By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Another Shooting, Another Gun Free Zone

Lawlight on 20 July 2015
mornelithe said:
Aeolus451 said:


Yes, I see what you're saying but it's not a double standard. Frankly, it depends on the circumstances of those gun deaths. Some see any gun death as bad but that's not the case in reality. It's not that black and white. If someone kills a person trying to break into their home, it's a justified and it's the right thing to do.  

Alot of the statistics people are using in the thread are gun related only and the majority of it is does not make the distinction between criminal gun deaths and justified gun deaths. Also, people aren't posting any statistics about murder by other means or other kinds of violent crime. It's revelent to this. 

That's not as black and white as you make it out to be, either.  

"Any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to the harm that is reasonably perceived."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/may-i-shoot-an-intruder.html

But, I understand what you're saying.

This is some BS. There is no telling what harm an intruder will do. He could murder you for all you know.



Around the Network
mornelithe on 20 July 2015
Lawlight said:
mornelithe said:

That's not as black and white as you make it out to be, either.  

"Any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to the harm that is reasonably perceived."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/may-i-shoot-an-intruder.html

But, I understand what you're saying.

This is some BS. There is no telling what harm an intruder will do. He could murder you for all you know.

Like it or not, use of deadly force, even in a home intrusion could result in legal action against you.  I think part of the problem is the law tries to make acception for every eventuality.



SocialistSlayer on 20 July 2015
loy310 said:

Already more guns on the street than car in the USA. Let's give everybody a gun and see how that turns out. We already kill about 8k people a year with guns I wonder what would happen if the number of gun owners doubled, gun homicide would drop right?

well yes, gun ownership has been on a huge increase while, homicide rates have been dropping for well over a decade now



 

Aeolus451 on 20 July 2015
mornelithe said:
Aeolus451 said:


Yes, I see what you're saying but it's not a double standard. Frankly, it depends on the circumstances of those gun deaths. Some see any gun death as bad but that's not the case in reality. It's not that black and white. If someone kills a person trying to break into their home, it's a justified and it's the right thing to do.  

Alot of the statistics people are using in the thread are gun related only and the majority of it is does not make the distinction between criminal gun deaths and justified gun deaths. Also, people aren't posting any statistics about murder by other means or other kinds of violent crime. It's revelent to this. 

That's not as black and white as you make it out to be, either.  

"Any force used against an intruder must usually be proportionate to the harm that is reasonably perceived."

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/may-i-shoot-an-intruder.html

But, I understand what you're saying.

Which basically means that if you think your life is in danger because of a intruder, you can defend your home with lethal force. That doesn't mean execute him or shoot while he's on the ground. You also don't need to see a weapon or the intruder attack you in most states. Depending on the state, the state laws protect the home owner more and with others not so much. 



Lawlight on 21 July 2015
mornelithe said:
Lawlight said:

This is some BS. There is no telling what harm an intruder will do. He could murder you for all you know.

Like it or not, use of deadly force, even in a home intrusion could result in legal action against you.  I think part of the problem is the law tries to make acception for every eventuality.


It'll have to be a clear cut case of you going out of your way to harm that person.



Around the Network
binary solo on 21 July 2015
DialgaMarine said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:
Having guns doesn't prevent drive-by shootings. For fuck's sake, you can't seriously be presenting such a flawed propaganda piece and expect not to be ridiculed for it. Either you're incompetent and fail to recognize what is trivially illogical, or you're baiting people such as myself into a political rant.

Either way, I'm outta here.

 What's your solution then? Hate to break the news to you, but here in reality, the only thing that can prevent a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Why do you think that the most dangerous places in the country are the ones that happen to also have the strictest gun laws, while the safest are the ones with the most leniant? I'm not saying we all go willy nilly wild west with guns, but creating laws that make it more difficult for people to own firearms, simply removes the guns from law abiding citizens. Words on a paper aren't going to stop criminals from being criminals.

4 Marines are going to be put in the ground in a few days, all because the liberals in this country are so damn afraid of servicemembers (men and women who are specifically trained to use them) from carrying firearms in places where they have no other form of security and are completely exposed. 

They're not.

These are the top 10 states for gun murders per capita.

District of Columbia 16.5
Louisiana 7.7
Missouri 5.4
Maryland 5.1
South Carolina 4.5
Delaware 4.2
Michigan 4.2
Mississippi 4.0
Florida 3.9
Georgia 3.8

Several of those states have quite liberal gun laws. And the bottom 10 states for gun murders per capita are also a mix of states with liberal and strict gun laws. So the gun law situation in a state does not correlate well with gun murder rates.

And on a country basis, countries with very strict gun laws, like UK, Australia and New Zealand have extremely low rates of gun murder per capita. USA gun murder rate is 3.55/100K people. New Zealand is 0.26/100K, Australia is 0.11/100K, UK is 0.05/100K. The countries with gun murder rates above 2/100K are pretty much South American countries, Caribbean countries, USA, African countries. The list of 1st world countries with gun murder rates above 2/100K: USA and Montenegro. The list of first world countries with gun murder rates above 1/100K: USA, Montenegro, Croatia, Macedonia. And calling some of these countries 1st world is pretty debateable.

There is something broken in the USA when it comes to gun violence, and it's not the lack of legal access to guns.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

MikeRox on 21 July 2015
Jimbo1337 said:
MikeRox said:


Yeah I did, hadn't realised you were trying to broaden the conversation to include any type of gun rather than the handguns etc which o_O.Q was referring to.

Btw, tranquilizer guns,tasers etc still have no purpose other than to shoot someone/thing. :p

How is that broadening the conversation on guns by including tranquilizer guns and taser guns in the discussion?  

Then you dismiss and downplay these non-lethal forms of guns by saying that they do what they are designed to do...which is to shoot someone/thing.  I could say the same thing about knives, which has no purpose other than to cut someone/thing :p.

What is your point?  


My point is, when people say "ban guns" they are not even referring to tranquilizers etc. They purely mean Desert Eagles, AK47s, etc.

Some "Kill" some "Stun". There is a very big difference between these.

If a sole purpose is kill, then it serves no purpose in a "modern society". If Captain Jean-Luc Picard (from the same town as me :p) says set your phasers to Stun. Then it's cool! :p



RIP Dad 25/11/51 - 13/12/13. You will be missed but never forgotten.

brendude13 on 21 July 2015
o_O.Q said:

you probably should if you don't understand that defending yourself is in fact a right

it just amazes me that people do not understand the consequences of leaving all of the responsiblity for their wellbeing in the hands of other flawed human beings

Exactly.



hlfbkd420 on 21 July 2015
daredevil.shark said:
Why not just ban guns? The policy is just a joke. It's like covering a wound with bandage without applying any medicine.


Because then only criminals will have guns...

I will give up my firearms... Bullets first.



 

 

www.youtube.com/creativepixelation

Jimbo1337 on 22 July 2015
MikeRox said:
Jimbo1337 said:

How is that broadening the conversation on guns by including tranquilizer guns and taser guns in the discussion?  

Then you dismiss and downplay these non-lethal forms of guns by saying that they do what they are designed to do...which is to shoot someone/thing.  I could say the same thing about knives, which has no purpose other than to cut someone/thing :p.

What is your point?  


My point is, when people say "ban guns" they are not even referring to tranquilizers etc. They purely mean Desert Eagles, AK47s, etc.

Some "Kill" some "Stun". There is a very big difference between these.

If a sole purpose is kill, then it serves no purpose in a "modern society". If Captain Jean-Luc Picard (from the same town as me :p) says set your phasers to Stun. Then it's cool! :p

No, the very first point that I replied to said this:

"Rope, Knives, Acid etc all have purposes beyond killing someone. Not sure what other function a gun serves than to fire a bullet at someone/thing.

Therein lies the difference."

You have now just stated that  "some kill and some stun", so guns do something beyond just killing.  

Again you can take a pistol and put non-lethal ammunition in it as I have already stated.  

I don't really understand your point on banning guns and why you see no reason to follow suit in also banning knives.  I feel that banning guns or knives does not solve the main problem.  You have to ask yourself that millions of people in America own a gun and almost every person owns a deadly knife, yet we see deaths at 8,500 or 1,500 for guns and knives respectvely, which are nowhere close to a million.  Laws keep everyone in check; however there are still a small group of people that disregard these laws because they are doing something illegal (such as selling/buying drugs).  

So my point is to attack at the root causes, such as stopping the buying/selling of illegal drugs, increase security at local banks etc, which in turn will reduce gun/knife violence.  If you want to do illegal things or rob banks, you will find a gun/knife even if there are bans on guns/knives.