A misleading line from the gun-control debate: “If you can just prevent one of these incidents from happening, isn’t it worth it?”

1. What is it worth? is a good question. How much freedom do you put on the table to try to prevent a very statistically rare but horribly tragic event? (And 'try' is the operative word).

2. Restrictions won't necessarily prevent gun violence. The Assault Weapons Ban (1994-2003) did very little of that as the following Penn State report reveals. http://www.sas.upenn.edu/...research/aw_final2004.pdf

3. Most of the proposed restrictions actually do not hinder a criminal who is intending to carry out a violent crime involving multiples kills. (A) The criminal may access a 'banned' gun anyway-he doesn't care about restrictions. (B) The criminal may access a gun with restricted magazine capacity and just use more magazines to expend the same amount of ammunition (as the Virginia Tech killer did).

Gun control is a joke. Because we have a select few who go around committing heinous acts of violence, we're supposed to make laws making it more difficult for an honest American to own a firearm?

I would prefer that anyone who intends to buy a firearm for uses other than hunting, be required to submit to a psychiatric evaluation *and* a criminal background check to determine whether or not said person owning a firearm would pose a threat or not.

Idk, I live somewhere where guns have been banned since like forever. So there are not many firearms around, most criminals don't even have one.

But in a society that's already flooded with firearms a ban wouldn't have much effect anyway?

'MERICA!

What Megellaan said. Guns have been outlawed since pretty much 50 years ago so the criminals don't even have access to steal one. Extremely hard to smuggle one in too, since we're on an island (Singapore).

Gun control laws aren't effective immediately. You have to let a lot of years pass (maybe even half a generation) before you see the results of such a law. Australia is a good example of this (I think they passed a gun control law in 1994 or something).

One could argue that semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines are like motorcycle helmets 99.9% of the time they are not “needed”, after all you do not “need” a helmet when you are riding a motorcycle. You only “need” a helmet when you are crashing a motorcycle. So if you only plan on riding and do not intend to crash a helmet is not “needed”. You should “want” to where a motorcycle helmet because there is that .1% chance it might save your life someday if the unexpected happens and you crash, The same way you don’t “need” a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine 99.9% of the time when you are living peacefully in the sanctity of your home. You should “want” a semi-automatic rifle with high capacity magazine because there is that .1% chance that multiple armed intruders beak into your home to kill you and do God knows what to your wife and children. You should “WANT” to be well armed because some day the unexpected can happen and you may “NEED” to defend yourself and your family.

Same could be said for property insurance, fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide detectors, locks, 911, seatbelts ect…. These are all things that you do not “need” They are things you “want” and would not argue to ban

Do we have a constitutional right to own guns?

Understandable argument. Im sort of neutral on the subject but to give another perspective:

I live in a place where there are many cyclists (i.e. holland) and tourists are often surprised to see that none of them wear helmets.
Now there are some excellent reasons to keep it this way. Research shows that drivers will keep less distance to a cyclist if the cyclist is wearing a helmet which increases the chance of an accident. If the cyclist doesn't wear a helmet the driver will be more cautious.
Likewise the streets in my neighborhood have many crossings that are hard to get a good clear view of when you approach them. Meanwhile there are often kids playing on the streets. The result is not dangerous though, as drivers are just very cautious. Even the most badass gangsters won't drive faster than 10-15mph in my neighborhood.

Because of the gun laws burglars are higly unlikely to carry a firearm themselves. So the chance of multiple armed intruders breaking in is much lower.

How this all works out exactly and which way is better.. I don't really know lol

Comparing guns with things like helmets and seatbelts?

One is designed to save lives. The other is specifically fine tuned and designed over hundreds of years to end them as efficiently as possible.

Or save them depending on which end you are on.

No. A seatbelt and helmet don't save lives by taking another persons. Sure it doesn't hurt to use them 99% of the time because they're harmless. The other is designed to be harmful.

You could kill someone with a helmet and a seatbelt... Dont you even watch movies!

I would like to stop being forced to pay for people with guns to give protections to rich politicians, protection that common people like me don't get. If the guns don't actually make the politicians safer, my hatred for politicians still isn't enough for me to like putting them in danger by letting them have armed guards.

Jeez Req, seriously is all you have to do in your life trolling these boards with sketchy political trivia? It was cool for a while, but get a life or a job or something. You've started 7 threads on the front page of AT - are you trying to get klown to ask you out?

guns are designed to save my life and eliminate the evil bastages who feel they can beat me up and steal my lunch money.

this "hero mentality" that Americans (and other people as well, admittedly) have is just retarded

yeah man you're gonna go all rambo and totally pwn the guy!!!!


secondly, most intruders aren't really out to kill people, they're out to steal your stuff and would probably be a lot happier if you just stayed hidden instead of getting into a scuffle with them. they're looking for material things, which are also replaceable.

lol I actually agree with archaic

most intruders need to find a better way to make money.

I like my whiskey strong, my girls rough and my guns loaded!
+bonus
++ good post req

gun control


use both hands

Thank you for supporting my point Most is a non-definitive term meaning almost all.

Play by play of your statement
Most intruders aren't really out to kill people,
Translation: Not all intruders are out to kill people

Burglars out to steal your stuff and would probably be a lot happier if you just stayed hidden instead of getting into a scuffle with them.
Translation: Rapist/murders plan you harm you and your family.

They’re looking for material things, which are also replaceable.
Translation: Your life and your family are not replaceable, you will have to capture or kill the intruder.

In conclusion if you dial 911 the phones won’t be down, there won’t be a high volume of calls, the streets will be clear of blockages, the cops won’t be busy on other calls, and their response time will be fast enough to save you most of the time. Just pray to your God that it’s not during a hurricane, earthquake, large scale terrorist attack ECT… (.01% chance) when you can’t get through to 911 of the responders can’t get to you. When an intruder has plans to kill you, rape your wife and sell your children into sex slavery, do you really trust a phone number for self-defense.

* eyes through the thread*

Same american bullfluff as I've seen at tons of places...

Yeah, your gun-policy is the best in the world...

~walks off the thread~

http://static2.rdf.ro/...daily_picdump_1126_21.jpg

yeah man the perfect argument for going all Jack Bauer on their asses!!!!!!!!

your "prevent crazy tragedies with insanely low probabilities" argument might be a good one if the prevention method wasn't being misused on a much larger scale. it's kind of like saying "let's let people buy morphine freely because there's a 0.01% chance that they'll have a horrible skiing accident and need immediate pain relief"

I'm also going to estimate that you're far more likely to accidentally shoot your neighbour or a plumber than a wife-raping, children-to-sex-slavery-selling burglar.

probably about the same chance as my neighbor or plumber actually being a wife-raping, children-to-sex-slavery-selling burglar. I'll wait for them to come out of my closet before i open fire.

most people seem to have the Jesus Christ attitude. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior! He will come and save me from the evil people! Jesus Christ! why won't you idiots look in the dang mirror.

The 2nd amendment today! Is the 1st amendement next? Remember the internet can be turned off. Free speech, but only if the powers to be agree with that speech.

That's what politics is about, Nekked.

Does free speech mean you have the right to be racist and discriminatory in your day to day dialogues? Or is free speech really only free speech if it is also morally correct?

Who is to say the Amendments are all not outdated and should be completely rewritten to take into account guns and the Internet and today's morals? Slavery was legal hundreds of years ago. Times change, guns can also change to be legal today, but not legal in 200 years.

Does free speech mean you have the right to buy the media, control the airwaves, advertise for a political candidate, and buy elections? Woohoo, free speech

hahah my thoughts exactly.