The debate "Guns are awesome and should not be banned." was started by
July 26, 2015, 11:42 pm.
39 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 59 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
AstroSpace posted 7 arguments, toughgamerjerry posted 5 arguments, DerpedLocke posted 2 arguments, ototoxic posted 6 arguments, toughgamer posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
sloanstar1000 posted 8 arguments, historybuff posted 22 arguments, AstroSpace posted 22 arguments, PsychDave posted 13 arguments, ari_pooya posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
AstroSpace, Abid_CUSD, toughgamerjerry, DavidStuff777, username_gracie, DerpedLocke, Skeetc15, graples, nicalow, wayneSPEC, ototoxic, theQueenofdebate, ajeng, dixie18, Tristanzee, jbailee, nwenn24, steady_current and 21 visitors agree.
gouthamabi, sloanstar1000, Prit, thisrisingtide, PsychDave, historybuff, ferida1237, toyunique, musejay1, TransPanTeen, invincible_01, Alp4president, benrpollak, ari_pooya, ufufugh, Otabek, PranavArora, flam3zxx3, ibrahim, Edson, Musstta, PandaKidd, countrybumpkin, xbulletwithbutterflywingsx, Tiger1738, AngryBlogger and 33 visitors disagree.
First off, your last three examples were not gun control they are explosive control and do not pertain to gun control at all because the only way US citizens can buy them is through the black market, but making them is another story.
Secondly, I'm sorry that which argument I was referring to was not clear, that was my fault. My point was that, if gun owners of America stop a debate from happening on gun control, then if guns are banned they will riot.
Yes you are right, military personnel cannot simply walk away legally. But people who are in the military, have been trained to never let their gun leave them. Why do you think they teach them that. Because a gun is the best weapon against another gun, or any weapon. Please answer this question. If someone is trying to kill you with a gun, not rob you, not injure you, kill you, do you want to have a gun to stand up against to him, or are you going to throw your life away because he has a gun?
You never did rebut my argument against my comparison between guns and drugs so if it is not clear please let me know.
The problem with arguing gun control is that almost everyone who is sane agrees that it is necessary, we just draw the line in different places. I will show what I mean with a rough list of escalating scenarios.
Should citizens be able to own rifles for hunting?
Should citizens be able to own semiautomatic rifles?
Should citizens be able to own handguns?
Should citizens be able to carry concealed handguns?
Should citizens be able to purchase fully automatic weapons?
Should citizens be able to purchase military grade weapons and ammunition (for example a .50 Cal sniper rifle and armour piercing rounds)?
Should civilians be able to purchase explosives (grenades, claymore)?
Should civilians be able to purchase RPGs?
Should civilians be able to purchase surface to air missiles?
All of these could be justified under the second amendment as being used to prevent a tyrannical government, but most people agree that at some point the risks associated with having them available outweigh the potential benefits.
The US military is voluntary, but to leave because you disagree with an order is called desertion, which is a crime. They cannot simply walk away.
You are right about the gun owners of America getting in the way. They prevented people from having to get a background check to buy guns from am individual. They lobbied and fought because they thought it unreasonable that, before buying a gun, people should have to prove that they haven't killed someone with a gun before. I'm not sure how you think that demonstrates anything positive for your position.
Oh and PsycheDave, here's some evidence for you. There was going to be a debate between Manchin and Toomey in 2013. But guess what? That's right, the gun owners of America got in the way, and it never happened. Why? Well why don't we look at the obvious? Guns that are bought legally are used to protect people from guns that are bought illegally. You make them all illegal, and the deaths from guns will rise.
If drugs are illegal, then why do we see so many people, including college students with drugs? There's this thing called the black market, and no matter what the government does they can't stop it. If college students can get drugs from the black market, then psychos can as well. They arrest people who buy and sell, but that's it. And from how much I've seen, they don't do that good of a job at arresting people who do have it.
The US military is volunteer, not forced. otoxic is right, if something goes against their morals, then they will leave.
You guys are debating a worst case scenario. You don't even know that it will (or won't) happen. But one thing I do know is this. Someone is trying to kill you. They have a gun. No matter what they are going to try and kill you, not rob you, not injure you, kill you. Would you rather have a gun to protect yourself, or just stand there and throw your life away?
"A child is killed by a gunshot" Bull Crap. A child cannot defend himself against a grown man. If someone is trying to kill a child, they don't need a gun to do it, all they need is their hands. A man walks up to a child, grabs him by the neck, and chokes him to death. He used his hands. HANDS!!! What are you gonna ban hands now too because they can kill children?
Also might I add this. I am American. The people against this topic are Canadian. You obviously don't know how Americans are. If guns are suddenly banned, it won't be like the gay ruling. Most, and yes I mean most, of Americans do not want gun bans. And most of the people in the government are not trying to get rid of guns either. WHY DO YOU THINK THEY WERE VOTED IN? They don't want guns to be banned just like the majority of America. If you want guns to be banned then you are an unconstitutional democratic liberal and nothing else. And there are very few in congress. One of which is sitting in the white house. If he ever gives a law against guns, everyone will riot, even the military and he knows it. Which is why it won't happen because he is the only one who can do something like that and he is scared of the American people (which includes the military)
I'm very sorry that I have not been active on this topic, I was on vacation and have not been able to participate while traveling.
Radiation poisoning isn't on the list either, but civilians should not be able to purchase Uranium. Whether guns kill 100, 1000 or 100 000 you need to look at the big picture. These are deaths that could be avoided, and you are advocating that we not because you might decide that your elected officials need killing someday.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they will find a way. That does not mean that you should hand them a grenade. We cannot stop all psychos, but by limiting their access to weapons that facilitate killing (like guns) we can reduce the damage.
Military personnel are indeed people, but they are people who chose to serve their country and follow orders. You seem to not understand that aspect of military service. These are men and women who have been trained to follow orders over their own instincts because a day may come when they are ordered to run into the line of fire.
While there are things that would cause them to disobey, that in no way makes guns in civilian hands relevant. As I said, if the military sides with the rebels, the civilian guns are irrelevant because the military would be doing all the work. If the military is against them, they would do better to not be armed because then they are less likely to be gunned down. Either way the rebellion is not aided by you having a gun.
The leafing causes of death in the US.
Diseases of the heart
Chronic lower respiratory diseases
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Nephritis, nephritic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
Influenza and pneumonia
Intentional self harm (suicide)
Homicide (let alone homicide done with a fire arm) isn't even on the list. So what does that mean? It means that out of hundreds of thousands of deaths a year, a very small percentage is caused by gun violence. Even though the argument is about guns you still have to look at the big picture. Many, many deaths are caused by natural and unnatural things. Banning guns will only anger people and the national death rate could actually go up (not guaranteed though) because now the bad guys (who would still have easy access to guns) could pull off illegal activities much easier.
And there's one more point that you guys are missing. If someone wants to kill someone, and I mean really wants to, they will; taking their guns away isn't going to stop that. A crazy killer isn't going to stop just because they can't do it cleanly.
Military personnel are people too, they have families. If it comes down to it they'll leave the military to be with their family. And the ones who don't have families will either fight with government or not.
You guys don't realize that if a person is given an order that goes against their morals then they most likely won't obey. Unless another factor is involved.
I only meant "it'd be suicide" as an expression.
I am reading what you are typing, but it is not internally, logically consistent.
If the military feels that the government has crossed a line and needs to be overthrown, civilians armed with rifles are the least of the government's problems. In this case, the population being armed is irrelevant since the military is removing the government. If the military does not side with the rebels, no matter how well armed they are for civilians they will be so thoroughly out gunned that they have no hope of success. Whether armed with a 9mm, an AK or a 30-30 they have no hope against drones and APCs. Again, being armed does no real good.
At what point in this scenario does having armed civilians become enough of a benefit to outweigh the many deaths to gun violence and accidents that we are seeing today?
Are you reading what I've been typing? I said (and meant, if it wasn't clear) that the military wouldn't defend the government if the GOVERNMENT made the move over the line. I know what an innocent civilian is compared to an enemy. It's obvious that if the civilians stormed the government then the military would stand in defense of the government.
You make a lot of claims that I don't think you can support with evidence.
First is "The military has nothing to do with it." If a group of people took up arms and marched on the capital, do you honestly believe the military would not be called in? A small uprising would likely be put down by the police, but if it were too large for that to be viable a state of emergency would be declared and the military would step in. At the point when a group of people are illegally trying to overthrow the government in a bloody coup, they aren't really "innocent civilians" anymore, they are armed insurgents.
Secondly, how do you come to the conclusion that more of the population would support an armed uprising that I think? Since the civil war there has yet to be am idea or controversy that prompted people to take up arms in a common cause. There have been crazy people who believed they should and stockpiled weapons in the forest, but no popular support has ever materialized. Without knowing what will prompt you to start shooting your elected officials, how can you possibly claim that everyone will agree with you? By claiming not siding with the uprising would amount to suicide, are you actually suggesting that in a rebellion you participated in you would put to death anyone who did not support you?
People do not bow down at the turn of a pen, they compromise what they want with what is best for society. Everyone wants lots of money, but we accept that being able to just take it would not work for society so we accept laws preventing it. We accept what the government says because that is the nature of a democracy. If you don't like what the government is doing, you are obviously the minority (at least among those who vote) because otherwise the government wouldn't have been elected.
Well on that point. The military isn't one mind, it's a body of individuals. So the leeway varies. But that would also go back to what I said earlier that it'd be suicide not to obey to the bigger party. But still in my opinion most of the military would have a similar and much more struct idea of "over the line" than the government.
But as long as the military defends the government citizens would have little to no chance of winning. and of the military doesn't defend the government you wouldn't need many guns to do it.
But different people have different ideas of what within reason is. I'd say the military would give the government alot of leeway before they would allow the government to fall.
My point was if the government acted OUT of reason, sorry I thought that was apparent. If the government acts within reason then I'd hope the military backs them.
The military defends the country. the government is the representatives of the country. If the government started killing babies then yeah the military might not defend them. but if they did something within the realm of reason it would be a different story. If they adopted gun laws like Canada, ie having the right to own certain weapons, not most. some people would fight back and the military would back the government. at least half the country would support these new laws. you would not be able to overthrow the government for exercising their legitimate authority
Now when it comes to semi-automatic rifles being more dangerous, they aren't. If you look at the damage done by a 30-30 lever action (a common and beloved hunting rifle) and an ak-47 you'd see that the ak did hardly anything compared to the 30-30. The 30-30 isn't even close to the most damaging hunting rifle. I don't think people need automatic weapons or michine guns but I do think they should have the right to them. I think for any large caliber weapon people should go through qualification and get a license, that also includes semi-automatic.
Do you know why you have to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy and own a handgun? Because handguns are MUCH more dangerous than long guns. Hand guns arm and shoot quicker and can go off without pulling the trigger (unlikely but can still happen). Also they can be concealed much more easily. You guys keep arguing over "big guns" when really a gun is a gun. It doesn't matter if the gun looks tactical, it doesn't matter how big or small the gun is (remember gentlemen, size doesn't matter), and it doesn't matter if the gun is used for hunting or self defense. A gun is a gun, any gun is deadly.
All that matters is WHO has the gun. "Who" being and individual not a nation.
Going back to earlier in the "argument". The US citizens would actually be easily able to abolish the government with guns or no guns, the military has nothing to do with it; infact the military is all about protecting the country and citizens, not the government. The military will go against orders if those orders include attacking innocent civilians. Also, much more of the US population would stand against the government than you think; even if they are die-hard fans of the government they know it'd be suicide to take their side. Not only do the citizens have more numbers they also have more political power. It seems like people forget that government technically has no power without us, though they abuse that power to create an allusion. You can't be afraid of the government and you can't just bow down at the turn of a pen.
explain to me how the death of any living thing is ok? banning guns is promoting safety for all. to even say guns are awesome.....well your saying that death and blood is awesome! that the life of an innocent is not priceless compared to the "awesome guns." picture a boy, young and healthy. he had a great life ahead of him, he was to go into a great college and make a difference in the world. then some man who happened to share an interest in guns took that boys chances away. every single possibility the boy could have was shot. like the boy himself. thanks to those "awesome guns."
I apologize... furthermore, not only will those that would abuse the right to bear arms find ways around the law, but those mild-mannered, law-abiding citizens would find themselves without such a defense in, say, a hostile encounter with said gun-abusers. Also those that would use guns as little more than target practice would be unfairly restricted to dart-throwing or archery (wonderful exercises as well but STILL).
I resent this topic because it is two-pronged. "Guns are awesome" and "Guns should not be banned".
With your first point, I assert that the use of guns to hit certain inanimate objects is quite unobjectionable. I find it quite enjoyable and a brilliant exercise in hand-eye coordination.
Concerning your second point, I simply assert that banning them will have the same effect Prohibition did with alcohol. Those that abuse such devices will obviously find a way to procure them outside of the law.
Also I found rates for homicide by weapon. In The US of 12,664 murders in 2011, 8,583 of them used a gun. That's about 68%. In Canada in 2012 there were 543 homicides. 153 used a gun. That's about 28%. (if my percentages are off i apologize, its been awhile since math class) Clearly controlling guns results in less gun related deaths. Canda's homicides in general are much lower then the US, and the percentage that include guns is also much lower.
I pulled up the top homicide states. I grabbed all of the ones over 6 murders per 100,000 people. murders per 100,000 ppl. In order they are Louisiana - 10.8 - very little gun control. Alabama -7.2 - very little control. Mississippi - 6.5 - very little control. Maryland - 6.4 - some gun control. Michigan -6.4 - some gun control. South Carolina - 6.2 - resticts military weapons but not much else. New Mexico - 6.0 - virtually no gun control. canada - 1.44. The lowest state was Iowa which had a rate of 1.4. Iowa has lots of gun control. They have banned lots of weapons and require permits for most others. So no, your assertion that the highest homicide rates were in states with gun control is wrong. Lack of gun Control does not 100% correlate to a high homicide rate, but it is clearly a contributing factor. If you were looking at straight numbers maybe it would be different, but it doesn't make sense to look at it that way because more people will mean crimes.
I grew up on a farm and we had several guns for protecting the livestock from wolves and hunting. I don't feel that all guns should be banned, which is why I waited to join the conversation until AstroSpace made his intentions clear about the extent of the topic. I can certainly agree that guns do not need to be banned entirely, but they should be carefully controlled to prevent the kind of mass shootings and violence we see all too often in the media.
BTW I cannot remember who but someone said that the US has triple the amount of homicides as Canada. Well, have you looked at where in the US has the most homicides? I have, and the states with the most gun control have the most homicides in the US. I do not have a computer with me at the moment but when I get one I will get you the states with the most homicides and the least homicides and state their gun control.
If there are any other arguments that you would like me to answer please let me know and I will do my best to answer them.
AstroSpace, please just stop. You don't know how to debate so try learning from a 3 year professional debater or some of the other people on here like history buff or Psychdave or Sloan star who know how to debate and how to debate well.
I am going to go for both sides on this debate, debating arguments made on both sides, but my decision is that guns should not be banned.
If someone pulls a knife on me, I will use my training in martial arts to take them down. If you are worried about someone pulling a knife on you, start taking martial arts. If someone pulls a gun on me, it depends on where they are. If they have the gun on my head or my arms length away, I can stop them and get them into a submission without killing them or even injuring them. If they are further away, then I will listen to them and wait to see if I get a chance to take them down, if not then I just lost my wallet and now have to go home and freeze my credit card.
If someone breaks into my home, I will grab my gun, and be waiting for them around the corner and shoot right as I identify them so that I am not harming a family member who woke up in the middle of the night. If I am not able to get to my gun (which would never happen) I will again wait around the corner for them and use my training to take them down. And of course after he is taken care of I would call the police and explain what happened. What Psychdave said about the Michigan, is the best thing to do if you do not have training in close combat, or a corner to hide behind. It is not something that I would do because of my training, but I would recommend that for people who do not have training.
Assult rifles are illegal to be bought by civilians in America. No one needs an Assult rifle. No one. But if someone does manage to get one off of the black market and they have it pointed at me or people around me, I am going to listen to him. If you pull out a gun that automatic weapon is going to go off and kill dozens of people before you can get your pistol out and start firing at him, and then you would most likely be dead. It would be stupid to do that and you would be the one who killed everyone who died because to drew the person to shoot.
Machine guns are illegal and should stay that way. Pistols and shotguns and semi automatics are not illegal and should stay that way.
One sec, ran out of room.
Way to step up your intellectual game there Astro *slow clap*
You have the mind of a child. there's the entire rest of the internet you can go to so you can use playground insults, go there.
historybuff you are a scared little pussy.
No I said that. as it is what virtually all experts say you should do. and call the police.
I said hide if a robber breaks into your house?
could you quote me directly?
Thank you for confirming that you should go back to Canada and are a complete moron. You backed down after realizing you were telling me to hide if a robber breaks in. You do that.
I didn't say that you wanted nuclear bombs in the hands of civilians. You thought that we should be allowed to mount 50. cal machine guns on our trucks because we need to be able to defend ourselves against the government. Since we obviously would need military grade weapons to do that, civillians would need access to cruise missiles, predator drones, and tactical nuclear weapons as well. Then you back down because you realize how ridiculous your argument was.
You would have understood my point the first time I stated it if you had any grasp on the English language, or the ability to detect sarcasm.
thank you for confirming your inability to debate reasonably once again.
You obviously went way off course with this debate sloan. Trying to sound intelligent and correct by arguing that I want civilians to own nuclear bombs. This debate is getting very dry, and none if your arguments would ever apply to the real world. Ever.
all you did was confirm my point ten times over, my only point was that you make it impossible to have a decent and civil debate because you debate by derailing the discussion, avoiding the points made, and using insults.
you go on to assume that I don't the difference between a semi automatic weapon and an automatic weapon. assuming that I only watch the mainstream news. even assuming what my position is on various other subjects without bothering to check what my position is.
not once did you even address what I actually said my last comment, why would anyone debate with you?
Not everyone would join you. Much of the country is ardent nationalists. Many just want to live their lives in peace and wouldn't fight. You would never get the entire country to rise up against the government. A good example of what you would face is the Turkish Kurds. they have been trying to gain independence from Turkey for over 20 years. the Kurds make up 15-25% of Turkey's population and there are sizeable populations of Kurds in the neighboring countries. Yet they have never come close to defeating the government. And turkey has nowhere near the military might of American. Unless the US government started killing and eating babies you would never get enough people to rise up at once to win a war.
We completely outnumber the government. 100 to one.
And I laid out point by point why you would lose. Do you have any reason to think you would win? any logical reasoning?
Your argument was very poor. Basically, don't even try because you'll lose. Whatever.
Lol you really do just go in circles without ever actually reading other peoples responses. I have already laid out my points on why having guns to resist the government is stupid. Constantly repeating yourself doesn't help. Try reading my points and finding a real counter to them.
Oh, so you're saying the government should have all of the power and we should be defenseless. Tell that to the Native Americans. "Hand in your guns. The government loves you."
Actually they are. the second amendment was never intended to include automatic weapons. they didn't exist when it was written. it could easily be reinterpreted to not include them. Also amendments can be changed or repealed if they no longer represent the best interests of the people. The eighteenth amendment was repealed so why not the second?
Ok. Well, 2nd Amendment, so no point in debating. American rights aren't negotiable.
I explained quite clearly in what cases it would help and which it wouldn't. your ability to ignore logic does not negate my arguments
So now you say a gun "might help." Then you said it would get you killed...
Not sure where you get the idea that it would get you killed...Unless it was you and didn't know which end to point towards the target.
Anyway, nice debate, but you didn't hold up your end very well. Your irrational fear of guns doesn't override my right to defend myself.
Alright, I am going to say this for the last time. If someone is mugging you they don't want to kill you. If you hand them your wallet you will likely live. If they have a knife and you go for a gun, as long as they are willing to use the knife, you will likely die. If they have a drawn gun on you, you will almost certainly die. Now if the person is just trying to kill you for some reason, ie. serial killer or someone who hates you, then yeah maybe the gun will save you. But unless you go around driving people to homicidal rage, which having debated with you i'd say might be likely, then it is unlikely that the gun is going to save you in this situation. It will likely get you killed.
So what if they attack with the gun or knife? Will you beg for mercy?
It shows that you are trying to be a smart-ass by assuming I don't know my own countries states, even worse my own rights.
That's easy. You hand them your wallet and live. If someone is in front of you with a knife they are well inside of the effective range of a gun. Unless they are very dumb they will get you with a knife before you get them with a gun. Please see the 21 foot rule. If they are inside of 21 feet then the knife is the better weapon.
What will you do if a gun or knife is pulled on you in your house or on the street?
Which one? most of them were rhetorical.
Actually I have as much say as I care to take advantage of. I can say whatever I would like, and you have no method of muzzling me. I don't have any power to change it, but then neither do you in any real sense.
In what way does that remove Michigan from the US and invalidate my point?
You have yet to answer my question.
We're done trying to use rational arguments on an irrational person. We lay logical arguments as to why guns need to be controlled and all you do is insult us and say "ya well i have a right to them". you are clearly not capable of debating so don't try.
And Psychdave, you were talking about Citizens Defense Training and stated "you may be aware that Michigan is in the United States." You may be aware that you have no say on my 2nd amendment rights.
I think we have all reached the point in this debate that we stop arguing with you. We have demonstrated repeatedly with logic, expert opinion and statistics that your views are invalid, but you persist in being insulting, immature and refuse to address any criticism of your arguments in a manner suitable for a debate.
sloanstar, your excusing your childish debating skills by saying "I knew this was going to happen." What are you, psychic?
sloanstar, I find it hilarious how you're trying to seem all intelligent and mature after your first argument was "well in that case we should allow citizens to purchase enriched uranium." Your responses were utterly moronic and incoherent. You probably don't know the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic, a clip and a magazine, a rifle and machine gun. I also love how you all claim "you can't respond to our simple facts and evidence." The only "fact" you continuously pushed is that you should hide and let the robber take what they want and steal your things or kill you. No offense, but you guys obviously have never researched much besides mainstream news. We should all just hide and obey the robbers orders. That's smart. That's how you end up dead. When a robber breaks into your house, know that I or anyone else won't help you at all, because it is your choice to play the defenseless victim. Thousand of people are saved by guns everyday, 6,850. Many times, the assailant backs down after just seeing the gun, and nobody gets hurt. Other times, lethal force is unavoidable. The fact is, banning guns will only give the government and criminals the power. Tell me this. What if you get a knife pulled on you in the street, or robbed and the robber has a knife or gun. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? BEG FOR MERCY?
After reading that disaster of a "debate", I can only agree that you aren't worth arguing with Astro. As PsychdDave and HistoryBuff were using actual statistics and rational arguments, your defense devolved into irrelevant responses, incoherent driveling, and personal attacks. I bowed out on a sarcastic note early because I saw that that what was going to happen.
So some friendly advice, If you can't argue point by point, and defend each argument on their own without resorting to child like debate tactics, people aren't going to want to debate with you.
As you seem to be regressing to even less rational arguments, I will call it a night. Hopefully by morning you will have a better response to rational arguments and logic than "DUHHHH". I hope by then you will respond to questions about you ability to define who is and is not a "true American" with something other than evasion.
The instructors likely don't believe in being a scared baby themselves, they just say that to prevent confrontation. Just like schools tell you not to fight a bullly, just let them bully you and they will save you. DUHHHH
Lol just stop dave. You can adopt those dumbass tactics. I wont. That's what scared babies do.
So the instructors are not "real Americans" by your standards even though some are former military personnel and police officers? What qualifies you to pass that judgement?
Again do you have any answer for our arguments and logic? Anything other than macho bullshit?
True Americans would never hide like a pansy. If you're so confident that guns will kill me and my family, why not rob mine or american house and see how it turns out. Go back to Canada if guns are so bad.
I was not saying you should hide and call police, I was quoting Citizen Defense Training, a self defense training company in Michigan (you may be aware that is in the USA). Their instructors are experienced police, military and martial arts experts. If you would like to explain to them how foolish they are, I could gladly provide their contact information.
I agree. you aren't worth arguing with. You completely ignore logical arguments or go back to ridiculous rhetoric. You disagree with all experts on how to protect your family on some stupid john Wayne "manly" bullshit that will more than likely kill you and your family.
And thus you demonstrate a complete lack of common sense and American rights.
And thus you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of Canada.
PsychDave, that is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my entire life. I don't care if you're armed or not, you enter my house and try to rob me, you will be shot or attacked. I can't get over your idea to "remain calm" and hide like a whiny b****. Go back to liberal lolly land. A robber could have a gun or knife, and usually do. What if they take your family member or attack you with something other than fists? You guys aren't even worth arguing, your argument to hide like a scared girl made me laugh. The police are only minutes away when seconds count. You can go ahead and play the fearful victim.
What if your enemy has an AK? It's not all about being fair in a fight. it's about surviving. Canada can keep its communist ways.
Are you ever going to respond to historybuff's points about the higher homicide rate, gun death rate, or any of his other statistics, facts and logic with something other than rhetoric? You first said that you should have the right to mount a machine gun to your truck then, apparently forgetting that, agreed that no one needed a 50 Cal machine gun on their truck.
You should also look into what police recommend people do in the event of a burglar. The response is almost invariably lock yourself and your family in a safe room and call the police. If confronted by the burgler, speak in a calm voice, and do not attack them.
I don't want to completely disarm anyone. I was born and raised in the country. We had rifles, most of my neighbors have shotguns. Those types of things are fine. But virtually no one in Canada has or needs an automatic weapon. Those sorts of weapons are more than enough to defend yourself from a burglar. There is absolutely no need to use an AK to stop a man armed with a knife. And if he has an AK you probobly shouldn't get into a fire fight anyway. Also i know that the populace being armed has very rarely lead to good things. Example A being the massively higher homicide rate in the US. Not to mention the thousands of accidental deaths and injuries from guns. The only example i can really think of would be the American Revolution, but as i've already described, no amount of small arms is going to resist a stealth bomber.
You don't seem to really be much of a "history buff" if you are in favor of disarming the american people.
Hahahaha, so you should just stay quiet and let someone steal your stuff and possibly stab or shoot you or your childeren. That's so ridiculous. When someone breaks into MY house, they're considerably more likely to die. You can let them steal your stuff or hold you hostage. I wont. Why are you so quick to brag about Canada? Guns aren't the only thing people kill with. Hammers, knives, and bats kill more than guns. An in China stabbed over 20 kids with a knife. So we should ban knives? The point is, if I want to kill someone, I will, guns or no guns.
If someone breaks into your home and you attack him you are considerably more likely to die. Most people who break in don't want to kill you, they want your stuff. Having a gun in your home is more likely to get you killed. If the guns were illegal in the first place criminals wouldn't have nearly as many. There are few crimes committed with automatic weapons in Canada because they're hard to get. It's also a lot harder to get hand guns. These are major reasons the homicide rate is triple that of Canada.
1st of all, this goddamn app continuously deletes my entire 5 paragraph responses, so I'll make it short. Semi automatic rifles and fully automatic rifles we're in used in the 1940s. I don't know if Jews owned them, probably not, but if they were allowed to and did, they could have resisted the holocaust. Second of all, the MQ-1 Predator drone operates at 25,000 ft, 50,000 is awful high. As stated earlier, guns are used 80 times as much to protect than to kill. You just never hear about the times it does protect. 3rd, clips are different from magazines...4th, the right to bare arms is a right that shall not be infringed upon. Criminals don't obey laws. Do you think a criminal will turn in all of his guns?
Everyone always looks at this debate the wrong way. Guns are going to be bought through the black market, so would you rather have a gun to defend yourself against someone who walks in and starts shooting, or would you rather be ducking behind cover crying and hoping he doesn't walk around that corner and shoots you? I don't know about you, but I would rather have a gun to defend myself, even if I die, I would rather die defending myself than die cowering behind cover.
There are laws that restricts military grade weapons from being bought by citizens, which I agree the no one has the need for a 50 cal machine gun on their truck, but people are and should stay being able to buy pistols and semi-automatic rifles, and shotguns.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't resist a government take over, I'm saying that by the time it comes to citizens fighting the American military fighting wont do you any good. People need to be engaged with their government so that doesn't happen. Bolt action rifles were pretty much the best weapons on the market before they were disarmed. They were the top of the line. They wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes against the Wehrmacht. It was the one of the best militaries on the planet. No matter what weapons you acquire you will never be able to stop the American military. It is the best military in human history. Unless you can get billion dollar advanced fighter jets and bombers you would have no chance. Military drones can fly at 50,000 feet and still watch and kill you. Newer models can travel almost the speed of sound. Unless you have access to advanced radar and anti-air weaponry you aren't going to bring them down. In a modern world of military budgets in the hundreds of billions it simply does not matter how many guns you get. You will never stop the military if they decide to use force. And until you do thousands of people die. The American homicide rate is about 3X the Canadian one. Firearm homicides occur 440% more in the USA (2.7) than in Canada (0.5). These are innocent people being murdered by weapons, most of which would be illegal in Canada. You have mass shootings frequently. When someone goes on a rampage in Canada the body count is almost always a lot lower because it is extremely difficult to get an automatic weapon. As well as semi automatic weapons cannot have a clip size over 5. How often does using these weapons to defend yourself against the government come up? Almost never. How often are they used to kill innocent people. Every single day.
historybuff, you are incorrect. To begin with, you are basically saying that if there is a government takeover, we should not even resist, just be like the Jews and allow ourselves to die. You also stated that bolt action rifles are no match for the government. EXACTLY. And you want to ban semi automatic rifles? The irony...This notion is completely absurd, especially when considering how much we outnumber the government. You do know that drones can be shot down, right? Guns protect from a tyrannical government, just like when America broke away from britain, and won the war. Don't forget that guns also protect from home invaders and thugs as well. Do you think that criminals will just turn in their guns? They obey laws, right? Do you think you can get guns if they're illegal? People still get cocaine and illegal drugs. Criminals would just buy guns off the black market, and kill more citizens. If more people have guns, they will be able to neutralize a mass shooter quickly, and protect themselves. Finally, not only innocent people are shot with guns. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year for self defense. 6,850 times a day. That means that guns are used 80 times more often to protect citizens rather than to kill them.
And Jews having guns would not have saved them. Government's will always have vastly superior force to private citizens. Do you think a few bolt action rifles would stop the tanks and submachine guns? Of course not. Similarly even if you had a 50 cal. on your truck it wouldn't help. If you ever tried to use if you'd be bombes by a drone without ever seeing it. The truth is the vast majority of victims of these guns is innocent people.
First of all, guns cannot wipe out entire cities and radiate and kill thousands of people at once, so your nuclear bomb relation is pathetic. Second of all, explain to me what an "assault rifle" is. There's no difference between an "assault rifle" and a hunting rifle. Both use semi automatic (must pull the trigger for each shot). Maybe you think we should ban knives and hammers as well? How about banning spoons, they make people fat. FYI, guns do not have legs and cannot run around and shoot people. Also, you seem to think that only the government should own guns. Worked out great for the Indians, didn't it? How about Adolf Hotler, disarming and killing Jews, or Pol Pot, or Stalin? Funny thing is, they all took the people's guns and then killed them.
If someone should be allowed to arm themselves however they want then there shouldn't be any restrictions on nuclear weapons, or any other weapon. Or, if like a sane person, you want to restrict massive weaponry in the hands on lunatics then you need to draw a line somewhere. The line in my opinion is military hardware. No private citizen needs an assault rifle let alone a 50 cal.
Where did I say we should be allowed to buy nuclear weapons? You're taking this way out of proportion.
well in that case, we should allow citizens to purchase enriched uranium and allow the construction of nuclear facilities if there aren't going to be any restrictions, and if its really about tactically defending yourself from the government. Not only that, nuclear weapons are way more awesome than machine guns.
Of course people should be allowed to mount a 50 cal machine gun on their trucks...But you do know that requires special licences too, don't you? Also, one of the reasons to own guns is to protect against an oppressive government. The, "only the millitary needs guns" claim I'd completely laughable.
do you think people should be able to mount 50. cal machine guns on the back of their trucks?
there's a line to be drawn and it's somewhere between pellet guns and military grade weaponry.
What guns should be banned?
depends on the gun