StarGateWars Forums

And Guerrero, who will make sure that everyone's relatives keep the guns safe?

As long as you allow guns, horrible events such as this one might come up now and then. And arming the staff at school is not solution, you might just be arming another psychopath. It's extremely sad but true.

I sincerely hope my nation will never change. I'd never feel safe if we did.

-KJ

Kjarkur wrote:Look at countries that ban guns.

Enough said.

There is nothing OK when anyone can practically walk into the next store and buy military grade weapons. In fact, in many countries people are just fine without guns.

Problem with the states how ever, is that people are so afraid of other people that they will never hand over their guns easily.

I realize this is just a proposed ban on assault weapons - a step in the right direction for sure.

I would not want my neighbours to own M16... that'd mean I'd need one too in case any of them are psychopaths.

The solution to gun problems aren't more guns.

Guns should be for the country to protect itself from outside threats. Not for the public to protect themselves for each other. (fact is A LOT of people aren't in the right state of mind decide who to shoot and who not to shoot, in fact that power should NEVER be in the hands of the public, only army or police) When you do that you run the risk of psychopaths getting a hold of them and getting away with murdering many innocent people.

-KJ

Living in a country with very strict gun rules, I disagree with you. These rules favor the illegal owners aka thugs and gangsters. They have guns, they rule. Others who could legally have them, don't have them except hunters, few shop owners and policemen. Police and shop owners also face very stupid rules almost denying existence of self defense and thus are prosecuted when they defend themselves. Result being: thugs barely have any resistance, and having realized it, the violence is increasing more and more. Which is completely logical.

I'm not advocating the free for all either, I don't consider assault weapons obviously meant for attack to be the same as weapons mainly used to defend. That's why I disagree with both the right to own too warlike weapons for civilians, and the very strict rules towards any weapon possession and lack of recognition of self defense.

There's a school in Texas that has, for the last four years, allowed staff to carry their sidearms concealed. No shootings there. Wonder why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

I dont agree with the idea that, "To protect yourself you should have the right to carry a gun in public." personally i think its a highly destructive approach. A gun is a tool that has one purpose and one only. To kill. You can say well i'll shoot him in the leg but that gun was specifically designed with the function to kill. On principle I dont understand why it should be allowed to carry such a tool.
The British goverment has the power to blow up its own country. how are you going to protect yourself from that? This idea that you should have the right to protect yourself against everything by yourself is paranoia. the fact that the entire argument is dependant on the aggressor carrying a gun should tell you that giving every citizen the right to carry guns freely is plain stupid. It also depends on your moral opinion of eye for an eye. Should you have the right to kill someone because he shoots at you?

GrizzZzzly wrote: Should you have the right to kill someone because he shoots at you?

well yes, if he's trying to kill me, my opinion is i kill him first if its the only way to ensure my survival, whatever means necessary

Only way to nullify the need or argument of need to hold guns for safety purposes would be a state where about 1/4 of its population would be working in police forces, meaning a very very high ratio of policemen/citizens, preventing most of robs and assaults before they happen. But I don't think people would want that.

well. the idea that you should have access to a gun to protect yourself from other people because they have guns surely doesnt bode well for a law that allows everyone to carry guns. that simply doesnt make sense. But in america right now, with the ammount of guns it would be a polical nightmare to pass any kind of law and then to enforce it. There would too much resistance.

I don't understand you anti-gun people, i really don't. you lot would rather make victims out of all of us including yourselves instead of being able to defend yourselves.

Until such time as mental instabilities and insanity is cured, and until such time as criminality is finally eradicated, and until such time as the police can appear at a crime scene before a crime of violence can be committed people need to be able to defend themselves.

A few years back a fight broke out just outside my house. 2 big guys were kicking the crap out of 1 man. they were stamping on his head and kicking him in the face. not wanting to get involved i called the police. they told me someone else had already reported it and they were on their way. they never even turned up!

You can ban all the weapons you want, right on down the line from guns to baseball bats. if someone is intent on harming someone else they will use anything including their teeth...should we ban people from having teeth because we are willing to use our teeth to hurt others.

You people think little and talk much...i know because i was also against guns!

GrizzZzzly wrote:well. the idea that you should have access to a gun to protect yourself from other people because they have guns surely doesnt bode well for a law that allows everyone to carry guns. that simply doesnt make sense. But in america right now, with the ammount of guns it would be a polical nightmare to pass any kind of law and then to enforce it. There would too much resistance.

Not just because they have guns, but because they also have knives and hammers and axes and machetes and bats and fists and feet.

That's right, if someone is trying to attack me with their fists, I am not going to fight them. I'm just going to put them down like the rabid animal they are. It'd be legal as it damn well should be, since a single punch can kill.

Dovahkiin wrote:

GrizzZzzly wrote:well. the idea that you should have access to a gun to protect yourself from other people because they have guns surely doesnt bode well for a law that allows everyone to carry guns. that simply doesnt make sense. But in america right now, with the ammount of guns it would be a polical nightmare to pass any kind of law and then to enforce it. There would too much resistance.

Not just because they have guns, but because they also have knives and hammers and axes and machetes and bats and fists and feet.

That's right, if someone is trying to attack me with their fists, I am not going to fight them. I'm just going to put them down like the rabid animal they are. It'd be legal as it damn well should be, since a single punch can kill.

don't forget that even if they make guns illegal, that people can't get them through illegal means

thats a ridiculous picture. But tell me the logic in allowing everyone to carry a gun to protect yourself from other people because they have a gun.

As an american it might be hard to understand but in some countries it is illegal to carry guns. you compare the "gun crimes" in a country like america with England. It's just obvious. There's no debate. It's an outdated, old fashioned, dangerous idea that everyone should carry a gun to protect themselves in public.

Why stop at gun crime? We don't want guns only to protect ourselves from other people with guns. We want them to protect ourselves from all criminals. In England, you're three times more likely to be mugged than in America. Property crime is also far higher in England than the US. In fact, it's only murders and SOME violent crimes that the US has more than England, pretty much every other crime England leads.

And that's only crimes that have been solved. The US reports all crimes when they happen, the UK only reports crimes when the cases are closed.

Guns are used everyday for self defense. The most conservative estimates places the number of yearly defensive gun use(DGU) at over 100,000, whereas more liberal estimates place it at around 400,000.

Did you know that there was a theater shooting in Texas not that long ago? It started in a restaurant, a man armed with a gun went into the restaurant and shot his ex, people panicked and ran out and into the theater next door. The gun man followed them and opened fire, but before he could kill anyone, an offduty deputy sheriff shot and killed him. If the US had strict gun laws like England, then the deputy wouldn't have had a gun to stop the shooter and more people would have been killed.

There was a woman who had been raped, she was 57 years old. Her attacker later returned to rape her again, but this time all he got was the business end of her shotgun. If she did not have a gun, she'd have been raped a second time. By advocating gun bans, you're advocating for women like her to be raped repeatedly.

There was another man, suspected to be a serial rapist, he had stolen a .22 rifle and threatened an armed woman. The woman ran away, but later encountered the same man again. He followed her up a hill and pulled the rifle on her, pointing it at her, stating he was going to kill her. She pulled her .357 revolver and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to pull the trigger and possibly rape her too. Once again, you're advocating for this woman to be raped and killed.

There was a sleep over for a little girl's birthday party. There was a bunch of little girls at the house when three armed men tried to break in. The girl's father retrieved his firearm and exchanged fire with the armed men. The father and all three men were shot, but no harm came to the little girl's. Taking away the father's gun would mean those little girls would have probably been murdered and/or raped. Is this what you want?

There was a 15 year old boy home alone with his 12 year old sister when three men tried to break into their house. The boy retrieved his father's assault rifle(the father was a Deputy Sheriff) and shot two of the three assailants. With gun laws like England, who knows what would have happened to those kids. This is what you're advocating for.

Just moments prior to the Luby's Massacre in Killeen Texas, a woman by the name of Suzzana Hupp left her sidearm in the car because Texas had recently made it illegal to carry handguns. During the shooting, the shooter had stopped to reload, this was her chance! She had him dead to rights, only problem was that when she reached into her purse to grab her handgun, she remembered she had to leave it in the car. Shortly after that, the gunman killed her father as he was trying to stop the shooting. The gunman then killed his distraught wife, her mother, as she was sitting over his body mourning the loss of her husband. This is what you advocate.

During the Pearl High School shooting, a vice principal retrieved his gun and cornered Luke Woodham in the parking lot. Woodham was attempting to leave the school and continue his spree at the nearby Junior High. By advocating strict gun laws, you're advocating for Luke Woodham to be able to continue his spree at the JH.

During the UT Clock Tower shooting, many students grabbed their hunting rifles and returned fire. This resulted in the shooter being unable to properly acquire targets, thus saving an untold number of lives. You're advocating for Charles Whitman to have been able to continue his spree unabated until police were finally able to get to him, which BTW, was possible because the students kept him pinned down with their return fire.

During the Aurora Temple shooting, one of the members tried to stop the shooter with his dull blade, but failed and was killed by the shooter. Had he had a gun, he would have been able to subdue the shooter before anymore people were killed. His death happened very early in the shooting, so many lives would have been saved. This is what you advocate.

There was a 10 year old boy home alone with his 8 year old sister when a man broke into their home. The boy retrieved his mother's gun and shot the intruder. Who knows what would have happened to the children without the gun, whatever it is is what you're advocating for.

A 12 year old girl was home alone when a man broke into her house. She grabbed her mother's gun and hid in the bathroom while on the phone with the police. When the intruder tried to enter the bathroom, she shot him through the door, stopping the attack. We don't know what would have happened to her without the gun, but what it is, you're advocating for it.

Last year when my sister's boyfriend decided he wanted to beat my sister, I pulled a gun on him, causing him to drop to the floor and cry for his mommy. If I did not have a gun, that would have ended in a fight. Someone would have walked away while the other would have been wheeled on a stretcher. Assuming that he would have been able to get past me, then two people would have been seriously injured. This is what you advocate.


When you advocate the disarmament of the people, you advocate the empowerment of criminals.

Have you ever wondered why all these incidents happen in america? How many guns are there in america and in England? How many of these people were criminals before these shootings they did? Notice that these are all incidents that have happened from previous "good citizens". This has nothing to do with illegal importing of guns or any of that crap.

All these incidents involve a "regular citizen" flipping out with the possession of a gun. That scenario is far less likely to ever happen in England.

This still brings me back to the point that the solution to gun crime cannot be to arm everyone. I know this is a big talking point in America right now with armed officers potentially being brought into schools. But when does it stop? you have a handgun he has a rifle, you arm yourself with a rifle, he gets out his automatic gun, you arm yourself with an automatic gun? How is that a solution? thats so counterproductive its funny.

doc holliday wrote:

What a twisted logic! I suppose the person who made this is also in favor of legalizing all drugs too?
You see, that image could even convince me to retract my middle stance regarding guns to a strict rules stance. Because it's totally unconvincing...