using loaded words to describe things that I don't agree with. Is free speech really essential to a democracy? If so, why is it not essential to (say) Singapore? Care to speculate? What, you're terrified of not being able to protest the government? Can you really go without protesting the government for a few years while it re-forms into something more democratic?

Seriously, you're coming across as pretty demeaning to me with how you're putting things. I rate having a gun in the same vein as wearing a seatbelt, or having auto insurance. I'm not 'terrified' of auto accidents, and drive well enough to have never had an accident (and don't plan on having one), but that doesn't mean that I don't belt up every time I get in the car. I'm not going to go without a seatbelt for the next year because it might help force carmakers to improve their airbags to the point that the seatbelt is considered unnecessary.
 
Hell if I know, I've never been to Ireland. :p

But you keep using loaded words to describe things that I don't agree with. Is free speech really essential to a democracy? If so, why is it not essential to (say) Singapore? Care to speculate? What, you're terrified of not being able to protest the government? Can you really go without protesting the government for a few years while it re-forms into something more democratic?

Seriously, you're coming across as pretty demeaning to me with how you're putting things. I rate having a gun in the same vein as wearing a seatbelt, or having auto insurance. I'm not 'terrified' of auto accidents, and drive well enough to have never had an accident (and don't plan on having one), but that doesn't mean that I don't belt up every time I get in the car. I'm not going to go without a seatbelt for the next year because it might help force carmakers to improve their airbags to the point that the seatbelt is considered unnecessary.

I'm not being demaning, I'm asking you to logically support your position. and what you are coming back to me with is a variant on the 'The US army is different, we can't have gays openly serving even if everyone else can' BS we see here so often.

The difference between guns and seatbelts is that seatbelts are designed to only prevent injuries, guns are designed to inflict them. How you can see a parallel between the two is beyond me.

Like it or not, it's much better here with respect to guns. We have a much lower gun crime rate, a much less violent society, and no, our government isn't about to round us all up because we don't have guns to defend ourselves with. I rarely have a good word to say about Ireland, but we are superior in that respect.

Unless you can actually explain why the US is incapable of operating with the same gun laws we have (and have the same desirable results, such as a minute fraction of gun crimes), then all you are doing is evoking some bizarre American exceptionalism whereby you defend to the death your right to live in a country with a ridiculous attitude to guns. I cannot imagine how much is must suck to need a gun to the degree where you couldn't even entertain the idea of not having one because the police mightn't be able to get there to stop you being murdered in time. you know where else has that attitude? Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia etc.. why on Earth are you so determined to be in that category?
 
Top Bottom