Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TwoNineMarine]

If you are willing to kill someone, I would believe, you especially, need to have regulations imposed on your firearms, with satelite tracking on your gun/rifle. Protecting your family is a given, any man would do that. Shooting your gun aimlessly at night in your own house, not sure it is the smartest thing, especially for those 2 young boys you are so fond of.

The bold letters ... I find the irrational fear on regulation is delusional, again a mental illness. A mass hysteria of a war mongering culture on their right to own weapons without compromise.

It is a sickness.

Trust me I don't shoot 'aimlessly'.

Please don't insult me and try to insinuate I am sick. Although if it helps you sleep better at night by all means.

If you think I want to kill someone you are about as idiotic as our current president. I simply said I would defend myself and my family. If that means that someone trying to do them harm dies, then so be it.

If you want to put sat tracking on my weapons come and try and do it yourself.

[Elegiac]

I don't really see how it being your house really changes any of the reasons we have a burden to retreat.

A home is supposed to be a safe place and dwelling; I most definitely think that people have a reasonable expectation of both privacy and security there. That you would have to make an attempt at retreat within your own domicile does not seem reasonable to me given the aforementioned expectation of security.

[Zhangfei]

A home is supposed to be a safe place and dwelling; I most definitely think that people have a reasonable expectation of both privacy and security there. That you would have to make an attempt at retreat within your own domicile does not seem reasonable to me given the aforementioned expectation of security.

Retreat is not the same as abandonment. Retreat is a way of regrouping. It's to find a safer spot to, in theory, battle. What's insane about backing away in your own house to a more defensible position? I'd certainly expect my children to hide in my bedroom with me guarding the door than try and initiate attack plan Delta X where we somehow use windows, doors and one ventilation shaft to surprise and neutralise (sorry, it's guns, I mean slaughter) the enemy.

[Fugus]

If you are willing to kill someone, I would believe, you especially, need to have regulations imposed on your firearms, with satelite tracking on your gun/rifle. Protecting your family is a given, any man would do that. Shooting your gun aimlessly at night in your own house, not sure it is the smartest thing, especially for those 2 young boys you are so fond of.

The bold letters ... I find the irrational fear on regulation is delusional, again a mental illness. A mass hysteria of a war mongering culture on their right to own weapons without compromise.

It is a sickness.

Your only argument is this....

You mistake murder for defending ones home and family, if you can't understand that, you are in the wrong thread.

If I have someone breaking into my home, I am shooting first before I find out if their intentions are to hurt or kill me, hurt or kill a family member, rape or just stealing property. That isn't murder, that is self defense against a possible threat to my life. Why are you trying to risk my life over theirs?

I see nothing wrong with the one you quoted and I would do the same as he would as would yourself I am betting if pushed to it before you allowed your family to be put at risk and hiding till they leave doesn't solve anything as you don't even know when they are leaving or if they are planning on leaving you alive if you are found and if you just scared them off, what is to say they won't come back.

Nice thing to think about, on average and in general, the higher the number of legal gun owners in an area the lower the overall violent crime rate is, lower the number of legal gun owners in an area, the higher the violent crime rate is. I have seen it enough times to notice why, most of the criminals only have balls as big as their perceived advantage. When the populace is unarmed, they are billy badass and a kid in a candy store, when they can defend themselves, many of them just had their balls clipped and turn into bill bitchass instead.

[Elegiac]

Retreat is not the same as abandonment. Retreat is a way of regrouping. It's to find a safer spot to, in theory, battle. What's insane about backing away in your own house to a more defensible position? I'd certainly expect my children to hide in my bedroom with me guarding the door than try and initiate attack plan Delta X where we somehow use windows, doors and one ventilation shaft to surprise and neutralise (sorry, it's guns, I mean slaughter) the enemy.

The major problem I have with the "reasonable retreat" caveat is that it places the burden of guilt on the victim in most circumstances; -they- have to prove their innocence, which is entirely contrary to one of our basic judicial precepts.

[Zhangfei]

The major problem I have with the "reasonable retreat" caveat is that it places the burden of guilt on the victim in most circumstances; -they- have to prove their innocence, which is entirely contrary to one of our basic judicial precepts.

I don't ever assume a person in their home should ever have the burden of guilt put upon them; I do expect them to be intelligent and wise in regards to protecting others. Escalating situations - and guns are the prime example of this - should be a bloody good point where being aggressive is not beneficial.

Otherwise, your point is sound.

[Fugus]

Retreat is not the same as abandonment. Retreat is a way of regrouping. It's to find a safer spot to, in theory, battle. What's insane about backing away in your own house to a more defensible position? I'd certainly expect my children to hide in my bedroom with me guarding the door than try and initiate attack plan Delta X where we somehow use windows, doors and one ventilation shaft to surprise and neutralise (sorry, it's guns, I mean slaughter) the enemy.

Back out into a more defensible position than your house?......

Sorry but if I am attacked within my house, I have nowhere more defensible to fallback to, my choice is to either abandon my house till they leave or fight. Sorry, but I am not going to give up everything to let someone come in my house like it is theirs. I WILL defend myself, I will fall back to a more defensible spot within the house if need be, but I will defend myself and all I have.

[Elegiac]

I don't ever assume a person in their home should ever have the burden of guilt put upon them; I do expect them to be intelligent and wise in regards to protecting others. Escalating situations - and guns are the prime example of this - should be a bloody good point where being aggressive is not beneficial.

Otherwise, your point is sound.

Indeed, and I happen to hold that most gun owners -are- responsible in this regard; ergo, alteration of Stand Your Ground or Castle Law seeks to address a minority issue that would exacerbate more problems than it solves.

[Zhangfei]

Indeed, and I happen to hold that most gun owners -are- responsible in this regard; ergo, alteration of Stand Your Ground or Castle Law seeks to address a minority issue that would exacerbate more problems than it solves.

Unlike voting, I believe any accidental or unnecessary death should be actively fought against and rejected. Legal ownership of handguns without any intelligent training just leads to mass slaughter. Altering those laws saves lives, they're not actually remotely reasonable. One innocent death is proof they have ceased functioning.

[Fugus]

Unlike voting, I believe any accidental or unnecessary death should be actively fought against and rejected. Legal ownership of handguns without any intelligent training just leads to mass slaughter. Altering those laws saves lives, they're not actually remotely reasonable. One innocent death is proof they have ceased functioning.

You realize that would effectively mean we have to ban virtually everything as cars, planes, boats, peanuts, hell even sporks have killed at least one innocent person?

[Zhangfei]

You realize that would effectively mean we have to ban virtually everything as cars, planes, boats, peanuts, hell even sporks have killed at least one innocent person?

Those things are necessary - in a meaningful sense. Guns are not. They literally provide nothing we cannot already attain.

[Elegiac]

Unlike voting, I believe any accidental or unnecessary death should be actively fought against and rejected. Legal ownership of handguns without any intelligent training just leads to mass slaughter. Altering those laws saves lives, they're not actually remotely reasonable. One innocent death is proof they have ceased functioning.

There has to be a balance between liberty and security; you should only abrogate the former is the tangible gain is sufficient to justify it. I do not consider the rate of deaths under a reformed system to be sufficient to justify it.

[Fugus]

Those things are necessary - in a meaningful sense. Guns are not. They literally provide nothing we cannot already attain.

Safety from attack within your own home? That is one you can't attain with a way to actually defend yourself.

If you have something else we could effectively use instead let us know and don't try and say the police as many times it is terminally too late by the time they get there.

And since when were sporks needed? Or peanuts? By your logic they should be banned as well as they are not needed and have killed in the past.

[Elegiac]

Those things are necessary - in a meaningful sense. Guns are not. They literally provide nothing we cannot already attain.

Why does necessity factor in to it?

[Kalyyn]

Those things are necessary - in a meaningful sense. Guns are not. They literally provide nothing we cannot already attain.

You have no idea what it's like to be upper class and live just a few miles outside of a giant meth lab that somehow qualifies as a town then.

[Zhangfei]

There has to be a balance between liberty and security; you should only abrogate the former is the tangible gain is sufficient to justify it. I do not consider the rate of deaths under a reformed system to be sufficient to justify it.

And I do. I consider gun ownership an affront to both - to use a particularly crude and offensive example, it's like suggesting rape become legal. Yes, you're arguing for increased self-possession and more freedom, but what you're actually arguing for is less of both. It's not actually beneficial. The statistics seem to bear out an increased homicide rate for uncontrolled gun ownership, and that's disgraceful. A deceased life - of any flavour - limits the freedoms of everybody.

Safety from attack within your own home? That is one you can't attain with a way to actually defend yourself.

If one needs to use fists or knives or swords of naginata, they should be able to.

Sporks have a practical use to eat certain types of messy food - I do love my South Carolina honey mustard barbecue. None of that North Carolina wank. Peanuts have multiple uses.

You have no idea what it's like to be upper class and live just a few miles outside of a giant meth lab that somehow qualifies as a town then.

You literally have no idea of what it's like living in SC :toppa:

[Fugus]

You have no idea what it's like to be upper class and live just a few miles outside of a giant meth lab that somehow qualifies as a town then.

My thinking exactly for many of these guys. They see guns as bad till they see how bad things can get and why they are needed. Guns have actually have a calming effect on crime. It has been seen as a great equalizer.

You want to lower the violent crime rate, you have 2 methods.

1) Increase the number of legal gun owners in an area as to reduce the number of possible victims a criminal can safely target.
2) Increase the pay to the majority of the people so that people can provide and educate themselves without being desperate and stressed the entire time so less will feel the need to become violent criminals.

Sorry but removing guns will not fix the problems.

[Kalyyn]

\
You literally have no idea of what it's like living in SC :toppa:

At least you have police.

We, on the other hand, do not. Not in any practical sense, anyway.

[Fugus]

If one needs to use fists or knives or swords of naginata, they should be able to.

Sporks have a practical use to eat certain types of messy food - I do love my South Carolina honey mustard barbecue. None of that North Carolina wank. Peanuts have multiple uses.

So if I have people breaking into my house, I am supposed to pray they don't have a gun so I can come at them with my fists? Really?


Lets me pose this hypothetical question to you. Lets say you are married with a wife and 2 kids, 1 boy, 1 girl. Now in the middle of the night at 3am, you have an intruder break into your house. Are you going to run and hide and risk your families life or are you going to deal with the threat? Now keep in mind that at 3am in the dark, by the time you can check long enough to assess the threat they have enough time to kill you. Your choice is to defend your family or risk their lives. What option are you going to do?

Edit: And evidently you have no idea what it is like in Hope Mills, NC

[Zhangfei]

Every time someone posts about "you don't know how to live around X" in America, I remember I live in a state with obnoxiously high legal and illegal gun ownership rates and I remember your arguments are null and void.

When my city of 150k had twice the gun murders of the entirety of the UK, I think guns being a form of protections becomes a null and void point. It then becomes an argument of pure rates - do gun ownership societies without any meaningful control have less deaths than gun control societies?

So if I have people breaking into my house, I am supposed to pray they don't have a gun so I can come at them with my fists? Really?

Are you so naive you rely upon a mechanical instrument that might fail or misfire? Do you honestly have no back ups? Come on, you sound more of a danger than a protection.