5 ms·

>They've tried banning everything in England and criminals will still kill people with just about anything anything. First it's the guns, then knives, then mach

by foldr 7y ago

>They've tried banning everything in England and criminals will still kill people with just about anything anything. First it's the guns, then knives, then machetes. If these alternatives are just as effective as guns, why do you feel that you need a gun? Of course, you know that guns are more effective at killing people - especially large numbers of people. That's why we in the UK have not had a mass killing in a school since private ownership of handguns was banned over two decades ago. >it's a lot safer to have a gun than to wait for cops to come to draw the chalk lines on you and your family. You're more likely to use the gun to kill yourself or a family member than you are to use it to kill an intruder. Killing someone who breaks into your home is most likely an overreaction in any case. The chances are very low that they've broken in with the intention of harming you rather than merely stealing something.

goodluckchuck 7y ago
Anti-gun folks are always so fascinated with "local-news" shootings because it's the only argument that is facially viable. However, we have a second amendment because "a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state." It's the only part of the constitution that expressly explains why it exists, and yet people pretend the issue is something else. No, the issue is the very survival of our nation. It's how we won our independence and according to the people who did that, it's how we'll maintain it. So, sure, for the sake of argument, guns are a raw deal at the state and local level, but are you saying they were wrong to expel the British? Or is it more of a "Oh, you needed them them, but you're really never going to need them ever again, I promise." Forgive me if I believe the founding fathers, they've only gotten us this far.
giancarlostoro 7y ago
> Of course, you know that guns are more effective at killing people - especially large numbers of people. A knife is quiet, you could probably kill more people with knives, a gun is loud and everyone nearby will hear it, probably what a crazy shooter would want is to strike fear into victims. > You're more likely to use the gun to kill yourself or a family member than you are to use it to kill an intruder. Since neither of those two are a viable option for myself, I'd rather have a gun, and only ever shoot it at a range than not have one and watch the worse possible scenario unfold before me. > Killing someone who breaks into your home is most likely an overreaction in any case. The chances are very low that they've broken in with the intention of harming you rather than merely stealing something. I don't know that, and I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on them unless my life is in immediate danger. There's cases where a mother held the intruder at gun point until cops showed up to make an arrest.
- foldr 7y ago
  > You could probably kill more people with knives So why are you worried about gun bans? You can just use a knife instead. I think you must know, really, that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one. It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools. Just look at the recent terrorist incident in London. The guy killed two people with a knife before being restrained by unarmed members of the public. >And I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on one The first principle of responsible gun use is not to point a gun at anything you don't want to kill. As you illustrate, hardly anyone is capable of using guns responsibily.
  - Kaiyou 7y ago
    As an attacker who wants to go unnoticed a knife is the better option. As a defender, who wants to stop an attacker, your best bet is a gun, since you don't have to get close.
  - philwelch 7y ago
    > Just look at the recent terrorist incident in London. The guy killed two people with a knife before being restrained by unarmed members of the public. The people restraining him were armed with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk, and he was ultimately subdued by the police shooting him with guns. Also, since banning guns didn’t actually seem to fix anything, they’re now working on banning knives. So you can’t just use a knife instead. Better hope there’s a narwhal tusk handy when you need it.
    - foldr 7y ago
      >The people restraining him were armed with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk I.e., whatever objects happened to be at hand. I don't think you'd have much luck using a fire extinguisher against someone with an assault rifle. >Also, since banning guns didn’t actually seem to fix anything Hmm? There have been no mass killings in schools since the handgun ban. What was anyone expecting it to fix that it hasn't fixed? Bear in mind that very few British people owned handguns even before the ban (roughly 0.1% of the population), and none of them would have been carrying their guns around while going about their day to day business. One would not expect the ban to have had any great effect on anything - beyond eliminating the specific problem it was intended to address.
SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
> why do you feel that you need a gun? A. In a free society, I am not required to justify my choices. I don’t have to explain my “feelings” about anything. B. “Need”, there is that word again. In what ways are enumerated rights dependent on needs? If something better than a gun existed for personal defense, I’d want that, I don’t have to explain my “need” about anything. You seem like you are confusing rights with grants and privileges. So you either don’t actually understand rights in the US, or you are arguing in bad faith because you just don’t like them.
- foldr 7y ago
  I don't care particularly about gun rights in the US as I'm not American and no longer live in the US. My question was simply why someone who believed that knives were as effective as guns would feel that they needed a gun to defend themselves. I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    I don’t really care how it got there. You posed the question of why someone “feels” they have a “need” to a civil right. No other right has to face such scrutiny. Do you ask people why they feel they need privacy? Or why the feel they need free speech? Your argument is based on your own personal dislike for a right, that’s arguing in bad faith.
    - foldr 7y ago
      I'm asking why they think they need the gun, not why they think they need the right to own it.

by foldr 7y ago

goodluckchuck 7y ago

Anti-gun folks are always so fascinated with "local-news" shootings because it's the only argument that is facially viable. However, we have a second amendment because "a well regulated militia [is] necessary to the security of a free state." It's the only part of the constitution that expressly explains why it exists, and yet people pretend the issue is something else. No, the issue is the very survival of our nation. It's how we won our independence and according to the people who did that, it's how we'll maintain it. So, sure, for the sake of argument, guns are a raw deal at the state and local level, but are you saying they were wrong to expel the British? Or is it more of a "Oh, you needed them them, but you're really never going to need them ever again, I promise." Forgive me if I believe the founding fathers, they've only gotten us this far.

giancarlostoro 7y ago

> Of course, you know that guns are more effective at killing people - especially large numbers of people. A knife is quiet, you could probably kill more people with knives, a gun is loud and everyone nearby will hear it, probably what a crazy shooter would want is to strike fear into victims. > You're more likely to use the gun to kill yourself or a family member than you are to use it to kill an intruder. Since neither of those two are a viable option for myself, I'd rather have a gun, and only ever shoot it at a range than not have one and watch the worse possible scenario unfold before me. > Killing someone who breaks into your home is most likely an overreaction in any case. The chances are very low that they've broken in with the intention of harming you rather than merely stealing something. I don't know that, and I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on them unless my life is in immediate danger. There's cases where a mother held the intruder at gun point until cops showed up to make an arrest.

foldr 7y ago
> You could probably kill more people with knives So why are you worried about gun bans? You can just use a knife instead. I think you must know, really, that guns are more dangerous and effective than knives. That's why you want the right to own one. It's also why the US has frequent mass shootings in schools, whereas there are no instances of mass stabbings in UK schools. Just look at the recent terrorist incident in London. The guy killed two people with a knife before being restrained by unarmed members of the public. >And I don't have to kill them if I pull a gun on one The first principle of responsible gun use is not to point a gun at anything you don't want to kill. As you illustrate, hardly anyone is capable of using guns responsibily.
- Kaiyou 7y ago
  As an attacker who wants to go unnoticed a knife is the better option. As a defender, who wants to stop an attacker, your best bet is a gun, since you don't have to get close.
- philwelch 7y ago
  > Just look at the recent terrorist incident in London. The guy killed two people with a knife before being restrained by unarmed members of the public. The people restraining him were armed with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk, and he was ultimately subdued by the police shooting him with guns. Also, since banning guns didn’t actually seem to fix anything, they’re now working on banning knives. So you can’t just use a knife instead. Better hope there’s a narwhal tusk handy when you need it.
  - foldr 7y ago
    >The people restraining him were armed with a fire extinguisher and a narwhal tusk I.e., whatever objects happened to be at hand. I don't think you'd have much luck using a fire extinguisher against someone with an assault rifle. >Also, since banning guns didn’t actually seem to fix anything Hmm? There have been no mass killings in schools since the handgun ban. What was anyone expecting it to fix that it hasn't fixed? Bear in mind that very few British people owned handguns even before the ban (roughly 0.1% of the population), and none of them would have been carrying their guns around while going about their day to day business. One would not expect the ban to have had any great effect on anything - beyond eliminating the specific problem it was intended to address.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

> why do you feel that you need a gun? A. In a free society, I am not required to justify my choices. I don’t have to explain my “feelings” about anything. B. “Need”, there is that word again. In what ways are enumerated rights dependent on needs? If something better than a gun existed for personal defense, I’d want that, I don’t have to explain my “need” about anything. You seem like you are confusing rights with grants and privileges. So you either don’t actually understand rights in the US, or you are arguing in bad faith because you just don’t like them.

foldr 7y ago
I don't care particularly about gun rights in the US as I'm not American and no longer live in the US. My question was simply why someone who believed that knives were as effective as guns would feel that they needed a gun to defend themselves. I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  I don’t really care how it got there. You posed the question of why someone “feels” they have a “need” to a civil right. No other right has to face such scrutiny. Do you ask people why they feel they need privacy? Or why the feel they need free speech? Your argument is based on your own personal dislike for a right, that’s arguing in bad faith.
  - foldr 7y ago
    I'm asking why they think they need the gun, not why they think they need the right to own it.