Video of Penn & Teller's take on gun control

[VirusType2]

Please don't forget that guns are used in hunting, this is the main purpose of shotguns and rifles.

That is all.

The following supports that statement and explains why hunting is a good thing and not just a hobby.

My brother bought a new truck and two times he had a collision with a deer.

I was leaving his house one day after doing some carpentry work for him and what looked like two dogs ran across into my path. I applied the breaks as best I could and my car skidded slightly sideways. My car stopped what looked like less than an inch from hitting it with the front of my car and the second deer ran into the side of my car putting a little ding near the door handle. Luckily I have high performance breaks and tires and was able to stop just fast enough to avoid hitting the deer.

I could have been rear-ended by another car, a head-on collision with another car, the deer could have come through the windshield, there are numerous ways the situation could have been much much worse. For instance I could have been riding a motorcycle. In this case I may have been killed. Several times I was coming home and was so surprised to almost hit a deer. It's almost as if they are trying to kill themselves. They wait along side of the road eating grass or something and when you pass by, they are alarmed and run across the street. My stepmother's car was hit by a deer recently. In the past year I have seen about 30-50 deer on the side of the road, or running across the street and about 5 lying there, obviously killed by a vehicle. Now consider that I only put 5k miles on my car in that year (about 1/3 as much as the average) and you will see that it is a huge problem.

Whether you like it or not, hunters make it safer by thinning the herd. Deer reproduce pretty quickly. My brother Sidious has been hunting with my father since he was about 9 years old and really enjoys it. They take the slain deer to a processing place where they make deer jerky and package the deer meat for about $50. It's no different than going to the grocery store. This is food chain 101 basics right here. Yes I think deer are beautiful, but they are still considered food just like eating fish, poultry, cattle, etc. (sorry Raziaar)

Hunting does not end with just Deer either. In fact on rare occasions, Bears have come up to people's doorsteps or trashcans. My mother was surprised to find a bear when she went outside a few months ago.

 

[OvA]

Please don't forget that guns are used in hunting, this is the main purpose of shotguns and rifles.

That is all.

The following supports that statement and explains why hunting is a good thing and not just a hobby.

My brother bought a new truck and two times he had a collision with a deer.

I was leaving his house one day after doing some carpentry work for him and what looked like two dogs ran across into my path. I applied the breaks as best I could and my car skidded slightly sideways. My car stopped what looked like less than an inch from hitting it with the front of my car and nthe second deer ran into the side of my car putting a little ding near the door handle. Luckily I have high performance breaks and tires and was able to stop just fast enough to avoid hitting the deer.

I could have been rear-ended by another car, a head-on collision with another car, the deer could have come through the windshield, there are numerous ways the situation could have been much much worse. For instance I could have been riding a motorcycle. In this case I may have been killed. Several times I was coming home and was so surprised to almost hit a deer. It's almost as if they are trying to kill themselves. They wait along side of the road eating grass or something and when you pass by, they are alarmed and run across the street. My stepmother's car was hit by a deer recently. In the past year I have seen about 30 deer on the side of the road alive and about 5 lying there, obviously hit by a vehicle. Now consider that I only put 5k miles on my car in that year (about 1/3 as much as the average) and you will see that it is a huge problem.

Whether you agree or not, hunters make it safer by thinning the herd. Deer reproduce pretty quickly. My brother Sidious has been hunting with my father since he was about 9 years old and really enjoys it. They take the slain deer to a processing place where they make deer jerky and package the deer meat for about $50. It's no different than going to the grocery store. This is food chain 101 basics right here. Yes I think deer are beautiful, but they are still considered food just like eating fish, poultry, cattle, etc. (sorry Raziaar)

Hunting does not end with just Deer either. In fact on rare occasions, Bears have come up to people's doorsteps or trashcans. My mother was surprised to find a bear when she went outside a few months ago.

Not to mention deer meat is DELICIOUS!

 

[short recoil]

I'll accept a gun ban as long as EVERYONE is effected by it.

 

[OvA]

I'll accept a gun ban as long as EVERYONE is effected by it.

Which is pretty much impossible without a totalitarian state :dozey:

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

shooing off an intruder hardly compares to a deadly confrontation.

I have to disagree.

Either way, it shows the difference made by banning guns would increase death/crime overall.

For example:
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

 

[Some_God]

shooing off an intruder hardly compares to a deadly confrontation.

What's the difference?

Confrontation- the act of confronting.
Deadly- likely to cause or capable of producing death.

Source: http://m-w.com/dictionary/deadly, http://m-w.com/dictionary/confrontation

If you combine those two:

Deadly confrontation- The act of confronting someone. The confrontation, however, is likely to cause or capable of producing death.

 

[CptStern]

I have to disagree.

Either way, it shows the difference made by banning guns would increase death/crime overall.

For example:
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

that quote is regurgitated time and again out of context based on cherry picked facts ..in 2002 Washington once again became the murder capital of the US. Murders increased by 13% over the previous year while 32 other US cities dropped by 1.2% ..do we conclude that due to a virtual no ban on handguns the murder rate in washington continues to increase year after year?

it's the Confusing Cause and Effect logical fallacy:

1. A and B regularly occur together.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B


"We were the murder capital runner-up in 2001, we won the title in 2002, and 2003 is already being heralded as a record year for death in the District," said Aravosis. "All of this proves that this year's 21% jump in homicides is hardly a temporary fluke. It's been building for years."

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

 

[VirusType2]

Guns are like women; Can't live with them, can't live without them.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

that quote is regurgitated time and again out of context based on cherry picked facts ..in 2002 Washington once again became the murder capital of the US. Murders increased by 13% over the previous year while 32 other US cities dropped by 1.2% ..do we conclude that due to a virtual no ban on handguns the murder rate in washington continues to increase year after year?

it's the Confusing Cause and Effect logical fallacy:

1. A and B regularly occur together.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B


"We were the murder capital runner-up in 2001, we won the title in 2002, and 2003 is already being heralded as a record year for death in the District," said Aravosis. "All of this proves that this year's 21% jump in homicides is hardly a temporary fluke. It's been building for years."

http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

Yes there are other variables that certainly effect the rise.

But then what about the dramatic drop seen from the enacting of concealed carry laws. There you have an example of a proliferation of firearms being carried dramatically reducing the homicide and crime rates.

I've posted these many times before but I need to again for this post in case others haven't seen it.


Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. Qualifications include criteria such as age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course. (13)

* In 1986, nine states had right-to-carry laws. (14)


* As of 1998, 31 states have right-to-carry laws, and about half the U.S. population lives in these states. (3)


* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)


* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida | United States
homicide rate -36% | -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% | +15%
handgun homicide rate -41% | +24%

 

[CptStern]

more logical fallacies ..you're comparing one state to multiple states. Is that an average per state? do they include police shootings? what percentage of those where justifiable homicides?

 

[Yuri]

Please don't forget that guns are used in hunting, this is the main purpose of shotguns and rifles.

That is all.

The following supports that statement and explains why hunting is a good thing and not just a hobby.

My brother bought a new truck and two times he had a collision with a deer.

I was leaving his house one day after doing some carpentry work for him and what looked like two dogs ran across into my path. I applied the breaks as best I could and my car skidded slightly sideways. My car stopped what looked like less than an inch from hitting it with the front of my car and the second deer ran into the side of my car putting a little ding near the door handle. Luckily I have high performance breaks and tires and was able to stop just fast enough to avoid hitting the deer.

I could have been rear-ended by another car, a head-on collision with another car, the deer could have come through the windshield, there are numerous ways the situation could have been much much worse. For instance I could have been riding a motorcycle. In this case I may have been killed. Several times I was coming home and was so surprised to almost hit a deer. It's almost as if they are trying to kill themselves. They wait along side of the road eating grass or something and when you pass by, they are alarmed and run across the street. My stepmother's car was hit by a deer recently. In the past year I have seen about 30-50 deer on the side of the road, or running across the street and about 5 lying there, obviously killed by a vehicle. Now consider that I only put 5k miles on my car in that year (about 1/3 as much as the average) and you will see that it is a huge problem.

Whether you like it or not, hunters make it safer by thinning the herd. Deer reproduce pretty quickly. My brother Sidious has been hunting with my father since he was about 9 years old and really enjoys it. They take the slain deer to a processing place where they make deer jerky and package the deer meat for about $50. It's no different than going to the grocery store. This is food chain 101 basics right here. Yes I think deer are beautiful, but they are still considered food just like eating fish, poultry, cattle, etc. (sorry Raziaar)

Hunting does not end with just Deer either. In fact on rare occasions, Bears have come up to people's doorsteps or trashcans. My mother was surprised to find a bear when she went outside a few months ago.

Haha. How off topic.

So, because animals pose a threat to humans, we should be allowed to kill them? WHAT A LOGICAL STATEMENT!

While we are "making the world safer for humans," let's not stop there! Let's kill all the sharks, who regularly make surfer's and swimmer's lives terrible and much less fun! The bees, since people are allergic to them, and they are everywhere! The lions and the tigers and the... oh, you already mentioned the bears! In fact, let's just wipe out all of the carniverous creatures, because hey! Maybe they will eat a human, OH NO?! And any creature that could possibly pose a threat to drivers, like raccoons, cats, dogs, horses, elephants and monkeys!

I'm no animal rights activist, but at least I'm not as bat shit crazy to defend hunting because animals pose threats to... uhh, DRIVERS?! Seriously dude, take some NOT INSANE PILLS.

If you like to cover yourself in deer piss and sit in the woods for eight straight hours so you can fire a gun at a deer, and then rip off its head and put it above your fireplace... uhh, go ahead. But please don't try to rationalize it with crazy ass shit like this. :|

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

more logical fallacies ..you're comparing one state to multiple states. Is that an average per state? do they include police shootings? what percentage of those where justifiable homicides?

It's total homicides- average for Florida. I don't have the statistics for other states but you seem to have skimmed these two for all states-


* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)



It's not a logical fallacy. It's a clear connection- not a jump or leap of faith assuming one thing is true.

The fact is that the proliferation of arms to law abiding owners lowers crime and prevents death.

Why are you so adamant to remove them when it's shown that doing so doesn't give the effect you desire?

 

[Yuri]

The biggest problem with gun control is that its completely based on statistics, and statistics are the easiest f*cking thing to skew towards your own personal opinion.

I try to stay away from the statistics and just think about it in a literal sense. I don't think that we live in a society where everyone should tote guns to feel safe. I think that our government protects us enough to not require constant vigilantism. If you want to keep a gun in your house because you're a paranoid nut, fine, whatever, but don't carry it around in your tit holster because you're a crazy f*cker. The right to kill someone is hardly ever given to a citizen, and that's for a very good reason.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The biggest problem with gun control is that its completely based on statistics, and statistics are the easiest f*cking thing to skew towards your own personal opinion.

I try to stay away from the statistics and just think about it in a literal sense. I don't think that we live in a society where everyone should tote guns to feel safe. I think that our government protects us enough to not require constant vigilantism. If you want to keep a gun in your house because you're a paranoid nut, fine, whatever, but don't carry it around in your tit holster because you're a crazy f*cker. The right to kill someone is hardly ever given to a citizen, and that's for a very good reason.

I know a couple people with CCL's and none of them are crazy. Concealed carry != insane

 

[SIGbastard]

The biggest problem with gun control is that its completely based on statistics, and statistics are the easiest f*cking thing to skew towards your own personal opinion.

I try to stay away from the statistics and just think about it in a literal sense. I don't think that we live in a society where everyone should tote guns to feel safe. I think that our government protects us enough to not require constant vigilantism. If you want to keep a gun in your house because you're a paranoid nut, fine, whatever, but don't carry it around in your tit holster because you're a crazy f*cker. The right to kill someone is hardly ever given to a citizen, and that's for a very good reason.

You can think as literal as you want to but that won't change the fact that people are murdered and raped every day. It is a fact that the police are not obligated to protect citizens. There was a court case that already established that, furthermore what are you going to do in the time it takes them to respond? I'm about to move out in the sticks. I can guarantee it'll take a while for any help to show up at my house. It's my responsibility to protect my family. Call me paranoid. I think your the nutty one anyways.

 

[SIGbastard]

It is a fact that the police are not obligated to protect citizens.

I'm quoting myself LOL...

In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit said: "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982). See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].

In 1983, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals: "In a civilized society, every citizen at least tacitly relies upon the constable for protection from crime. Hence, more than general reliance is needed to require the police to act on behalf of a particular individual. ... Liability is established, therefore, if police have specifically undertaken to protect a particular individual and the individual has specifically relied upon the undertaking.... Absent a special relationship, therefore, the police may not be held liable for failure to protect a particular individual from harm caused by criminal conduct. A special relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual requests, or a police officer promises to provide protection." [Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983)].

The Court of Appeals of New York ruled: "The amount of protection that may be provided is limited by the resources of the community and by a considered legislative executive decision as to how these resources may be deployed. For the courts to proclaim a new and general duty of protection ... even to those who may be the particular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits." Dissenting in this ruling, Judge Keating noted: "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." [Riss v. City of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that: "the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe them any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death ...Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect the individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public. In this instance, a special relationship of the type stated did not exist ...Plaintiff's argument that the children's presence required defendants to delay (the) arrest until the children were elsewhere is incompatible with the duty that the law has long placed on law enforcement personnel to make the safety of the public their first concern; for permitting dangerous criminals to go unapprehended lest particular individuals be injured or killed would inevitably and necessarily endanger the public at large, a policy that the law cannot tolerate, much less foster." [Lynch v. N.C.Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E.2nd 247 (N.C.App. 1989)]

 

[Yuri]

You can think as literal as you want to but that won't change the fact that people are murdered and raped every day. It is a fact that the police are not obligated to protect citizens. There was a court case that already established that, furthermore what are you going to do in the time it takes them to respond? I'm about to move out in the sticks. I can guarantee it'll take a while for any help to show up at my house. It's my responsibility to protect my family. Call me paranoid. I think your the nutty one anyways.

I'm the nutty one for trusting in my fellow citizens and law enforcement agencies, and not feeling the need to take vigilantism into my own hands?

Rapes and murders will happen regardless of guns. Do you really think that if everyone has a gun, there will be no rape or murder? Do you think there would be less, even? I don't. If you are going to murder someone, you generally don't give them time to react. If you are going to rape someone, the same is true, and you generally don't allow them to reach in their purses // handbags for their knives, Mace, tazers, or gun. A rapist who knows what they are doing doesn't say "I'MA RAPE YOU" 20 feet away and charge at you like a bull.



Again, if you want to own guns, its probably your right to, and fine, whatever. (You should be held responsible for any accidental deaths and injuries, however.) But don't bring them into public, which results in endangering the general populance just because you're a paranoid freak (or just an attention seeking one.)

 

[VirusType2]

Haha. How off topic.

So, because animals pose a threat to humans, we should be allowed to kill them? WHAT A LOGICAL STATEMENT!

While we are "making the world safer for humans," let's not stop there! Let's kill all the sharks, who regularly make surfer's and swimmer's lives terrible and much less fun! The bees, since people are allergic to them, and they are everywhere! The lions and the tigers and the... oh, you already mentioned the bears! In fact, let's just wipe out all of the carniverous creatures, because hey! Maybe they will eat a human, OH NO?! And any creature that could possibly pose a threat to drivers, like raccoons, cats, dogs, horses, elephants and monkeys!

I'm no animal rights activist, but at least I'm not as bat shit crazy to defend hunting because animals pose threats to... uhh, DRIVERS?! Seriously dude, take some NOT INSANE PILLS.

If you like to cover yourself in deer piss and sit in the woods for eight straight hours so you can fire a gun at a deer, and then rip off its head and put it above your fireplace... uhh, go ahead. But please don't try to rationalize it with crazy ass shit like this. :|

Since when are firearms off-topic in a gun control discussion? Hello? Are you with us?

So, because animals pose a threat to humans, we should be allowed to kill them? WHAT A LOGICAL STATEMENT!

Do you think otherwise? If you do you are an idiot. Maybe you should go live in the jungle. The jungle boy raised by animals.

If a stray dog is running lose, they are killed. If a shark comes into shallow waters, they are killed. If a bear comes into a public place, they are killed. If any animal begins to harm humans they are put down, where have you been? Maybe you should join some animal rights groups if you really feel this way. Everyone feels a certain way about everything.

I don't believe you would put an animals life in front of an innocent humans life, I just think you argue for the sake of arguing. Otherwise I would laugh at you.

I am not a hunter. I have never, and will never, shoot a deer because I don't eat deer meat. But if someone wants to go hunting and bag a deer and get 100lbs. of deer meat, I don't need to rationalize it. It's been rationalized since cave men roamed the Earth. It's food. Does that make you better than hunters because you buy your meat from the grocery store? Because someone else killed the animal you are eating that makes you morally superior?

Maybe you think fishermen are crazy too and eating sea-food is irrational.

Yes, I would like the animals to roam free and go wherever they want roaming the earth, but face it, humans put themselves first, and we have developed most of the world, and we can't have everything. We need 2 Earths. One for the animals and one for humans. Thats why we have lost certain species of animals to extinction. Because of humans. Funny you don't like guns because maybe you could grab a gun and thin the human "herd" for all Deer-kind.

 

[Yuri]

Please, completely destroy the entire world's population of "dangerous" animals (read: animals that could even just run into cars lolz)? Have fun, ya crazy freak.

You are in no position to call me an idiot. Bringing this to the level of name calling just proves even further how IGNORANT you really are.

And yes, the issue of hunting is quite off-topic to gun control.

I fail to see how a deer living is a threat to an innocent person's life, for the sole reason of them running into cars.

What are you even talking about? I'm not hating on a person's right to eat meat. We eat meat, okay. That's cool. How does that have anything to f*cking do with killing deer so we don't hit them in our cars? Or killing bears cuz sometimes (not usually) they eat people? You never once disagreed that you weren't advocating the killing of any "potentially dangerous" animal towards humans. So you seriously must be extremely ignorant, and extremely insane. So we should kill all the mosquito's cuz they give us Malaria, and all the bees cuz they kill people who are allergic, and all the sharks so we can swim free in all the oceans, and all the tigers and lions in Africa since sometimes they eat people, and all the deer, racoons, squirells, and wildlife because sometimes they run in front of our cars, and all the rhinos that impale people, and all the horses that kick people in the face?

No where did I say I was putting an animal in the place of an innocent human's life. But you have this strange "preemptive" mindset, geared towards killing deer because they *might* go in the road, or killing bears cuz they *might* eat your mom.

And where did I say that I was better then hunters that eat their meat? Where are you GETTING these QUOTES, you CRAZY freak!? I was simply saying it was F*CKING CRAZY to rationalize hunting deer by saying that MAYBE they will run into cars. That's all.

I suggest you stop throwing insults around, or at least turn them 180 degrees in the correct direction.



Hold the phone here, too... you think its cool to have guns all the time because maybe you'll be attacked by a rabid bear? Is this your point? Wow.

 

[VirusType2]

You are in no position to call me an idiot. Bringing this to the level of name calling just proves even further how IGNORANT you really are.

I suggest you stop throwing insults around, or at least turn them 180 degrees in the correct direction.

I said, "You are an idiot if you put animal lives in front of innocent human lives", meaning I didn't even call you an idiot unless you feel that way. and you don't do you? So then I didn't call you an idiot.

Don't play the victim here Erestheux, here let me remind you of the insults you seem to forget saying to me.

WHAT A LOGICAL STATEMENT

bat shit crazy

Seriously dude, take some NOT INSANE PILLS.

If you like to cover yourself in deer piss

But please don't try to rationalize it with crazy ass shit like this.

ya crazy freak.

proves even further how IGNORANT you really are.

you CRAZY freak

And I am "bringing this to the level of name calling"? You are killing me.

And yes, the issue of hunting is quite off-topic to gun control.

Thats like saying cars are off topic when discussing car safety.

I really don't have to rationalize or justify hunting. Our government says it's legal and I don't disagree with it. If you don't agree with it then thats up to you and others that take your point of view to make a difference.

And where did I say that I was better then hunters that eat their meat?

You seem to think hunting is some kind of ridiculous unnecessary and unjustifiable thing that some people do, so I said what makes you so much better because you buy meat from a store? The only difference is that someone else killed it for you. I said I don't hunt because I don't eat deer meat. I don't eat any sea-food or fish either and I don't go fishing. Perhaps if I enjoyed eating fish I would enjoy fishing but I don't.

I hate to sound condescending because you already know this but big fish eat small fish. Snakes eat mice. The food chain is what makes life on this planet work. I don't really like the idea of killing animals whether it be deer, fish, or otherwise, In fact I have complained a bit to my father and my brother nearly every time they go hunting, but as long as they eat the poor thing then I can't say anything because I eat certain meats as well.

I'd also like to add that I think you have me all wrong. I don't even like killing bugs, mice or other "pests" unless they present a health hazard. Termites in my house = bad, but if i see a bee's nest or a fly, an ant or other creature outside I leave them be. I step over them to avoid killing them. If an unwanted insect comes into my home, whenever possible I will try to capture it and release it outside rather than killing it. But if a creature presents a danger to a human life than I think something must be done. Move the animals to a protected forest or something if possible.

When I was a very young child I was attacked by dogs a half-dozen times! Of course I don't think all dogs should be wiped off the face of the earth, but they need to be kept from harming humans by enforcing stricter laws and penalties on dog owners, and this has already been done in recent years. Yay.

So if every year, deer jump out onto the highways causing thousands of accidents resulting in death, then that is a problem that needs to be handled because it is a danger to human lives. Hunting is proven to lower these accidents.

 

[SIGbastard]

I'm the nutty one for trusting in my fellow citizens and law enforcement agencies, and not feeling the need to take vigilantism into my own hands?

Rapes and murders will happen regardless of guns. Do you really think that if everyone has a gun, there will be no rape or murder? Do you think there would be less, even? I don't. If you are going to murder someone, you generally don't give them time to react. If you are going to rape someone, the same is true, and you generally don't allow them to reach in their purses // handbags for their knives, Mace, tazers, or gun. A rapist who knows what they are doing doesn't say "I'MA RAPE YOU" 20 feet away and charge at you like a bull.



Again, if you want to own guns, its probably your right to, and fine, whatever. (You should be held responsible for any accidental deaths and injuries, however.) But don't bring them into public, which results in endangering the general populance just because you're a paranoid freak (or just an attention seeking one.)

Your missing the point. I am not implying having guns will completely stop crimes. It will give people the ability to defend themselves. You can think as literally as you want but it will protect you from absolutely nothing. Self defense has zero to do with vigilantism. You need to go look up that definition again.

Oh and BTW when states have allowed CCW rape has ALWAYS went down. Try to argue around it. It will require more of your "literal" thinking. I trust my government as well. It is what has allowed me to get a CCW permit. You should take your own advice and trust their decisions.

It is not about attention. I will talk freely about it on the net because nobody knows me. Around me the only people who know that I carry are my family and people who go to the range with me. It's called concealed carry for a reason. It's not about advertising.

 

[Venmoch]

It is what has allowed me to get a CCW permit. You should take your own advice and trust their decisions.

Forgive my British ignorance, but why do you think you need a concealed weapon in the first place? (Not a bash, attack or anything I just would like to know why you think you need one)

Half of this comes from plain curiosity. Britain seems far removed from the US as far as guns go. In fact the only really legal guns are shotguns for hunting. And Rifles I believe. But these are really regulated.

But as a Brit I see no need to walk the streets with a gun. Why? I don't know. I just can't see any reason for me to carry one. It may be different for other people I don't know.

While personally, I don't like guns or the idea that anyone could be taking one with them. But I will recognise that theres a large difference between the US and UK culturally making it very hard for the two to be compared.

I'm still skeptical of the whole self defence arguement however. While I can see many arguements for guns that make sense at the most basic level. If you think that most murders and rape are pre-meditated wouldn't this planning somehow negate the positive attributes behind having a gun? As mentioned before guns don't really help you when they are close enough to you. With burglers it makes a fair amount of sense. But with the classic example of rape I can't see a gun making that much difference.

 

[SIGbastard]

I would have to say for one the very possibility that a woman could be carrying a gun will keep rape levels down to a certain extent. That is why rape has always dropped in states that allow ccw. The deterrence alone because of fear is enough reason to have it legal. It makes it where a rapist or other violent criminal can't be sure what type of resistance they could meet. The possibility of being surprised by an armed victim is a scary thing for them. You guys don't seem to realize that criminals are often very cowardly people.

 

[CptStern]

yet that doesnt seem to be a problem in the rest of the developed world ...either the US has far more crime than anywhere else and is only held in check by responsible gun owners or the overabundance of guns prepetuates crime

 

[SIGbastard]

yet that doesnt seem to be a problem in the rest of the developed world ...either the US has far more crime than anywhere else and is only held in check by responsible gun owners or the overabundance of guns prepetuates crime

Yea we need to round up all those guns so they will stop making people doing bad stuff .

There are other places with an "overabundance" of firearms without the crime like Switzerland. It's a cultural thing that would likely still be a problem here if guns vanished into thin air. Statistics show gun crime is at an all time low anyways even though ownership is at an all time high here in the US.

 

[CptStern]

yet the stats dont support your notion that if guns were banned then murders would go up ..the majority of murders in the US are gun related

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-12.xls

 

[SIGbastard]

yet the stats dont support your notion that if guns were banned then murders would go up ..the majority of murders in the US are gun related

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl2-12.xls

I never said they would go up if guns were banned. I just said crime would persist at current levels most likely because guns are merely a tool.

By your line of thinking I could say that Rosie O'Donnel is fat because of forks, so banning forks will make her skinny again.

The war on drugs is a good example of how useless certain bans are.

 

[Flyingdebris]

i find it odd how so many people feel that we are more safe living at the whim of the state or anyone serious about doing harm.

 

[Nat Turner]

i find it odd how so many people feel that we are more safe living at the whim of the state or anyone serious about doing harm.

They all love their fascist state.

 

[CptStern]

I never said they would go up if guns were banned. I just said crime would persist at current levels most likely because guns are merely a tool.

By your line of thinking I could say that Rosie O'Donnel is fat because of forks, so banning forks will make her skinny again.

no, that doesnt even remotely apply to what I said ..I suggested that your notion that banning guns would lead to increased (or levels that remain the same) crime is inappropriate, nothing more. But that notion is completely flawed because the stats prove that in an overwhelming number of cases guns were used to commit murder

The war on drugs is a good example of how useless certain bans are.

again you're applying one event to try to justify another unrelated event ..it just doesnt hold up to even casual scrutiny because the circumstances are completely unrelated




oh and for the last time anyone who truely believes they need to own a gun to protect themselves from the state needs a healthy dose of reality, you will be mowed down in seconds should you ever participate in a rebellion, it is completely absurd for anyone to believe that the US will be brought down by a handful of indignant citizens armed with shotguns ..you wouldnt stand a chance

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i find it odd how so many people feel that we are more safe living at the whim of the state or anyone serious about doing harm.

When the most vocal alternative is fun folks like Nat Turner here, the position is understandable.

I would rather a police officer carry a gun than the guy who says we need to screw kids, treat women as inferiors and live in a state of "survival of the fittest" kill-or-be-killed anarchy.

Not everyone is Nat, but at the same time there are enough similarly insane people out there that we cannot credibly rely on only each-other for our own protection.
Civilian power protects us from the governement.
BUT the government protects us from the bat-shittier civilians out there.
It's mutual. So the minute you eliminate the laws, you're promoting an even worse dictatorship than ever, via some wacko eugenicist mob rule.

Giving away gun rights is bad, but it's similarly dumb to act as though safety laws are a fascist plot for US takeover.
The US is run by the republican party - closer than most to the OMG FASCIST side of the spectrum - and they freaking love the NRA.

Gun rights are one of those few cases of where the middle-ground is by far the correct one.

 

[Yuri]

I said, "You are an idiot if you put animal lives in front of innocent human lives", meaning I didn't even call you an idiot unless you feel that way. and you don't do you? So then I didn't call you an idiot.

Don't play the victim here Erestheux, here let me remind you of the insults you seem to forget saying to me.

And I am "bringing this to the level of name calling"? You are killing me.

Good point, but if you seperate between my initial post, you can see that I was sarcastic, and didn't actually directly insult you until you did for me. As in, you started it na na naaa naa.

Thats like saying cars are off topic when discussing car safety.

No, it really isn't, that analogy sucks, sorry. I could see how you could tie hunting into gun control, but you still took the whole hunting animals thing out of the blue.

I really don't have to rationalize or justify hunting. Our government says it's legal and I don't disagree with it. If you don't agree with it then thats up to you and others that take your point of view to make a difference.

If you don't have to, why are you? And why are you using crazy bizarre reasons?

You seem to think hunting is some kind of ridiculous unnecessary and unjustifiable thing that some people do, so I said what makes you so much better because you buy meat from a store? The only difference is that someone else killed it for you. I said I don't hunt because I don't eat deer meat. I don't eat any sea-food or fish either and I don't go fishing. Perhaps if I enjoyed eating fish I would enjoy fishing but I don't.

I hate to sound condescending because you already know this but big fish eat small fish. Snakes eat mice. The food chain is what makes life on this planet work. I don't really like the idea of killing animals whether it be deer, fish, or otherwise, In fact I have complained a bit to my father and my brother nearly every time they go hunting, but as long as they eat the poor thing then I can't say anything because I eat certain meats as well.

I NEVER SAID THAT!! F FOR READING COMPREHENSION! Jesus CHRIST, dude, let me SIMPLIFY it for you.

You: Its neccesary to hunt deer because maybe they will run in front of cars. Also, bears should be hunted since maybe they will eat my mom.

Me: What a STUPID, INSANE reason to justify hunting. There are plenty of reasons to hunt that AREN'T that INSANE. With that JUSTIFICATION, we should kill ALL ANIMALS preemtively which *may* harm humans sometime in the future!

You: YOU FREAKY VEGETARIAN HIPPIE! WE NEED TO KILL ANIMALS TO SURVIVE! Hunters eat meat, what's wrong with that, YOU THINK YOU'RE BETTER THAN HUNTERS?!

Me: But, but I never said any of that. I said that your justification was INSANE and MAKES NO SENSE.

I'd also like to add that I think you have me all wrong. I don't even like killing bugs, mice or other "pests" unless they present a health hazard. Termites in my house = bad, but if i see a bee's nest or a fly, an ant or other creature outside I leave them be. I step over them to avoid killing them. If an unwanted insect comes into my home, whenever possible I will try to capture it and release it outside rather than killing it. But if a creature presents a danger to a human life than I think something must be done. Move the animals to a protected forest or something if possible.

When I was a very young child I was attacked by dogs a half-dozen times! Of course I don't think all dogs should be wiped off the face of the earth, but they need to be kept from harming humans by enforcing stricter laws and penalties on dog owners, and this has already been done in recent years. Yay.

So if every year, deer jump out onto the highways causing thousands of accidents resulting in death, then that is a problem that needs to be handled because it is a danger to human lives. Hunting is proven to lower these accidents.

There is a huge difference which you are not comprehending. At all.

Justifying hunting deer under the guise that maybe they will stand in the road is MILES DIFFERENT than killing a tiger who is about to eat you, or pests in your house.

If you need to justify hunting deer because you eat their meat, or even if you are just having fun, then you justify it THAT WAY. You don't pretend to be ridding the world of some horrible hazard, because then you just sound ignorant.

Where is the line drawn in your definition of justifiable hunting? It seems completely arbitrary. Deer aren't the only things which run into roads. Bears kill things. Lions, tigers, elephants, rhinos. All these things can kill people, or at the least damage their precious cars. Why is it allowed to kill all the deer but not all of these other animals?

I live in an area that is crawling with deer. I learn to drive slower and more cautiously during the night. I don't say "LEZZ KILL THEM DAMN DEER RUININ OUR ROWIDS!" If I ever hit one, I will accept it. How many people actually die in deer-related car accidents, anyways? I'm sure its not many, because I've seen hundreds.

 

[VirusType2]

Look, you made a good point. I don't have the answer. Why do they hunt deer? I guess because it's been done since before recorded history. I guess because grandma got ran over by a reindeer. I don't know. I don't care about this topic enough to even try to figure it out.

You think hunting deer because they *might* go in the road is a ridiculous reason. I agree with you. But it's not that they *might* go in the road, it's that they *do*. When I hit a deer and it's antlers go into my skull and kill me and total my car, and the deer dies anyway, how is that a better scenario than putting a bullet in its head and eating it for dinner instead?

But also, by your logic, wearing a bug-spray, or putting up a mosquito net to protect you from getting bit from mosquitos is a stupid idea because the mosquito *might* not bite me anyway, and now I have ruined the ozone layer from the bug-spray so I'm an idiot because I didn't actually get bit and contract West-Nile virus.

I guess the same reason they hunt deer is also the same reason they spray chemicals in the air for mosquitos. To keep their population under control for the saftey of humans. We aren't trying to make them extinct.

As an added bonus you can eat deer though, and it's much healthier for you than other meats. It's very lean.

Heh. I don't know dude.

 

[Yuri]

Well, that's all I was saying. If you wanna kill deer, don't pretend that you're doing it for the sake of drivers.

The mosquito repellant doesn't kill them, and I honestly have a lot more respect for the life of an animal than that of an insect.



I'm glad we can come to a conclusion. This is a fine day for the internet, indeed.

*shakes hands* and <3

 

[CptStern]

Look, you made a good point. I don't have the answer. Why do they hunt deer? I guess because it's been done since before recorded history. I guess because grandma got ran over by a reindeer. I don't know. I don't care about this topic enough to even try to figure it out. You think hunting deer because they go in the road is a ridiculous reason. By your logic, I agree with you. But it's not that they *might* go in the road, it's that they *do*. When I hit a deer and it's antlers go into my skull and kill me and total my car, and the deer dies anyway, how is that a better scenario than putting a bullet in its head and eating it for dinner instead?

.

deer get hit by cars in ever increasing numbers because humans completely ****ed their habitat ..their food supply is dwindling, their natual enemies are almost completely gone, they're prone to disease because of unnaturally high populations when in a balanced ecosystem their numbers would remain steady due to predators. As their numbers increase food gets scarcer. Culling does nothing and is only a stop gap measure it it will be constantly perpetuated as their habitat continues to dwindle

no, animals get killed because man set it up for it to happen ..hunting is a lie in this day and age, it's a purely selfish act that has nothing to do with the well being of an animal

 

[VirusType2]

deer get hit by cars in ever increasing numbers because humans completely ****ed their habitat ..their food supply is dwindling, their natual enemies are almost completely gone, they're prone to disease because of unnaturally high populations when in a balanced ecosystem their numbers would remain steady due to predators. As their numbers increase food gets scarcer. Culling does nothing and is only a stop gap measure it it will be constantly perpetuated as their habitat continues to dwindle

no, animals get killed because man set it up for it to happen ..hunting is a lie in this day and age, it's a purely selfish act that has nothing to do with the well being of an animal

I see. Yea, in case you missed it, I posted something supporting what you said:

Yes, I would like the animals to roam free and go wherever they want roaming the earth, but face it, humans put themselves first, and we have developed most of the world, and we can't have everything. We need 2 Earths. One for the animals and one for humans. Thats why we have lost certain species of animals to extinction. Because of humans. Funny you don't like guns because maybe you could grab a gun and thin the human "herd" for all Deer-kind.

But I don't know that it is a purely selfish act for many hunters, because like I said, my brothers, my stepfather, and my father eat or give away all the meat, so I don't know if hunting is anymore a selfish act than eating a hamburger in this case.

Well, that's all I was saying. If you wanna kill deer, don't pretend that you're doing it for the sake of drivers.

Actually I wasn't pretending anything.

1) I merely supplied to the discussion teh overlooked fact that people have guns for hunting, and this is regulated by gun control.

2) Then, in an honest effort to explain why hunting is necessary, and thus people owning guns is logical and more justified, I supplied to the argument the fact that people hunt because they reproduce so rapidly, and it causes a shit-load of car accidents. In turn, as a result, guns save many lives that don't get factored into the pro-gun equation from people that shoot deer so that they can't jump in front of cars.

3) Knowing that wasn't the only reason, and becuase you thought shooting deer becuase they might walk into the street is a bad idea, I also supplied to the argument that people hunt to eat the meat.

In case you aren't aware, just like Stern said, without hunters, they will reproduce so that eventually, over the years that they would be everywhere. And they would be desperate for food. Shit loads of them. In parking lots, jumping through your windows at night. THey are like cockroaches in that they will take over the earth. .. or not.


But the cold ugly fact is they would be running the streets at night, then I can't drive to work in D.C. because the traffic is backed up for 1000 miles from some deer standing on the road, or from some accident caused by them where 52 cars piled up.

Imagine if deer lived in China, a place with such a large population of people that there are actually more English speaking people in China than there are in USA. People are stacked on top of eachother. At least we have a little room for the deer to live.

The overpopulation of Earth is another topic for the politics that I would gladly take part in.

We are all aware that humans are the only creature on earth that actually damages the planet and thus we should be removed from the Earth so it can prosper. We can then go ruin Mars or something. But I still put human life before deer life because of the simple fact that I am a human.

.. Now if we could get some deer into government then we'd have something.

 

[kirovman]

Deer do live in China.

 

[VirusType2]

Deer do live in China.

I didn't know that, but my point was that there is more room here in the USA for them to roam the country-side, so the USA isn't the worst bad guys this time Stern Although we do have the some of, if not the worst polution here :x And something needs to be done about that really quickly. My brother bought a hybrid. It's cool. It doesn't idle, it stops running the engine when you stop for any reason (traffic lights, traffic, etc.). It's cool.

Over development of Earth by humans is a fault of nearly every country that has favorable living conditions. Where will all the other creatures will go? Maybe we will lose certain species to extinction that are vital to the survival of man, then we can all die and earth and it's surviving creatures can be better off without us.

 

[Apos]

I don't have any problem with people owning guns, but I also think that there are plenty of reasonable restrictions on the ownership, and organizations like the NRA try to lie to people and get them all riled up in order to strike down these reasonable restrictions.

Also, the argument that people having guns prevents tyrrany is just plain stupid. Didn't work too well in Iraq did it, despite tons of guns everywhere? Didn't work too well in MOST states with dictators in Africa, where again, guns are everywhere. The militias are just as likely to run around slaughtering their neighbors as they are to defend anything.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I don't have any problem with people owning guns, but I also think that there are plenty of reasonable restrictions on the ownership, and organizations like the NRA try to lie to people and get them all riled up in order to strike down these reasonable restrictions.

Also, the argument that people having guns prevents tyrrany is just plain stupid. Didn't work too well in Iraq did it, despite tons of guns everywhere? Didn't work too well in MOST states with dictators in Africa, where again, guns are everywhere. The militias are just as likely to run around slaughtering their neighbors as they are to defend anything.

NRA supports background checks and other laws. They propose extremely harsh penalties for criminals whose crime involves a firearm.

Look into what the NRA actually lobbies for before you claim the "NRA tries to lie and get people riled up"

Show the sources of such lies or such.