Thread: "All in favor of gun control, raise your right hand!"

Despite what hollywood may show you, chances of a psychotic serial killer or rapist entering your home are extremely slim. Even in the worst neighborhoods, where people are robbed routinely, guns are not much help. You pulling a gun on someone with a gun is only going to convince them to shoot you. Anyone trained in self defense will tell you that. If someone pulls a gun on you, you either take it away from them or you run. Running being the preferred option. Pulling your own gun will only mean you both will get shot. Shooting someone does not stop them from shooting you back.

If you want to protect your family, wear your seat belt and get good health insurance. Don't worry about being struck by lightning.

Most people who break into someones house do not want to face off with someone with a gun. Most of them don't even want to break in while the person is home. Its dangerous, and they want an easy score. If you are going to rob someone with a gun, you go to a store or bank or something.

And a person doesn't need a gun to be dangerous. Even an unarmed criminal breaking into your house can turn violent if something goes unexpected(such as finding out your home, when they thought you weren't).

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

Alric, you have not answered why irresponsible people should not be prohibited guns, I think it's common sense that not everyone should own a gun, or apperently not.

I still want you to tell me if you think gun laws would make thugs give up on trying to find guns. Why do you think the laws would be so incredibly effective? Is the mafia really going to say, "Shit, we just can't get guns on the streets any more!"?

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

Despite what hollywood may show you, chances of a psychotic serial killer or rapist entering your home are extremely slim. Even in the worst neighborhoods, where people are robbed routinely, guns are not much help. You pulling a gun on someone with a gun is only going to convince them to shoot you. Anyone trained in self defense will tell you that. If someone pulls a gun on you, you either take it away from them or you run. Running being the preferred option. Pulling your own gun will only mean you both will get shot. Shooting someone does not stop them from shooting you back.

If you want to protect your family, wear your seat belt and get good health insurance. Don't worry about being struck by lightning.

My father caught a burglar with a gun.

Like I said, don't take away people's right to try to defend themselves. As with drugs, it is up to them, not you.

As crime-ridden as the United States is, if our non-criminals stop having guns, the burglary rate will go through the moon.

Yeah, a gun has actually saved me once; high point NC. Some crackhead trying to get his high for the day. RB, if you feel safe trusting humanity, that is fine, but I just don't feel the same way.

Most likely, it was just your presence in the house that stopped you from being robbed. I would rather let someone take my stuff than run the risk of actually shooting them. I can always buy more stuff.

If it makes you feel less powerless, then feel free to own as many guns as you want. It doesn't bother me. I've never been for gun control. Like I said, evolution will take care of it when you die in a hunting accident, or your son accidentally shoots his nuts off with that gun you keep by the bed.

Right. Nothing remotely like that has ever happened to anyone I know; yet I know scores of people that have been robbed, raped and in other ways violated. Evolution. Brilliant philosophy.

I've never understood the arguement that making killing more available and accessible will keep more people from being killed. Its just a pretty desperate jump in logic.

The truth is, people keep guns because they like guns. They defend guns because they like guns. They are toys. They are collectors items. They make people feel powerful. As stupid as that is, I'm fine with it. Just don't pretend that having more instruments of violence will ever reduce violence.

People will always be killed. The important thing is that it is not you who are killed. Such is the way with war. Guns are the modern weapon. You kill them or they kill you. There is no way to save everyone.

Yes I like guns, but it was not always so. I used to hate them and grew up in a house of gun haters.

My point from earlier, is that you having a gun does not keep anyone from shooting you. If someone wants to shoot you, they will whether you have a gun or not. If you are really concerned about getting shot, sleep with a bullet proof vest on. Nobody is arguing the legality of bulletproof vests or home alarm systems.

I lol'd at the OP, Im not reading the rest of this thread.

By that logic though, why don't we just send all our troops in with just armor and forget the guns?

Also, if a person is dead they cannot shoot you. If they see you first however and you do not see them, well then you are screwed unless they miss.

Edit: Cops would probably be a better example than troops, as cops are not supposed to kill. Guns save their lives.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I've never understood the arguement that making killing more available and accessible will keep more people from being killed. Its just a pretty desperate jump in logic.

The truth is, people keep guns because they like guns. They defend guns because they like guns. They are toys. They are collectors items. They make people feel powerful. As stupid as that is, I'm fine with it. Just don't pretend that having more instruments of violence will ever reduce violence.

I don't really care about guns themselves. I just like knowing that I can shoot somebody if I ever have to. If I ever hear anybody breaking into my house, I will not run after him and try to kill him right away. I will fire the gun at the wall and try to scare the burglar our of the house first. Then I will just stay in my room, call the police, and have the gun pointed at the door.

If you were a potential burglar, would you be more likely to rob a house where the people most likely have guns or one where the people most likely do not have guns?

I don't have much of a history of keeping a gun in my car, but I want one so I can at least know that it is there if a situation pops up where it can help me.

I forget where I heard it, but someone said they keep the first round of their shotgun blank, the second round loaded with rock salt, and the rest live. I think it was Adam Carolla.

If you were a potential burglar, would you be more likely to rob a house where the people most likely have guns or one where the people most likely do not have guns?

I agree, but I think we can do better than a perpetual cold war. Haven't we learned anything from our experience in the last half of the last century?

I'm not happy with any of the current answers. I think we need to have more non-lethal options available for people who just can't shake their fear of the dark.

Fair enough. I would never give up my guns, but I would be willing to trade lethal force in most cases for such a device; if it convinced me of it's effectiveness.

Well I can respect that Robot. You don't like guns and think they are dangerous so you don't own them. I don't like drugs and I think they mess you up so I don't use them. I am sure some people don't own pools, because they don't think enjoying a nice day in the water is worth the risk of drowning.

People should be free to choose what they like and don't like. We shouldn't be banning things that we don't like, just because we don't like them. A gun is a tool for self defense. A person may decide another weapon is better for defense, such as a taser. In home defense, you don't want the big guns. Since they will go through walls and stuff and injure other people. Though home defense isn't the only reason to own a gun. Each person is different, and each person has different needs and worries. Maybe you think the government is full of asses(which it is), and you want a gun to defend yourself should they ever declare martial law. So you buy an automatic rifle. As long as you don't shoot anyone, who I am to stop you?

Shooting a person is wrong. Owning a gun isn't. Just like stabbing people, throwing rocks at people, shoving people in front of a moving car, is all wrong. Though we don't ban knives, rocks or cars. Because responsible people are not a danger to other people. Even with a gun.

Do you guys think it would be a good idea for high schools and middle schoolsto have gun defense classes?

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

My point from earlier, is that you having a gun does not keep anyone from shooting you. If someone wants to shoot you, they will whether you have a gun or not. If you are really concerned about getting shot, sleep with a bullet proof vest on. Nobody is arguing the legality of bulletproof vests or home alarm systems.

I can't believe nobody has pointed out Robot Butler's faulty logic.

Yes, Robot Butler, you having a gun does help prevent you from getting shot. Why, you ask? Because if you blow their freakin' head off they aren't going to be able to shoot you.

If they invaded your house for the sole purpose of killing you, then the gun clearly gives you a fighting chance at killing them instead.

If they rob you and have a gun with them without the intention of killing, possession of your own firearm equals the playing field.

If you're out on the streets and some guy really wants to shoot you, he might miss. In this case, you might have enough time to react and shoot him instead.

Note: Remember kids, shotguns are the way to go for home defense.

P.S. Most people who own guns are very safe with them. It's usually someone who is irresponsible/doesn't know better, someone who may not be a gun owner themselves, who accidentally gets shot.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

P.S. Most people who own guns are very safe with them. It's usually someone who is irresponsible/doesn't know better, someone who may not be a gun owner themselves, who accidentally gets shot.

This is true.

There are over 100 guns in my house right now, my dad and brother hunt a lot. I used to hunt. If people are real big about hunting, like my dad and bro, they usually have a certain way of holding guns, and keeping them. We leave every gun unloaded that's in the house, and have the safety on on every gun except for a dillinger, and few more pistols we have stored around the house in case someone breaks in. Even when they go hunting they usually leave the guns unload, or they put a bullet in but don't let it go into the chamber ready to be fired. You're not going to accidentally shoot yourself unless you're just straight up stupid, or handling the weapon wrong.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

I've never understood the arguement that making killing more available and accessible will keep more people from being killed. Its just a pretty desperate jump in logic.

The truth is, people keep guns because they like guns. They defend guns because they like guns. They are toys. They are collectors items. They make people feel powerful. As stupid as that is, I'm fine with it. Just don't pretend that having more instruments of violence will ever reduce violence.

Go to a country in which people are walking around with uzis. Everyone is friendly, arguments don't get out of hand. Everyone has a gun, but no one wants to use theirs because they know everyone else has one too.

I love how nobody is actually talking about the main point of this thread:

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, were ALL not only for gun control, but they carried it out. And what happened? Hitler killed 20 million people, Stalin killed millions upon millions more than even Hitler, and Stalin did it to his own people! Mao Ze Dong killed 60 million of his OWN PEOPLE. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKES YOUR GUNS. Politicians love disarmed peasants.

I always found that argument very amusing, as it implies that the shotgun in your closet can somehow stand up to the combined might of the modern military. Good luck with that

Originally Posted by DuB

I always found that argument very amusing, as it implies that the shotgun in your closet can somehow stand up to the combined might of the modern military. Good luck with that

I don't think it is a matter of one person keeping the U.S. military at bay from their doorstep. The ability to mount any sort of effect resistance against an overtly hostile and totalitarian government would require that people have access to fire arms ahead of time, so that they could form some sort of effective militia once the state of affairs becomes apparent.

I personally just plan on watching Red Dawn a couple of times to refresh my memory.

Anyone get a good link to --- ARMED CITIZEN
A collection of real-life stories from newspaper accounts of citizens who stopped crimes through the use of firearms
Post it please.

Originally Posted by Xei

And I hope you don't seriously believe that the USA fights wars for anybody other than itself.

What do other countries do successfully to deter or stand up against other nations when they are a threat?

Originally Posted by DuB

I always found that argument very amusing, as it implies that the shotgun in your closet can somehow stand up to the combined might of the modern military. Good luck with that

Not if the civilian populace are equally as armed as the government.

*Edit. You find the murder of over 100 million innocents amusing? You are sick.

Originally Posted by DuB

I always found that argument very amusing, as it implies that the shotgun in your closet can somehow stand up to the combined might of the modern military. Good luck with that

I find the irony of this argument amusing. DuB, if I truly have to explain to you why those two sentences are epic phails when arguing for gun control, I will. But please think about that one and realize how erranous it is.

Seeing people's arguments for gun control makes me want to buy a gun so then I too can say "YOU'LL PRY IT FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!"