(November 30, 2013 at 11:20 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 8:59 am)Chas Wrote: Second Amendment Score:

Free Republic: 240 years
Tyranny: 0

As an European, I cannot agree on that. In my eyes e.g. US health care makes your country most definitely a tyranny.

That makes absolutely no sense. What is tyrannical about it? Please compare to health care in European countries.

---

(November 30, 2013 at 11:48 am)Kayenneh Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 11:29 am)Rahul Wrote: It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

But for all of you that want to voluntarily disarm yourselves, go for it. After all, when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

I'm sorry to be frank Rahul, but that is idiotic. What are you afraid of, that someone can rob you by gunpoint? Well, tighter gun control makes it harder for people to use guns on you. See the problem here? Instead of giving every kook the right to carry arms, why not learn something useful like Krav Maga, if/when you have to defend yourself?

Not everyone is physically capable of doing so. It is not realistic to expect those most in need of defense to be able to use that.

One of the things I still fail to understand (as was pointed out in the OP and by numerous others in discussion I have read before), is how a gun is what determines if a society if free or not. This sounds like nothing more than just plain old bad logic. There are plenty of countries where its citizens are free who have either limited access to guns or very strict gun laws, and they are in no danger of losing their freedom.

Freedom is not about an armed society, it is about an informed electorate. If it ever comes down to needing a gun to get your freedom back, it is because you fucked up with your vote.

In any event, in case it isn't obvious, I am pro-legislation and I guess if you must label me, then I am more inclined to be "anti-gun", although I would hesitate to consider myself against them, just against the ease with which one can attain them, the lack of training and accountability that should accompany the operation of something designed to kill, and the fact that there are no inherent restrictions that prevent the mentally unstable (or those who are likely to become mentally unstable) from attaining a firearm.

(November 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: One of the things I still fail to understand (as was pointed out in the OP and by numerous others in discussion I have read before), is how a gun is what determines if a society if free or not. This sounds like nothing more than just plain old bad logic. There are plenty of countries where its citizens are free who have either limited access to guns or very strict gun laws, and they are in no danger of losing their freedom.

Freedom is not about an armed society, it is about an informed electorate. If it ever comes down to needing a gun to get your freedom back, it is because you fucked up with your vote.

In any event, in case it isn't obvious, I am pro-legislation and I guess if you must label me, then I am more inclined to be "anti-gun", although I would hesitate to consider myself against them, just against the ease with which one can attain them, the lack of training and accountability that should accompany the operation of something designed to kill, and the fact that there are no inherent restrictions that prevent the mentally unstable (or those who are likely to become mentally unstable) from attaining a firearm.

And while I am inclined to be "pro-gun", I am in general agreement with TheBeardedDude.

It is not a black and white issue, and we should consider what is practical and reasonable.

(November 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: One of the things I still fail to understand (as was pointed out in the OP and by numerous others in discussion I have read before), is how a gun is what determines if a society if free or not. This sounds like nothing more than just plain old bad logic. There are plenty of countries where its citizens are free who have either limited access to guns or very strict gun laws, and they are in no danger of losing their freedom.

Freedom is not about an armed society, it is about an informed electorate. If it ever comes down to needing a gun to get your freedom back, it is because you fucked up with your vote.

In any event, in case it isn't obvious, I am pro-legislation and I guess if you must label me, then I am more inclined to be "anti-gun", although I would hesitate to consider myself against them, just against the ease with which one can attain them, the lack of training and accountability that should accompany the operation of something designed to kill, and the fact that there are no inherent restrictions that prevent the mentally unstable (or those who are likely to become mentally unstable) from attaining a firearm.

If the government can take your guns away, then they can take away everything else you have. When Ferdinand Marcos became dictator of the Philippines, the first thing I did was order everyone to turn their guns in. He justified this by saying it was to keep the country safe from terrorism. The biggest mistake you can make is believing that something like that won't happen here.

Democracy won't solve anything. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

No amount of legislation will keep criminals from obtaining guns. Did banning drugs keep people from getting drugs?

(November 30, 2013 at 12:47 pm)BreadGod Wrote: Just because they aren't useful for you doesn't mean they aren't useful for anyone else.

You do seem determined to paint anyone who registers unwillingness to personally own guns as wanting to ban guns for you. If you stopped doing that, conversation would be more productive.

Quote: Besides, why can't you tell your niece and nephew that a gun is not a toy and that it shouldn't be played with?

Because that ALWAYS works with kids. I can remind them of that rule while standing over their bodies.

Look, I DON'T WANT TO OWN A GUN. I don't even want to hold or shoot one. I have given several good reasons for that in this thread. But thanks for your helpful insights.

(November 30, 2013 at 3:11 pm)BreadGod Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 2:56 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: One of the things I still fail to understand (as was pointed out in the OP and by numerous others in discussion I have read before), is how a gun is what determines if a society if free or not. This sounds like nothing more than just plain old bad logic. There are plenty of countries where its citizens are free who have either limited access to guns or very strict gun laws, and they are in no danger of losing their freedom.

Freedom is not about an armed society, it is about an informed electorate. If it ever comes down to needing a gun to get your freedom back, it is because you fucked up with your vote.

In any event, in case it isn't obvious, I am pro-legislation and I guess if you must label me, then I am more inclined to be "anti-gun", although I would hesitate to consider myself against them, just against the ease with which one can attain them, the lack of training and accountability that should accompany the operation of something designed to kill, and the fact that there are no inherent restrictions that prevent the mentally unstable (or those who are likely to become mentally unstable) from attaining a firearm.

If the government can take your guns away, then they can take away everything else you have. When Ferdinand Marcos became dictator of the Philippines, the first thing I did was order everyone to turn their guns in. He justified this by saying it was to keep the country safe from terrorism. The biggest mistake you can make is believing that something like that won't happen here.

Democracy won't solve anything. Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

No amount of legislation will keep criminals from obtaining guns. Did banning drugs keep people from getting drugs?

So, you need your guns to kill soldiers and cops then?

The politicians who would have to be the ones to make that legislation to take something away from you, are not the ones coming to get your guns. The citizens it has trained, will be the ones to do that. And do you really buy into that conspiracy?

---

And which politicians are trying to take guns away?

(November 30, 2013 at 12:03 pm)Rahul Wrote: Please explain your proposed plan to remove all guns from the United States of America and we can discuss the probability of success.

I did not suggest that, all I'm saying that permission to carry a gun should be much more selective.

Quote:While you're at it why don't you also propose a plan to keep out all the drugs and illegal immigrants that flood into our country as well despite all our attempts to stop it.

A non sequitur.
Firstly, I'm all for legalizing all drugs, but again with limits, and secondly I have no opinion on immigrant quotas for the US.

(November 30, 2013 at 12:29 pm)BreadGod Wrote: It appears you still haven't realized this, so let me spell it out as simply as I can: criminal don't obey gun laws. If you ban guns, the only people you'll be disarming are innocent people. Krav Maga (or any other martial arts for that matter) will be completely useless against someone with a gun.

Actually, it's you who fail to see the point, and the big picture. I didn't mention criminals obtaining guns illegally, because it's so obvious. What I'm trying to get across here is not those who are criminals, but the trigger happy nutters with guns. Easy gun access leads to higher probabilities to get shot, regardless if the person shooting you is a previous criminal or not. Tell me, just how many times have you had someone point a gun at you with malicious intent? If you feel like you need to protect yourself against people with guns, it defeats the purpose if everyone are allowed to carry one, since without guns, no threat. And, there's a much deeper problem if civilians can't depend on law enforcement to do their jobs, without being corrupt or biased etc. That however does not get corrected by letting everyone carry guns and "defend themselves", but by addressing the problem of corruption. And if you like FFF keep your guns locked up, well, good luck if you aren't home and someone puts a gun to your temple. You're screwed anyways, gun owner or not. If the perpetrator is close enough, I can guarantee you that martial arts come in handy. As for banning guns I have never suggested that and I am not of the opinion that it's a good idea.

(November 30, 2013 at 2:50 pm)Chas Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 11:20 am)Kayenneh Wrote: As an European, I cannot agree on that. In my eyes e.g. US health care makes your country most definitely a tyranny.

That makes absolutely no sense. What is tyrannical about it? Please compare to health care in European countries.

You are treated badly by your elected officials and still those most screwed over think that you have a bulletproof system and a great country. As for health care, it's fucked up that it's treated like a business and not focusing on the part where healthy people contribute better to the society. But honestly, this is a huge topic, let's keep on track and focus on the guns.

Quote:Not everyone is physically capable of doing so. It is not realistic to expect those most in need of defense to be able to use that.

And not everyone is mentally capable of handling a gun.
Building a wobbly jenga tower on shitty principles does not deal with the underlying problems and instead of fixing anything it creates more conflict.

EDIT:

(November 30, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(November 30, 2013 at 2:50 pm)Chas Wrote: That makes absolutely no sense. What is tyrannical about it? Please compare to health care in European countries.

You are treated badly by your elected officials and still those most screwed over think that you have a bulletproof system and a great country. As for health care, it's fucked up that it's treated like a business and not focusing on the part where healthy people contribute better to the society. But honestly, this is a huge topic, let's keep on track and focus on the guns.

The U.S. now has a somewhat reasonable healthcare law, so we can drop that.

Quote:

Quote:Not everyone is physically capable of doing so. It is not realistic to expect those most in need of defense to be able to use that.

And not everyone is mentally capable of handling a gun.
Building a wobbly jenga tower on shitty principles does not deal with the underlying problems and instead of fixing anything it creates more conflict.

I never suggested everyone is capable of handling a gun. I am.

What I am not capable of doing is defending myself with my bare hands against a large assailant or multiple assailants. Are you?

Are you capable of defending yourself against multiple armed assailants? What are the comparative risk of serious injury or death? How about collateral damage? How many innocent bystanders are killed or hospitalised by stray punched and kicks?

(November 30, 2013 at 7:30 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Are you capable of defending yourself against multiple armed assailants? What are the comparative risk of serious injury or death? How about collateral damage? How many innocent bystanders are killed or hospitalised by stray punched and kicks?

I am certainly more capable against armed assailants if I have a gun.

What about collateral damage? I don't think I'll be having gunfights at the mall.