Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 19079025)

Opponents to gun control say a situation like Aurora CO wouldn't happen if we all had guns.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19079033)

Man, can you imagine what a party that would've been?

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19079033)

Man, can you imagine what a party that would've been?

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19079033)

Man, can you imagine what a party that would've been?

Originally Posted by Matyko (Post 19079051)

No civilians should carry guns. But that is just an opinion of a common hippie, so..

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19079314)

Perhaps we might try using actual facts rather then silly rhetoric. This was written by a man who was a researcher at University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park. Perhaps if you guys are interesting in finding out something about the subject, rather than just posturing, you could read it.

http://cdn.ammoland.com/files/wp-con...Less-Crime.jpg



This is only a suggestion...:2 cents:



.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19079331)

Funny how basically any country where less people have guns (%) than the US there is less crime than the US.
But hey, let's all read that book to find out the facts :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19079357)

Like I said, facts might be better than silly rhetoric.




.:1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Jensen (Post 19079359)

USA - 311 million - 88 guns per 100 - 12000 people killed

Japan - 127 million - 0.6 guns per 100 - 11 people killed

If you want to own a gun in Japan you have to pass a written test held only once a month, pass a test at a shootingrange, visit the hospital to pass a mental and drugtest. After that, the police will do a checkup and approve/deny. Handguns are strictly banned so we are talking about hunting rifles and airguns only. Police will inspect the weapon once a year and you have to repeat the tests every 3 years.

(numbers are picked up from a newspaper and I haven't checked so flame away)

Originally Posted by DamianJ (Post 19079365)

OK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate

There you go.

Seems when people have less guns, that less people die.

Crazy!!!111oneoneone

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19079031)

Yes, every person in America should own a gun. That would be just awesome. Preferably an uzi or something.

Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 19072497)

Given that most arguments used in this thread are of a utilitarian nature, I'll take the time to explain the deontological position.

Gandhi, as a lawyer, understood the concept of selfownership. This is the idea that every human being owns his own body. To have a property right in something means that you have the exclusive authority to determine how that resource is used. That means you have the right to use that resource and it also means you have the right to determine who else can or cannot use it. To have a property right means you have the right to enforce that property right. If that weren't the case, the law of the jungle where the strong can force their will on the weak would apply.

Example: a woman can refuse to have sex with a man because she owns her own body. She has the exclusive authority to determine how that resource, in this case her body, is used. If the man tries to rape her, she has the right to defend herself. She has the right to use violence to defend herself.

Gandhi understood that denying people the right to bear arms or in other words denying people the right to use their own property to enforce their property rights was essentially the same as denying people had the right to selfownership.

Originally Posted by Dirty F (Post 19079031)

Yes, every person in America should own a gun. That would be just awesome. Preferably an uzi or something.

Originally Posted by xenigo (Post 19079025)

I mean everyone. Every psycho woman, every hot-headed dude. Every punk mother fucker who wants to start a fight with everyone. Every poor person who has a beef with the world. Every intoxicated person. Every body-builder who's on his 6th week of deca-durabolin. Every woman who just had a fight with her ex. Every dude who just broke up with his wife. Every man who just received a summons to appear in court for alimony and child support. Every person who just lost their job. Everyone who has a short temper and thinks "I'm going to fucking kill you" is the answer to everything.

Let's give them Glock 40's. Picture them all in a movie theater.

Now James Holmes walks through the door...

http://heavyarmor.files.wordpress.co...inner-none.jpg

Opponents to gun control say a situation like Aurora CO wouldn't happen if we all had guns. There's just too many idiots in this world. We don't need to give everyone point-and-click ability to end our lives. Would you like to put your life in the hands of the people listed above? Would you trust them?

I certainly don't...

Originally Posted by Jensen (Post 19079359)

USA - 311 million - 88 guns per 100 - 12000 people killed

Japan - 127 million - 0.6 guns per 100 - 11 people killed

If you want to own a gun in Japan you have to pass a written test held only once a month, pass a test at a shootingrange, visit the hospital to pass a mental and drugtest. After that, the police will do a checkup and approve/deny. Handguns are strictly banned so we are talking about hunting rifles and airguns only. Police will inspect the weapon once a year and you have to repeat the tests every 3 years.

(numbers are picked up from a newspaper and I haven't checked so flame away)

Originally Posted by bronco67 (Post 19079411)

I don't think the answer is to keep people from having guns, but there could definitely be a lot less of them. They should be a rare, tough thing to get a hold of and olnly be attainable by the most scrutinized, screened people. It should be fucking difficult to get a gun, and they should be in any Wal-Marts.

Just a question, but weren't illegal guns at one time legal? Where does an "illegal" gun come from anyway?

By the way, I grew up with guns and I've at one time or another owned every firearm that the Aurora shooter used.

Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 19079439)

I'll recycle one of my posts from the Gun Poll thread:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19072497&postcount=60

I'll recycle one of my posts from the Gun Poll thread:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19072497&postcount=60

Originally Posted by u-Bob:
Originally Posted by u-Bob:
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."~Gandhi
Given that most arguments used in this thread are of a utilitarian nature, I'll take the time to explain the deontological position.

Gandhi, as a lawyer, understood the concept of selfownership. This is the idea that every human being owns his own body. To have a property right in something means that you have the exclusive authority to determine how that resource is used. That means you have the right to use that resource and it also means you have the right to determine who else can or cannot use it. To have a property right means you have the right to enforce that property right. If that weren't the case, the law of the jungle where the strong can force their will on the weak would apply.

Example: a woman can refuse to have sex with a man because she owns her own body. She has the exclusive authority to determine how that resource, in this case her body, is used. If the man tries to rape her, she has the right to defend herself. She has the right to use violence to defend herself.

Gandhi understood that denying people the right to bear arms or in other words denying people the right to use their own property to enforce their property rights was essentially the same as denying people had the right to selfownership.
The question isn't "should everyone carry a gun?". The question is "Does every human being have the right to use his own property any way he wants without causing damage to another human being or his property?"

The right to private property means you have the right to use that property. That includes having the right to build you own gun using your own resources or buy one from someone who voluntarily offers one for sale at a price you are willing to pay for it.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. It's a matter of being consistent.


The question isn't "should everyone carry a gun?". The question is "Does every human being have the right to use his own property any way he wants without causing damage to another human being or his property?"

The right to private property means you have the right to use that property. That includes having the right to build you own gun using your own resources or buy one from someone who voluntarily offers one for sale at a price you are willing to pay for it.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. It's a matter of being consistent.

Originally Posted by crazyvipa (Post 19079503)

I always find it funny when people say guns should be more difficult to purchase from a store. All you are successfully accomplishing is preventing the HONEST people from owning a firearm. The dishonest people get them through other means.... theft, black market, etc.

Originally Posted by Rochard (Post 19079583)

How would it have played out if one fourth of the two hundred people in that theatre was armed....

A man walks in and tosses in two smoke bombs and starts firing. A fifty-five year old insurance salesman in the 25th row pulls out his firearm and starts shooting at what he think might be a shooter. He misses, instead hitting a thirteen year old boy. The father of this boy is also armed, and suddenly he's being fired at from two directions - one shooter who just came in through the emergency exit and another man somewhere behind him... But it's smoky and two hundred people are screaming, and six other people just pulled out firearms and started shooting.

Now you have the original shooter and eight other people with hand guns shooting at each other, none of properly trained in tactical situations, and no one is sure who the original shooter is or why anyone else is shooting.

Adding more guns to the situation only adds to the confusion and adds to the number of people with firearms and only adds to the amount of bullets flying - and only adds to the amount of people dead.

Anyone who thinks adding more firearms to the situation is the solution is on crack.

Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 19079536)

Bring back slavery, I want more private property

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19079599)

Except for the fact that this kind of thing HAS occured, where armed civilians responded, and in fact, law abiding armed citizens have actually stopped the crime, WITHOUT the scenario you are describing. Again, with the silly rhetoric, rather than facts.



.

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 19079612)

So it's not a fact that you are 43 times more likely to kill or injure yourself or a family member with a gun than you are to injure or kill an intruder? Because that's what I've heard was a fact. I'll have to look it up later.

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 19079593)

Where do guns on the black market come from anyway? I'm guessing from the same gun manufacturers as "legal" guns. And I'd bet top dollar that 99.9% of them were at one time legally sold. Yet somehow it never gets argued that making guns harder to get legally would slow down the black market over time. Weird. Are all the guns coming from mexico or something? Army surplus? Overturned shippping trucks on highways? Maybe there's enough guns out there already to never need to make another new one. That can't be right.

Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 19079624)

You are also more likely to die if you are driving car X and are in an accident than when you are driving the much bigger car Y and are in an accident.

Does that mean that the government should ban all cars X and only allow people to buy the more expensive car Y?

Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 19079439)

I'll recycle one of my posts from the Gun Poll thread:
https://gfy.com/showpost.php?p=19072497&postcount=60



The question isn't "should everyone carry a gun?". The question is "Does every human being have the right to use his own property any way he wants without causing damage to another human being or his property?"

The right to private property means you have the right to use that property. That includes having the right to build you own gun using your own resources or buy one from someone who voluntarily offers one for sale at a price you are willing to pay for it.

Either you believe in private property or you don't. It's a matter of being consistent.

Originally Posted by NewNick (Post 19079451)

And a Tank.

Originally Posted by crazyvipa (Post 19079638)

Guns come from all across the world. Specifically places that don't regulate like the USA does. Come on now, hopefully you just don't know better. There are enough weapons to supply the entire USA with about 1-2 weapons per person. Take the AK-47 for example. There is just an AMAZING surplus of AK-47's available. Some army/military and some for civilian use.

Take a quick look at these numbers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry.. the USA is a top contender, but guns come from across the entire world. Regulating USA won't slow any of the black market down.

In 2007 they estimated around 870 million firearms.. and that is 2007. (this was a quick google search so I could give real numbers) Guns lifespan, in the responsible owners hand, can last generations. I still have a few weapons from WWI that my family has passed down. They still fire. Ammo hard time come by, but they fire just as well.


Sorry to tell you, but deterring people from buying over the counter weapons only affects the legit firearm owners. Believe it or not, USA does have pretty good deterrents already in place. Ex; Firearm Dealers call in every single sale, recording SSN, and serial number. If the Fed's respond with a "RED - NO GO" response -- the sherif and police could be called. You are not able to purchase with any type of felony on your record.

"Bad guys" get their stock from the black market or even theft. The theft part, is where I must completely agree. If a weapon is used in a murder and was stolen, that sucks because it could have been prevented by not allowing someone to buy without a proper safe installed.

Originally Posted by u-Bob (Post 19079624)

You are also more likely to die if you are driving car X and are in an accident than when you are driving the much bigger car Y and are in an accident.

Does that mean that the government should ban all cars X and only allow people to buy the more expensive car Y?

Originally Posted by sperbonzo (Post 19079599)

Except for the fact that this kind of thing HAS occured, where armed civilians responded, and in fact, law abiding armed citizens have actually stopped the crime, WITHOUT the scenario you are describing. Again, with the silly rhetoric, rather than facts.



.

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 19079664)

Maybe we should institute a moritorium on gun manufature then in the US until all these giant piles of weapons are depleted. Anyone up for some letters to congress?

The Colorado guy bought everything "legit". Sure, maybe if he hadn't done it someone with an illegal black market AK47 would have done the same thing. I just doubt it.