The debate "Self Defense training of firearms and unarmed martial arts saves lives. Not gun control" was started by
April 18, 2018, 9:59 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Matthew354 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
Matthew354, MrShine, chickboy1776 and 10 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, ankit99s, devindel and 8 visitors disagree.
could you please provide evidence of how the UK no longer has due process?
"plenty of 1st world democracies banned or limited guns without oppression and mass murder"
You think they do a better job at protecting natural rights than the United States? I don't, and I won't copy their strict gun laws when my state of California has given me a glimpse of such "utopia" those other 1st world democracies that you dream about. So instead of giving me "sensible regulations," I would prefer you giving me sensible gun freedom ideas by getting rid of gun laws first.
The UK has already proven that they have no due process in court when suspects are being charged with weapon based crime cases.
all of those nations were totalitarian shitholes, plenty of 1st world democracies banned or limited guns without oppression and mass murder.
also, it's not all or nothing. it's not a choice between ban or no rules at all. we can have sensible regulation as a sensible middle ground. you keep hinting in your counters that I'm advocating for a ban when I've openly said otherwise.
There are too many governments that have proven to be far more dangerous in killing 10's of millions of their own people (this is a fairly low estimate) in the early 20th century in the aftermath of gun control with the elite and powerful having guns, than in the likes of the common man having a firearm with 10s of thousands of people dead by misuse of firearms. So I would rather have more limits and government control, than people being subjected to gun control.
no, prohibition of alcohol.
the premise was "if we make guns common place", that implies there is no prohibition of them by default...
Prohibition of guns? And how far do you think that will go? Last I checked, taking away freedoms in the likes of alcohol has already caused more problems it can solve in the early 20th century. Even Australia has proven only 20% of gun owners complied to the gun buyback program, I can't imagine the non-compliance far below 20% compliance on prohibition and violence and following it in the United States in the aftermath of repealing the 2nd Amendment.
Taking away freedoms and rights is not the answer in solving social issues or bringing peace in the form of "common sense legislation," we should be thinking more about what freedoms and rights that can solve them and bring real peace. This is the reason why the Bill of Rights was made, at least freedom to bear arms is a right, murder with is a gun is not a right.
guns are common place. They are commonly used to do something evil, because there are too many people who won't allow the good uses of guns. Therefore only evildoers and police are using guns to rob, kill, threaten, and extort.
They never want anyone to win any gold medal in any shooting contest.
so whether you have a gun at your side or kung fu in your muscles, a gun gets pressed up against your back or is already pointed at your front. if you pull your weapon or go for a karate move your dead.
you're also forgetting crimes of passion. even if premeditated crimes go down, unplanned emotion based crimes will stay at the same rate, but will become far more deadly. if we make guns common place, I may have to start supporting prohibition.
"the Chinese had a unit of top level expertly trained martial artists during the boxer rebellion and the British slaughtered them with their actual fire arms"
Now you are stuffing words in my mouth, because I didn't say self-defense purely on unarmed combat will save lives. I said having firearms training supplemented with unarmed combat saves lives.
"proper handling wont stop someone from properly handling the gun in committing an act of violence, whether premeditated or in the heat of the moment."
Did I say it would stop someone from committing an act of violence? No! What training will do is make more law abiding gun owners use guns successfully and properly defend oneself from assault from becoming murder. No gun control law or calling the police in the moment of imminent danger saves anyone.
Saving lives occur when haters who can't shoot stop lying about what guns are used for. If only they remove the setup which is producing the aura of guns are to be used only to threaten or kill human beings and replace it with actual prize shooting range events can lives be saved from the savage beast which has been created. Acquiring the gun is far less sophisticated than making honest money with the gun.
There is a master plot behind the laws designed for men to only be able to earn dishonest money with a gun; regardless if he inherited the gun from a deceased relative, or took it from another by means of stealth and force.
lol. the Chinese had a unit of top level expertly trained martial artists during the boxer rebellion and the British slaughtered them with their actual fire arms.
and proper handling wont stop someone from properly handling the gun in committing an act of violence, whether premeditated or in the heat of the moment.