|
| 03 Nov 2014 03:42 PM |
Criminals will always murder. Criminals will always steal your wallet. Criminals will always take knives onto planes.
Just because some criminals can get around the system, that obviously means we shouldn't try to do anything about it, doesn't it! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zech9005
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 3417 |
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 03:45 PM |
| Yeah, but it means law abiding citizens won't be able to do anything against a criminal with a gun. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 03:45 PM |
It's like everyone is scared of criminals.
They need to stop being scared and actually stand up to one.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 03:46 PM |
i don't think people who are advocating on the yay guns side understand how hard it is to actually smuggle guns into the country
perhaps it's because you border mexico |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 04:02 PM |
>"Yeah, but it means law abiding citizens won't be able to do anything against a criminal with a gun."
Eh, why not? First of all, no one's advocating a complete ban of firearms, this is just a straw man built by the right to ridicule the left.
Besides, there's plenty of other defense tools, but if someone pulls out a gun on you, it's not like you can really do anything anyways. You can't pull out a gun afterwards and shoot him, because he'll just shoot you. It's an instant loss if someone pulls a gun.
If they haven't pulled their gun yet, then plenty of defense tools are just as useful as a gun. Shoot someone with a taser gun and they'll be utterly incapacitated.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 04:19 PM |
"If they haven't pulled their gun yet, then plenty of defense tools are just as useful as a gun. Shoot someone with a taser gun and they'll be utterly incapacitated."
Tasers are also beautifully cheap, but are not kewl enuff 4 da murican swegbois wit guns 2 shot newbs wit tasers. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
bobos22
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4063 |
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 04:40 PM |
learn to use Tor
if you know how to use it, you can easily buy anything your soul desires |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:05 PM |
"Besides, there's plenty of other defense tools, but if someone pulls out a gun on you, it's not like you can really do anything anyways. You can't pull out a gun afterwards and shoot him, because he'll just shoot you. It's an instant loss if someone pulls a gun."
False. Lot's of criminals. even experienced ones, will take their attention off of you for a few seconds, especially if there are more than one person around. When they take their attention away from you, shoot them.
"If they haven't pulled their gun yet, then plenty of defense tools are just as useful as a gun. Shoot someone with a taser gun and they'll be utterly incapacitated."
False. I've seen a guy get shot three times with a taser, and they weren't even effected by the first two. By the time you manage to shoot three tasers at someone, you will be dead. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:07 PM |
| Very few gun crimes are homicides. In 2011, only 52 offenses were homicides. Regardless if someone pulls a gun or not, these deaths are significantly less than what they are if you had more guns available. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:09 PM |
What he said.
If a smart civilian had a gun at almost every shooting ever, most likely, the only person who would be dead is the shooter. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:11 PM |
| And not only is a taser sometimes not effective, they also have a very limited range compared to even a small handgun. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:15 PM |
>If a smart civilian had a gun at almost every shooting ever, most likely, the only person who would be dead is the shooter. >If a smart civilian >smart civilian Describe pls. Then see how much of the population of your country fits your definition. Then see how many have guns. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
spydig
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Nov 2010 |
| Total Posts: 10448 |
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:34 PM |
| Smart civilians would only use guns for self-defense of them or another person. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
xlf
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jun 2010 |
| Total Posts: 980 |
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:40 PM |
| I'd like to know why people have an issue with gun law regulations? Outright banning them is absurd, I agree, but what is the harm in having some restrictions and laws to help moderate firearms? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:42 PM |
| The Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals from an oppressive government and from potential foreign invaders. Taking guns away is not the way to fight off crime. Better and more effective ways can be initiated to fight crime. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
xlf
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Jun 2010 |
| Total Posts: 980 |
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:43 PM |
"Taking guns away is not the way to fight off crime."
Except nobody is taking away your guns.
I do not see the harm in firearm regulations. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:45 PM |
Of course firearm regulations need to imposed on certain weaponry.
I'm talking about the impositions that Liberals have attempted to impose on yet further firearm regulation. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 05:56 PM |
Guns are used 70 more times to save a life/prevent a death than to take one (including gun suicides, deadly gun accidents, and gun homicides).
"Besides, there's plenty of other defense tools, but if someone pulls out a gun on you, it's not like you can really do anything anyways. You can't pull out a gun afterwards and shoot him, because he'll just shoot you. It's an instant loss if someone pulls a gun."
With a maximum range of 15-35 feet in the best tasers, tasers are far less effective than a gun, especially during a home invasion in larger/two-story homes, in school shootings, armed bank robberies, etc. Tasers also lack the ability to go through walls, which could be a life-saver in a home invasion and similar situations.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 06:03 PM |
| There's a city in Georgia called Kennesaw. It has a law requiring everyone to own a gun and it also has one of the lowest crime rates in America |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 06:07 PM |
>"False. Lot's of criminals. even experienced ones, will take their attention off of you for a few seconds, especially if there are more than one person around. When they take their attention away from you, shoot them."
You gun nuts really love to just make things up, don't you? Even if this "fact" you pulled out of your derriere was correct, the time it takes to pull out a taser and fire it and the time it takes to pull out a gun and fire it is exactly the same. Both the taser and the gun fire at a speed faster than reaction speed.
>"False. I've seen a guy get shot three times with a taser, and they weren't even effected by the first two. By the time you manage to shoot three tasers at someone, you will be dead."
Again, pretty sure you pulled this out of your behind. It is impossible to not be incapacitated by the shock of a taser. The electricity causes your muscles to tighten up and you fall to the ground in a prostrate form.
If you're close, you shouldn't miss. If you're far enough away that you miss, you shouldn't be firing in the first place, you should be running, engaging in an unnecessary gunfight is imbecilic.
Besides, if you're in a gunfight and you miss, you're dead anyways. He'll shoot you before you can line up another shot. If he doesn't have a gun, it's a close confrontation you can't flee, and you somehow miss and don't have time to reload the cartridge, you can use tasers as melee weapons as well.
>"Very few gun crimes are homicides. In 2011, only 52 offenses were homicides. Regardless if someone pulls a gun or not, these deaths are significantly less than what they are if you had more guns available."
Where did you get these statistics? According to the CDC, in 2010, there were 11,068 firearm homicides.
>"If a smart civilian had a gun at almost every shooting ever, most likely, the only person who would be dead is the shooter."
The theory of mutual assured destruction does not actually work in the real world. That's like saying we should give every country a nuke so that we'd be too afraid to give nuke anyone, and so we'd never have to worry about nukes.
But we know it doesn't work like that. One crazy country will decide to nuke, someone would nuke them back, and some tie to that crazy country will cause them to nuke the person who nuked their ally, and so on and so forth.
>"And not only is a taser sometimes not effective, they also have a very limited range compared to even a small handgun."
Tasers can shoot 15-30 feet. If you're over 30 feet away from your target, there's no reason you should be engaging in fight in the first place. You're pretty much already fled, just leave and get the police.
>"The Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals from an oppressive government and from potential foreign invaders. Taking guns away is not the way to fight off crime. Better and more effective ways can be initiated to fight crime."
/Oc8Qsd7.png
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 06:11 PM |
>"There's a city in Georgia called Kennesaw. It has a law requiring everyone to own a gun and it also has one of the lowest crime rates in America"
See data at Violence Policy Center on gun deaths and gun ownership. There is a pretty clear positive trend.
Alaska, which has the highest rate of gun deaths, has 60.6 percent of its people owning guns. Hawaii, which is the lowest, has 9.7 percent of its people owning guns. And the data in between all supports this. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 06:14 PM |
"Tasers can shoot 15-30 feet. If you're over 30 feet away from your target, there's no reason you should be engaging in fight in the first place. You're pretty much already fled, just leave and get the police."
Not always. A large house/mansion, a bank, lecture hall, etc. are places where you cannot flee but also where a taser would not be effective. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 06:17 PM |
>"Not always. A large house/mansion, a bank, lecture hall, etc. are places where you cannot flee but also where a taser would not be effective."
... 30 feet is like being nearly on the opposite sides of the hall. The time it'd take you to actually pull out your gun and manage to get enough shots off to hopefully hit him, not only could he have easily hit you, but you could probably have managed to just go out of the door by then.
Why risk your life like that? Engaging in a gunfight is really a 50/50 thing, even if you're trained really well, it's all about who can shoot first. Even if they aren't trained to shoot, they still might kill you on the first shot. Guns are pretty accurate.
Engaging in a gunfight should be the last choice ever. You should desperately try to avoid it unless it's impossible not to. This radical idea of chasing down your aggressor and killing him with a gun is just that: radical. It's how you die. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 06:25 PM |
"Alaska, which has the highest rate of gun deaths, has 60.6 percent of its people owning guns. Hawaii, which is the lowest, has 9.7 percent of its people owning guns. And the data in between all supports this."
Kentucky, one of the most pro-gun states in the USA, has a lower crime rate than Hawaii, along with anti-gun states such as New York and California. Kentucky also has a 47.7% gun ownership rate. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Nov 2014 06:34 PM |
"... 30 feet is like being nearly on the opposite sides of the hall. The time it'd take you to actually pull out your gun and manage to get enough shots off to hopefully hit him, not only could he have easily hit you, but you could probably have managed to just go out of the door by then."
If a lecture hall, bank, etc. was full, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for everyone to get out safely. It would be a matter of how much people can be saved at that point. Shooting at the aggressor would be far more effective that trying to get everyone out and wishing for the best.
Also, what about warning shots? Wouldn't the shot of a gun in the ground in front of you be far more intimidating than a taser? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|