74 replies to this topic

[PrinceVegeta]

Redezra wanted gun debate. Here is gun debate. Debate.

[rotty]

I like to shoot people, so guns are needed.

[KingTopherXXIII]

Guns are fine, just don't let morons have them!

[Octavian]

I'd like a gun, I get to use it on people...like yourselves...

[KingTopherXXIII]

^like I was saying!

[Redezra]

Guns are bad, cause people hurt people with them, and given they are designed with the express purpose to kill, they turn what could be assault or grievous bodily harm into greivous bodily harm or death. Many nations have implemented very high levels of gun control, and by doing so, the amount of people killed by gunfire each year has dropped to levels that are scant percentages of the average of countries that have very low gun control.

Guns are, as stated previously, a weapon. Designed with the express intent of efficiently delivering potentially lethal blows from a distance. Weapons such as these serve no purpose in a civilised society. If you can not walk down the street without a lethal firearm to comfort you, the problem is either you (you are paranoid), or with the nature of your society. Neither requires the legalisation of weapons to solve. It is a bad way to do things, and adds to the problem of a dangerous, potentially lethal society, rather than solving it and making it safer.

In conclusion, gun legality is based on bad logic, bad social practice, and a distorted and individualistic concept of rights and entitlements which is neither good for society or the individual. They should be removed from civilian use in all western nations, in order to protect the wellbeing of people, and to protect their freedom to live a safe life.



<3

[Killman4]

Well when the police start to not protect the people (already happening!) I would like to arm myself for my own self defense thank you very much.

[Chancellor Gunn]

Guns are bad, cause people hurt people with them, and given they are designed with the express purpose to kill, they turn what could be assault or grievous bodily harm into greivous bodily harm or death. Many nations have implemented very high levels of gun control, and by doing so, the amount of people killed by gunfire each year has dropped to levels that are scant percentages of the average of countries that have very low gun control.

Guns are, as stated previously, a weapon. Designed with the express intent of efficiently delivering potentially lethal blows from a distance. Weapons such as these serve no purpose in a civilised society. If you can not walk down the street without a lethal firearm to comfort you, the problem is either you (you are paranoid), or with the nature of your society. Neither requires the legalisation of weapons to solve. It is a bad way to do things, and adds to the problem of a dangerous, potentially lethal society, rather than solving it and making it safer.

In conclusion, gun legality is based on bad logic, bad social practice, and a distorted and individualistic concept of rights and entitlements which is neither good for society or the individual. They should be removed from civilian use in all western nations, in order to protect the wellbeing of people, and to protect their freedom to live a safe life.

<3

Come try to take my guns, I dare you.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Are you considering removing all knives as well? I mean even butter knives and efficiently kill someone used right. Most people use guns as a form of sport, stress release (shooting at targets), and most of all defense. Now people who use them to kill people. Do you think banning guns is going to stop them from getting a gun? Lol no, and if you think so that makes you stupid. I would hope, however, that you do not think that. And lets even say that these bad people will be stopped from getting guns (they won't), this won't stop them from killing people. You still have hands, knives, rocks, bombs, flare guns, any large object, string, wire, etc... So why stop at guns? Lets ban everything! Even hands and feet! The police will be coming by to cut off your hands and feet and remove all objects you own very shortly!

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Give me a break, Nas. That's a childish, simplistic argument not worthy of someone of your intellectual caliber. Guns are designed with the express purpose of killing people. Knives have many other purposes. Firearms possess a killing power several orders of magnitude greater than any other easily available weapon or implement. Nothing in my experience has ever led me to believe that the average person is responsible and qualified enough to handle that kind of power.

I like guns. They look cool, they feel cool in your hand, the feeling of power they confer is a heady rush. I have owned a gun in the past, but no longer. I realized that there was absolutely no good reason for me to have one. The odds that I am ever going to be involved in a situation where a gun would be helpful are infinitesimally small. On the other hand, I can think of a number of plausible scenarios in which I might be involved where the presence of a gun would make things much, much worse. All it takes is an instant for a tragedy to occur.

I don't see this debate as particularly useful or enlightening. No one is going to change anyone's mind, and feelings tend to run particularly high on this issue. For myself, I see no reason for anyone besides trained professionals to have access to guns, just as I see no reason for anyone other than trained professionals to have access to explosives, or dangerous chemicals, or prescription pads.

Besides, what I want is a lightsaber.

[The Dark Empire]

Guns are humane if you ask me. Bullets are less painful than being beaten and knifed to death. If you need to kill someone use a gun. Besides guns are a way of life.

[Evil Rudekker]

FULL DISCLOSURE: I know f***all about constitutional jurisprudence. I haven't follwed the legal history.

BUT

Let's consider the 2nd Amendment here:

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.

Why were the first two clauses in there? It seems to me that the current argument focuses on the last two clauses and forgets those first two. But those were put in for a reason, no?

Perhaps a historian can correct me, but until the Civil War, wasn't the entire Army composed of militias, each controlled and funded by the states? It seems to me that these militias were set up to be the army, and they were there for public order and public defense. The standing armies of the United States were rather small. Thus, The People needed to keep arms, because if they didn't protect themselves, no one else would.

BUT THEN

The Civil War happened. The Northern militias were put under Federal control; the power in the US shifted from the Several States to Washington. In fact, people went from saying the United States are to the United States is. Now we have a shift from militias to a standing armies, which we have used to establish an Empire and to prop up tyrants in other countries.

It seems to me that the conditions in the US have changed, so that the 2nd Amendment no longer has the use it was intended for.

I will never be so stupid as to argue that people don't have the right to protect their own lives and homes. But why raise your own army if there is already a nuclear-armed, funded-with-half-of-Earth's-military-spending, stealth-bomber-equipped armed forces ready to put a rebellion down?

I'm someone who really likes The People, and I really do think that we should govern ourselves instead of having government forced upon us. I'd totally sign up for a militia if it meant that we no longer had an imperial armed forces. But until then, I don't think there's a reason to keep assault rifles in your home.

Edited by Evil Rudekker, 17 May 2012 - 12:13 PM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The 2nd Amendment was put in place when the United States was a fledgling country, with virtually no standing military, under direct threat of attack from the world's mightiest superpower. It makes sense that citizens were required to possess firearms, because at any moment they might be called up to fight off an invasion. Times have changed. Today we are the world's mightiest superpower, bestriding the Earth like a veritable colossus. We have a large, well-equipped, professional standing army, which is good because the military missions of today require capabilities far beyond those of a ragtag band of citizen soldiers.

I have no problem with people owning rifles and shotguns, whether for hunting, sport, or even the dubious "home protection." But there is no legitimate reason for most citizens to possess handguns, submachine guns, carbines, or other heavy firepower.

[PrinceVegeta]

Meh, I think guns are just for those who don't have the strength to fight the right way. It's like a cheat code. Before there were guns, people skilled themselves in the arts of Sword fighting, and melee combat. Guns don't do anything but put away those skills and give an easy way out. If you really want to kill someone, wouldn't you rather beat them with your own hands, keeping your pride, and standing tall over your slain enemy, and knowing that it was your HANDS, not a gun, that did away with them.

In addition, people release more stress through kinetic movements. A gun is just a metal object that gives you a jolt and makes you feel powerful because of the power you feel from the gun. It would be better to apply your stress to building your body(What PV does).

Even though it is just my opinion, I think guns should no longer exist PERIOD. If you want to kill someone, do it yourself. If you want to hunt something, use a knife or a sword, or even a bow and arrow. To me, the older ways of society were better than they are today, but if only we could apply them with the more civilized structure of today, we'd be a more developed people in body and mind.

Why else would we have the ability to become strong?

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

You keep talking about "if you have to kill someone," Prince Vegeta. I've never had to kill anyone, and in all likelihood I never will. But if you're going to talk about dream worlds, how about one where no one ever "has" to kill anyone to begin with?

[Phate]

You keep talking about "if you have to kill someone," Prince Vegeta. I've never had to kill anyone, and in all likelihood I never will. But if you're going to talk about dream worlds, how about one where no one ever "has" to kill anyone to begin with?

Well said.

[The Dark Empire]

Don't criticize me for this but the constitution should not be viewed as a perfect document and should not be read strictly. The framers designed it on a series of compromises, the constitution is designed to have loopholes. Plus the document itself governs a nation of the past not the nation of today.

[Phate]

Don't criticize me for this but the constitution should not be viewed as a perfect document and should not be read strictly. The framers designed it on a series of compromises, the constitution is designed to have loopholes. Plus the document itself governs a nation of the past not the nation of today.

Now if only fundies would realize that about certain religious works.

[PrinceVegeta]

Well what are guns for? Killing.

What else would we use a damn gun for?

And that "Dream world" your talking about can't happen. Why? Man won't fucking evolve to the point were we don't have to be so ignorant to the fact that we are all the same, and there is no need to fight about differences, or resources, or rights. Every human should have the same rights as the other, and now I'm going into something totally off topic.

I shall now leave, because I wish I could record myself and tell you. I'm better at speaking it then typing it, ideas come to me faster that way.

[Redezra]

Come try to take my guns, I dare you.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Are you considering removing all knives as well? I mean even butter knives and efficiently kill someone used right. Most people use guns as a form of sport, stress release (shooting at targets), and most of all defense. Now people who use them to kill people. Do you think banning guns is going to stop them from getting a gun? Lol no, and if you think so that makes you stupid. I would hope, however, that you do not think that. And lets even say that these bad people will be stopped from getting guns (they won't), this won't stop them from killing people. You still have hands, knives, rocks, bombs, flare guns, any large object, string, wire, etc... So why stop at guns? Lets ban everything! Even hands and feet! The police will be coming by to cut off your hands and feet and remove all objects you own very shortly!

Oooh, how hostile. See how the republican dinosaur approaches his enemies~. <3 Nas~~~~

Lol, but seriously, the idea here is that guns are killing tools. They only have one purpose. And it's not to open cans, cut deelishus bacon, turn on or off appliances, etc. It's to kill humans. That's what they were invented for, and every other purpose that has ever been devised for them is fairly similar, and always involves killing of something. And, it's incredibly efficient at it's job. You point with some accuracy, pull the trigger, and the targeted thing now has to deal with a hole in their body, not even thinking of the other complications of a supersonic metal projectile tearing through a body.

What you have commited, actually, is a logical fallacy. Somewhere between the Slippery Slope fallacy and the Sweeping Generalisation fallacy. The truth is the severe control of guns would lead to just that. The control of the use of guns. And nothing more. Guns, which cause so many problems when added to the wrong situations and are totally incompatible with our vision of an enlightened society.

I mean think of it this way, Peter Parker's uncle, Ben Parker, died because of a gunshot wound, because the guy that killed him was panicking, and shot him accidently. Imagine if the worst he had was a knife? Ben probably wouldn't have died. And Peter wouldn't have become spider man. That is the problem with guns, the addition of them to a situation does signifigantly increase the chance of death.


Anyway, I'm tired now. blah.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

So you're without guns there would be no Spider-Man? Maybe I need to rethink my position...