General

never seen a gun irl

[quote=Snovvy]@KnightPoopoo: Never heard of it.

I heard South Africa did pretty well in terms of Human Development under Mandela (though I know economy was sluggish.)

Admittedly, I know almost nothing about South Africa.[/quote]

South Africa is probably a lot better than it use to be, but it's still one of the most violent and racist countries in the world. It has one of the highest crime rates, and even taxis there are segregated. There are taxis for black people and taxis for white people. My best friend is South African and he went there last summer and got mugged, they stole his wallet, phone, and even his shoes lol.

[quote=Avatar]"-You're saying that people without guns don't need as quickly a reaction as people with guns. I'm not sure if I could really take you seriously right now, but I will say this :
-At the same time, if two people with guns came at you as opposed to two people with knives, you are more likely to be able to fend off the two people with guns
-Weren't you the one saying that killers will always put themselves in a position of advantage?"

I did not say any of this and it does not seem to me like you can critically analyze what other people are saying very well, so I have decided to give up. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you yet you keep ridiculing me like I'm insane. Good night.[/quote]

I didn't say that you said all of that. Just most of it. You did say that killers will always put themselves in a position of advantage; i.e - they will wait until their prey is secluded. This applies to people without guns too.

You [b]were[/b] saying that people without guns are more likely to survive an unarmed attack because a bullet travels faster than a knife. That's exactly what you're saying.

The center statement is ridiculous, as it was something [b]I[/b] said, not you, to compare your fallacy. You can't say that you're more likely to come out alive in a knife to fist confrontation with somebody trying to kill you, after you say they'll plan ahead of time to succeed. I just found that contradiction ridiculous. But then, I find everything ridiculous nowadays, so no hard feelings.

I do recommend that you read more thoroughly.

Here :

[quote=Avatar] On the other hand, if the killer is specifically after you and he is half-intelligent he would wait until you are in a more secluded area. Also the point is not that he gets caught after shooting, the point is that somebody died.[/quote]

[quote=Avatar] Against someone with a knife close range you can survive compared to the same distance against someone with a gun. You don't need a black belt to fight back, you can use any blunt object or block a strike; it's human instinct. [/quote]

Support your local library by reading today!

"-You're saying that people without guns don't need as quickly a reaction as people with guns. I'm not sure if I could really take you seriously right now, but I will say this :
-At the same time, if two people with guns came at you as opposed to two people with knives, you are more likely to be able to fend off the two people with guns
-Weren't you the one saying that killers will always put themselves in a position of advantage?"

I did not say any of this and it does not seem to me like you can critically analyze what other people are saying very well, so I have decided to give up. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you yet you keep ridiculing me like I'm insane. Good night.

@TrueAtheist:

[i] I think his point is you're acting like people who own firearms can predict the future and read minds. [/i]

[i] If someone has a gun and they want to kill you, they're going to kill you, you can't predict that they're about to shoot you in the head. They're going to have the advantage regardless of whether you have a gun or not, they'll pull out their gun and kill you before you even realize what's happening. So having a gun yourself really doesn't equalize the situation at all, in fact if everyone had guns the situation would become much more hostile. [/i]

This would be true, under the assumption that "All people with guns are inherently murderous." I believe that having a weapon pacifies the situation. Our current laws allow law abiding citizens to own weapons, but prohibits criminal ownership of one. They are made for good to out-match the bad. You seem to imply that guns corrupt people, and that people are weak and will turn evil once they own a gun. Unless you're implying gun control doesn't work, and one out of a hundred thousand owners will shoot up a school and cause the nation to fear guns.

[i] The vast majority of gun crimes aren't just random shootings or massacres, those are exceptionally rare, the majority have a specific target in mind. So take for example a distrought guy who wants to kill his boss, he walks into his office where there's 50 other people, and he looks normal wearing a suit and blending right in, and then he shoots and kills his boss. If all 50 people in that room had a gun and pulled it out and started firing, almost certaintly you're going to get people who are killed accidently in such a small [/i]
[i] environment, you're going to have people mistaking the shooter for an innocent civilian because they see the civilian with a gun, you're going to have a much worse situation than if no one had a gun, the boss would have died regardless, but now you have 50 people firing deadly weapons in an enclosed space. [/i]

I don't understand why you vilify gun owners. You automatically assume that all 50 people will instantly start shooting, and it will become chaotic. You have obviously never handled a firearm in your life, nor been exposed to any firearms training. One rule in handling a firearm is to "Know your target, and what lies beyond." In the situation you described, if one person shot another, it is likely that guns will be pointed toward the direction of the culprit, without anyone flagging each other or being exposed. The first thing you do under fire is take cover. The second thing you do is return fire upon positive identification and awareness of your surroundings. It is unlikely that you will even return fire, given the circumstance that the guy has 50 guns pointed in his direction.

Then people argue that "Well, during panic, people don't follow the rules and cause injury to others." Again, that's an assumption. People who assume such a thing have never been trained to carry a gun.

I believe that people should be [b]trained[/b] to properly handle a weapon before being allowed to own one; that's one regulation that I would vote for.

[i] The chance that a murderer can buy a gun on the blackmarket does not justify not doing a single thing about gun laws. [/i]

Of course it doesn't; guns should be heavily regulated.

[i] And that's not even true, most gun crimes are committed with legally purchased guns, so making it harder to purchase a gun will in effect decrease the likelihood that a murderer will have a gun, and will further decrease the likelihood that they choose to use a gun in their murder, which increases the victim's rate of survival. I'd rather have someone try to kill me with a knife or a hammer than shoot me in the head. [/i]

I'm not sure if you read my portion about prohibition, but alcohol consumption actually [b]increased[/b] during prohibition by over 50% (than before it). People buy more guns whenever restrictive gun laws are about to be passed. This itself shows correlation; prohibition was highly unsuccessful due to the demand [not addiction] for what used to be available. It [b]created[/b] more organized crime (creating alcohol), which allowed people to gain access to alcohol.

I agree that guns should be heavily regulated; law abiding citizens with absolutely no criminal record, psychologically checks out, and accepts proper firearms training should be allowed to own weapons. We aren't ready to ban them.

@Avatar:

[i] It doesn't matter how skilled you are with a gun, everyone has a reaction time. If you are walking down the street, you will not be fast enough to react to a drive by or to getting shot in the back. My point with the sniper was that the victim of a long range shooter will always be at a disadvantage. Your example with the 1000 people did not make sense, if we are generalizing fatalities then the shooter can kill at least one person before someone fires back. [/i]

You're saying that in a hand to hand situation, you are more likely to come out alive than with a gun to gun situation. You're saying that people without guns don't need as quickly a reaction as people with guns. I'm not sure if I could really take you seriously right now, but I will say this :

The examples of serial killers you used below killed women in their sleep. They had no reaction time. It doesn't matter if they had a gun or not; these points are irrelevant. A drive by? What about a beat down? Or better yet; how about a crime with more witnesses than a crime with less? How do we weigh the benefits? With human lives (of course). If everyone owned a firearm, you're saying that the bad ones will be more successful at killing the good ones. I disagree.

[i] On the other hand, if the killer is specifically after you and he is half-intelligent he would wait until you are in a more secluded area. Also the point is not that he gets caught after shooting, the point is that somebody died. [/i]

You're saying that it's easier to kill an armed person with a gun, than an unarmed person without a gun. You're also saying that a restriction of guns to civilians will reduce homicides overall [overlooking John Schaefer; I'm going to let you google him real quick.] We'll agree to disagree. Arguing won't change either of our views. My views only change with different perspectives, and so far, you haven't offered any. I understand that guns are widely available and will always be widely available in a nation where people feel the need to keep them, while you understand that intangible variables as mentioned shouldn't be measured against gun control.

[i] I am being realistic here so the Naruto ninja comment was unnecessary. I am not saying that you can fight with your fists better than with a gun. Against someone with a knife close range you can survive compared to the same distance against someone with a gun. You don't need a black belt to fight back, you can use any blunt object or block a strike; it's human instinct. [/i]

At the same time, if two people with guns came at you as opposed to two people with knives, you are more likely to be able to fend off the two people with guns, because they don't know any better. That's how ridiculous your statement sounds to me; I'm sorry. Weren't you the one saying that killers will always put themselves in a position of advantage?

Anyways I'm hungry. Will cook... Thanks for the replies; and no hard feelings here or there.

[quote=ehnogi]@Avatar:

[i]That's a bull defense, you make it sound like a western where the attacker and the victim are both prepared, then take 5 steps and turn around. [/i]

You have a severe misunderstanding of proper firearms training for concealed carry holders, or for home defense. In contrast, you make it seem like every firearm owner is incapable of using their weapon.

[i]Having a gun wont protect you from being sniped from the roof top of a building if your handicapped or not.[/i]

Having a gun with you will protect you in any situation where you aren't individually outgunned. Snipers are also dealt with differently than those who open fire within observable range. Snipers are difficult to detect, and are well-protected. If there is a sniper on the rooftop, it doesn't matter how many guns you have; you're still going to hide and wait for a counter-sniper team. I'd like to see you beat a sniper with your fists. You're now making life sound like some anime movie or cartoon. Isn't that ridiculous?

[i]Also if someone had the intent to kill, you would probably be dead before you pulled your gun out anyway. [/i]

What kind of flawed logic is this? So, if I were in a crowd of 1,000 people with a mass shooter with the intent to kill, that would mean that he would have to kill every single one of us before anyone is able to draw a gun. If I'm the only other one with a gun, he'd have to somehow know that I have a concealed weapon, find me, then kill me first before killing everyone else.

[i]The point is you cant defend against a long range weapon like you can with a knife/fist. [/i]

You're not living in naruto land. You're not a ninja with super powers, and yelling won't give you more power.
Have you ever seen the results of a knife fight? Why not stop the fight in the first place with a gun? You realize that you don't have to fire the gun to prevent someone from committing a crime, right?

[i]Having tighter regulation is no good, any serial killer can pass off as being a regular person, go watch any documentary. [/i]

Most mass shooters have obvious symptoms of mental illnesses, and certain traits are often observed by others. The reason why people don't say anything about it beforehand, is because not all socially awkward people are likely to shoot up a school. I would like to see these "documentaries" that you're talking about, if you didn't just make that part up.

[i]Its true that if someone really wanted to cause harm, a ban on guns wont stop them. But at least gun distribution would be localized. Plus I would rather have someone work harder to kill me than simply buying a gun at a public store or borrowing their parents guns.[/i]

I think you severely misunderstand the meaning of the word "localized". I also think you've something funny there, haven't you? You seem to want to eliminate guns to protect yourself from murderers, who are likely to have guns anyway. That's what you're saying. Do you know how less effective police officers will be in this nation without guns?[/quote]

I think his point is you're acting like people who own firearms can predict the future and read minds.

If someone has a gun and they want to kill you, they're going to kill you, you can't predict that they're about to shoot you in the head. They're going to have the advantage regardless of whether you have a gun or not, they'll pull out their gun and kill you before you even realize what's happening. So having a gun yourself really doesn't equalize the situation at all, in fact if everyone had guns the situation would become much more hostile.

The vast majority of gun crimes aren't just random shootings or massacres, those are exceptionally rare, the majority have a specific target in mind. So take for example a distrought guy who wants to kill his boss, he walks into his office where there's 50 other people, and he looks normal wearing a suit and blending right in, and then he shoots and kills his boss. If all 50 people in that room had a gun and pulled it out and started firing, almost certaintly you're going to get people who are killed accidently in such a small
environment, you're going to have people mistaking the shooter for an innocent civilian because they see the civilian with a gun, you're going to have a much worse situation than if no one had a gun, the boss would have died regardless, but now you have 50 people firing deadly weapons in an enclosed space.

"murderers are likely to have guns anyways" does that mean we should do nothing? The chance that a murderer can buy a gun on the blackmarket does not justify not doing a single thing about gun laws. And that's not even true, most gun crimes are committed with legally purchased guns, so making it harder to purchase a gun will in effect decrease the likelihood that a murderer will have a gun, and will further decrease the likelihood that they choose to use a gun in their murder, which increases the victim's rate of survival. I'd rather have someone try to kill me with a knife or a hammer than shoot me in the head.

[quote=ehnogi]@Avatar:
...
[/quote]

No I don't think anything is ridiculous. You have misunderstood almost everything I said. It doesn't matter how skilled you are with a gun, everyone has a reaction time. If you are walking down the street, you will not be fast enough to react to a drive by or to getting shot in the back. My point with the sniper was that the victim of a long range shooter will always be at a disadvantage. Your example with the 1000 people did not make sense, if we are generalizing fatalities then the shooter can kill at least one person before someone fires back. On the other hand, if the killer is specifically after you and he is half-intelligent he would wait until you are in a more secluded area. Also the point is not that he gets caught after shooting, the point is that somebody died. I am being realistic here so the Naruto ninja comment was unnecessary. I am not saying that you can fight with your fists better than with a gun. Against someone with a knife close range you can survive compared to the same distance against someone with a gun. You don't need a black belt to fight back, you can use any blunt object or block a strike; it's human instinct. Also I am not saying you will leave unscathed, but a deep cut is better than a hole through your chest. Again you misunderstood what I was saying, I did not mean that guns should be abolished. Police should have guns but civilians do need to carry guns with them. As for the serial killers there are many examples with the classic ones being ted bundy and john wayne gacy, one of them was very involved in the community and the other I believe had a family and kids but both were killing boys/men while everyone around them was totally oblivious. Banning guns wont remove them completely but it should but it should make them harder to access.

There will always be good people and bad people in the world. The point behind banning guns is that if no one can have gun (civilians) than it should reduce the gun circulation especial if by law you are required to hand it in. Basically:
Pro gun=give everyone a gun to give them an equal chance of fighting, you fight you die or live tomorrow is a different day
Anti gun=If nobody has a gun, less attackers will have one, overtime there will be less guns

well they're assuming that banning guns will make our country more like other countries that don't allow guns in terms of violence and crime

@Avatar:

[i]That's a bull defense, you make it sound like a western where the attacker and the victim are both prepared, then take 5 steps and turn around. [/i]

You have a severe misunderstanding of proper firearms training for concealed carry holders, or for home defense. In contrast, you make it seem like every firearm owner is incapable of using their weapon.

[i]Having a gun wont protect you from being sniped from the roof top of a building if your handicapped or not.[/i]

Having a gun with you will protect you in any situation where you aren't individually outgunned. Snipers are also dealt with differently than those who open fire within observable range. Snipers are difficult to detect, and are well-protected. If there is a sniper on the rooftop, it doesn't matter how many guns you have; you're still going to hide and wait for a counter-sniper team. I'd like to see you beat a sniper with your fists. You're now making life sound like some anime movie or cartoon. Isn't that ridiculous?

[i]Also if someone had the intent to kill, you would probably be dead before you pulled your gun out anyway. [/i]

What kind of flawed logic is this? So, if I were in a crowd of 1,000 people with a mass shooter with the intent to kill, that would mean that he would have to kill every single one of us before anyone is able to draw a gun. If I'm the only other one with a gun, he'd have to somehow know that I have a concealed weapon, find me, then kill me first before killing everyone else.

[i]The point is you cant defend against a long range weapon like you can with a knife/fist. [/i]

You're not living in naruto land. You're not a ninja with super powers, and yelling won't give you more power.
Have you ever seen the results of a knife fight? Why not stop the fight in the first place with a gun? You realize that you don't have to fire the gun to prevent someone from committing a crime, right?

[i]Having tighter regulation is no good, any serial killer can pass off as being a regular person, go watch any documentary. [/i]

Most mass shooters have obvious symptoms of mental illnesses, and certain traits are often observed by others. The reason why people don't say anything about it beforehand, is because not all socially awkward people are likely to shoot up a school. I would like to see these "documentaries" that you're talking about, if you didn't just make that part up.

[i]Its true that if someone really wanted to cause harm, a ban on guns wont stop them. But at least gun distribution would be localized. Plus I would rather have someone work harder to kill me than simply buying a gun at a public store or borrowing their parents guns.[/i]

I think you severely misunderstand the meaning of the word "localized". I also think you've something funny there, haven't you? You seem to want to eliminate guns to protect yourself from murderers, who are likely to have guns anyway. That's what you're saying. Do you know how less effective police officers will be in this nation without guns?

Guns = snug backwards.
They don't want to snuggle.

[quote=ehnogi]@Snovvy:

It is also easier to stop a crime with a gun than with a knife, baton, or fists. Guns are an equalizer for those physically incapable of defending themselves [or others].
[/quote]

That's a bull defense, you make it sound like a western where the attacker and the victim are both prepared, then take 5 steps and turn around. Having a gun wont protect you from being sniped from the roof top of a building if your handicapped or not. Also if someone had the intent to kill, you would probably be dead before you pulled your gun out anyway. The point is you cant defend against a long range weapon like you can with a knife/fist.

Having tighter regulation is no good, any serial killer can pass off as being a regular person, go watch any documentary.
Its true that if someone really wanted to cause harm, a ban on guns wont stop them. But at least gun distribution would be localized. Plus I would rather have someone work harder to kill me than simply buying a gun at a public store or borrowing their parents guns.

I'm not necessarily advocating for banning guns but we're the most armed country both in government and with our civilians. High capacity magazines, what possible purpose do they serve other than to kill more people? And the plan to have background checks, that's common sense.

When the 2nd amendment was written, we had muskets that take forever to reload. Now, if you only want us to carry muskets, cool.

@Snovvy:

I was thinking about your recent response regarding Thailand and the United States, and it got me thinking;

If crime and poverty correlate, wouldn't you think that the lower class of the United States are more likely to commit gun crimes?
If so, aren't they also more likely to obtain guns illegally?

There are very nice parts of Thailand [I 've been to Patong Beach, but to my understanding, there are industrial parts of Thailand], and it isn't necessarily poverty stricken everywhere.

Guns shouldn't be banned, dumbasses should be.

Because guns are unpredictable and 99.999999% of the population is retarded //end thread

What people don't realize is that areas where guns are banned are where most shootings go down. Take for example Sandy Hook. Guns are banned there, the killer chose there so there wouldn't be much resistance to killing people. Guns also are very expensive, don't think anyone can just go buy a gun. Gun Control is also very strict even if you live in an are where are guns are allowed.

@TrueAtheist:

Nuclear weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, and tanks are different in the way that they cause mass casualties, destruction, and are meant to target multiple people (all of the above at once.)

Firearms for personal defense shoot to pinpoint one target, not multiple. They are a viable means of self-defense. Grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, and nuclear weapons are both not practical for self defense, and are meant for mass destruction upon activation.

That's why the line is drawn; when mass collateral damage become imminent (hi-caliber automatic rifles, and machine guns are also not allowed for this reason).

@CanonkILL99:

I'm sorry, it was very hard to read your response. I think you have a deep misunderstanding of the separate meanings between "their" and "there".

And yes, I believe that a complete ban of firearms [b]right now[/b] may even cause the expansion of illegal firearms trade. History has shown what people will do when something is about to be, or actually is taken away from them.

If an average joe might want guns, criminals will definitely want them, and there are very wealthy criminals living in the United States who are at the top of the food chain that will definitely oversee either smuggling or illegal production. We need to get rid of criminals first, and then we'll be able to get rid of firearms.

Not many people want to ban guns, they just think gun laws should be stricter.

@ehnogi The argument you make that guns are just a tool and humans are the ones with the intent behind it can also be used to justify the legalization of grenades, rocket launchers, tanks, and heck let's even go to the extreme of a nuke. Where do you draw the line? The line has to be drawn somewhere and people who are against guns view guns as being that line since they're essentially the most efficient killing weapons that people have access to.

@BladeSoul69 Show me your constitutional right to not have gun regulations.

@CanonkILL99 But the vast majority of gun crime is committed with legally purchased guns. Banning guns (not saying we should do that), would directly lead to less guns getting into the hands of criminals and would make it significantly harder for them to get them.

@ehnogi: I see your logic, although you might not have presented it in the way that will have the most people understanding it.

Let's say people are free to carry guns with them, as the second amendment says we have the right to do. Non-criminals walk around with their guns and only use them in self-defense if someone wants to kill them. Their is nothing wrong with that. Criminals walk around with their guns and use them whenever they feel like using them. Their is something wrong with that.

Should we ban guns? Here's why not.

Let's say people are not free to carry guns with them. Non-criminals walk around without their guns and when someone wants to kill them they have no gun to use in self-defense. Their is something wrong with that. Criminals walk around with their illegal guns and use them whenever they feel like using them. Their is something wrong with that.

IF YOU BAN GUNS CRIMINALS WILL STILL CARRY GUNS BECAUSE THEY ARE CRIMINALS AND DON"T CARE IF SOMETHING IS ILLEGAL! Normal people will be the only ones affected. This was your point, am I right?

i dont see why people cant have background checks...
it is very hypocritical for US citizens to be anti-background checks
yet are scared when Nkorea or Iran wants nuclear weapons...

Europe has way stricter gun laws and they're proud of their significantly lower gun crime. Come at it America.

Think about it, they are suddenly making a law to ban guns. This mean we would not be able to counter the army. This also means the day for America to make a holocaust or something is near. Also guns could kill people? If they can't use guns they would use bombs or knife. Have about drunk man shooting people in streets? Ban alcohol.

man nobody's saying take away guns completely and if they are they're radicals
they're saying there needs to be much stricter gun laws. it needs to be harder for psychopaths to obtain weapons.

[quote=ShiroMugetsu]Their logic:

Guns = cause of injury.
Take away guns = take away cause of injury.

Seems legit.[/quote]

More like:

Guns= More chance of severe injury
Take away guns= Less chance of severe injury.

@Snovvy:

Good points; I didn't observe Thailand's developmental issues when I used that statistic. The comparison of alcohol to guns is arguable. As with my previous statement which cannot be backed up by numbers [really, it's simple observation], the failure of prohibition wasn't necessarily perpetuated by the number of alcoholics in the nation at the time. Alcohol consumption actually increased by over 50% during prohibition than before it was enacted. People who have their perception of 'freedoms' taken away will always desire said restricted freedoms. That's from a psychological point. You can even see it in the past couple of years with the rising gun sales correlating to certain executive bills attempting to be passed nation-wide, as well as certain state bills (in California specifically) causing a lot of non-gun owners to purchase firearms before the laws change.

If guns are to be banned, citizens will need to be gradually weaned off of the idea that guns are absolutely necessary for self-defense. I believe that there will be a time when such idea becomes widespread, but I don't believe that the time is now.

And lastly, I'm glad that you are an advocate of gun control (as I am), instead of a complete ban.

which can do more damage, a close range knife or something similar to that or a long range weapon with a heck of a lot more penetrating power and speed?

[quote=Chema]Banning gun is overdoing it
AFAIK no reputable country has banned guns yet[/quote]

I believe Japan and Korea banned guns, I assume people think banning guns mean gun control.

@pokefriends:

Proper gun training allows gun ownership to be safe for the user. When you make the basic foundations of firearm operation repetitive, shooting will become 2nd nature regardless of stress.

I've seen this in myself, as well as countless others who have used them under panic [in the confusion of getting shot at by heavily caliber machine guns from far away or blown up]. Again, if you aren't properly trained, you shouldn't have the right to own a firearm.

@ehnogi: Alright, point well made, but still, you might be able to double tap at a shooting range, but with an intruder trying to hurt and possibly kill you, you could easily forget your training in fear. I mean anything is possible, but my point is possible, as well as yours. I was just trying to counter the person's comment on my original point, which I think I explained a bit more directly to the topic at hand.

@pokefriends:

I'm not sure where you're going with this, but it's going a bit off-tangent.

I believe that training is essential to anyone who owns firearms, so anybody who doesn't know how to shoot shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Also, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of 'double-tapping'. This applies for semi-automatic guns. You have sight picture, and fire one round; then you immediately fire another round using the previous aiming point in rapid succession to place a bullet within certain accuracy of the first shot. In close range [like a house], a pistol can double-tap anybody in the mid-body to stop them from attacking you.

Nevertheless, I'd rather use a shotgun over anything for quick home-defense. With the correct type of ammunition (most commonly used 00 buck), bullets won't penetrate the wall behind your target, and will have enough power to stop people in one shot [regardless of where you hit, the body will succumb to shock {unless they are on powerful narcotics, which means that they're probably going to keep giving you reasons to shoot them}]. Hopefully, the intruder doesn't do anything stupid enough to the point where you use the weapon for self-defense. If they do, then it is still justified.

[quote=Jrosen]Dodged bullets? Who broke into your house? Neo? No.. 7 shots is more then enough to kill anything that breaks into your house. If you get shot you're not gonna be in any position to fight, this isn't a movie.[/quote]

And what happens when you miss and run out? You probably will miss some, if not all 7 of your shots because you'd be nervous and scared and shaky. And contrary to what you think, I'm not thinking like in the movies, it DOES take more than one shot to kill someone, depending on where you hit them. Headshot, obviously. But if you shoot someone in the arm? The shoulder? The thigh? People can still attack you. I'm not betting your aim will be perfect if and when someone breaks into your house with the intent to harm.

You know how you dodge bullets? You hide behind a door, or furniture, or duck underneath a counter. There are so many ways to "dodge" or avoid bullets.

[quote=pokefriends]When there's an intruder in your house with the intent to harm and you run out of bullets because it was restricted to 7 bullets only and the intruder dodged some and tanked one because it does take more than one shot to stop someone and you missed a couple shots, and then what? You're dead instead. You can't say, "WAIT I gotta reload so it's a fair fight!" because no sensible criminal would allow that.[/quote]
Dodged bullets? Who broke into your house? Neo? No.. 7 shots is more then enough to kill anything that breaks into your house. If you get shot you're not gonna be in any position to fight, this isn't a movie.

@Snovvy:

[i]Step 4: Perhaps, and trends seem to show a mild increase, but nothing significant. More importantly, not as many people die from stabbing as guns. It's easier to run from a close-range knife than a long-range firearm.[/i]

It is also easier to stop a crime with a gun than with a knife, baton, or fists. Guns are an equalizer for those physically incapable of defending themselves [or others].

[i]Step 6: Not all people involved in gun crimes were considered criminals before it occurred.[/i]
Not all people involved in crimes (in general) were considered criminals before it occurred.

[i]Step 8: Most guns are gotten through "Straw purchasers." Stolen guns don't make up very much.[/i]
True. I'd like for you to look at prohibition. It was once unlawful to produce alcohol, but this opened the gateway for home-brewers and organized crime to bypass these laws. Would you say that the same can apply for guns?

[i]Step 12: Sometimes there's a little bump, but in the long run, it brings things down significantly. There's question as to whether we can directly thank gun laws, but you can see this same gun trend basically anywhere they try banning guns, EX: Australia and the United Kingdom, which lends supporting evidence to gun bans.[/i]

I've looked into this point in the past, and found out the following:
Sweden has a much lower homicide rate than the United Kingdom, and they have very liberal gun laws. Switzerland has an amazing homicide rate of 0.7 per 100,000, and they allow guns to be kept at home. In contrast, South Korea has a homicide rate of 2.6 per 100,000, while there is a complete ban on guns for civilians. Thailand has extremely restrictive gun laws, but their homicide rate is higher than that of the United States [Thailand : 4.8 per 100,000, US : 4.6 per 100,000].

I don't believe that the constitution is a strong argument for people who want to keep guns around. The constitution was made to be amended when times change. I agree with that.

With the rest of what you had to say, it seems to me that you would be fine with more control, but not a complete ban. Is this accurate for me to say?

When there's an intruder in your house with the intent to harm and you run out of bullets because it was restricted to 7 bullets only and the intruder dodged some and tanked one because it does take more than one shot to stop someone and you missed a couple shots, and then what? You're dead instead. You can't say, "WAIT I gotta reload so it's a fair fight!" because no sensible criminal would allow that.

It's also easier to train on a rifle than a pistol. the 'military' looks on a gun only really affect the cosmetics and "scariness" of the gun. These 'military style' guns use .223 rounds, as opposed to pistol 9mm rounds. 9mm rounds are supposed to pierce and penetrate (despite them being pistol rounds), while .223 rounds actually tumble on impact. Tests were done with shooting a wall with 9mm rounds versus .223 rounds and the 9mm penetrated while the .223 did not pierce the wall. They DO NOT use the 5.56x45mm NATO rounds which are used in real assault weapons (assault weapon defined as a fully automatic weapon, which have been restricted heavily but are legal (but only 2 have ever been statistically used in crime, EVER. They cost upwards of $10,000 USD), nor the 7.62x52mm NATO full battle rifle rounds, which are used in sniper rifles and hunting rifles.

And why should they be illegal? 'Military looking' weapons can have small 10 round magazines too, they're not 30 round magazine restricted.

Tighter gun controls will make it harder to get guns.
The harder it takes to acquire guns, the longer it will take to acquire them.
The longer it takes to acquire guns, the longer it will take for them to cause damage.
The longer it takes for them to cause damage, the safer people will be.

Of course, gun control can never truly curb violence, but the extra time it now takes to acquire firearm can definitely add up. This can potentially lead to thousands of saved lives over the course of a long period of time.

I just think the guns need to have stricter rules and such. I don't know what the rules are for guns in American but with all those goes on there I feel like it's too easy to obtain a firearm.

@Rationale:

Yay.

From a religious point of view [Buddhism], our material desires cause suffering. From a secular point of view, there are a lot of thieves who carry guns. Generally, greed can cause us to do irrational things. That's what I was referring to; the use of guns caused by our 'sins'. This doesn't necessarily encompass the entire reason behind guns, but the phrase can apply to murderous intent as well [as seen by motives behind murders].

Also, not all mentally ill people are violent; I agree; but, a lot of serial killers and mass murderers have some sort of mental illness [like a recent case of schizophrenia found in the Colorado shooter]. "Some mentally ill people are irrationally violent enough to murder people with guns, but not all are." That's what I meant. A normal person would have a motive behind it; which necessitates their actions [self-defense, crime prevention, revenge, crime itself, etc.]

It's unfortunate that there aren't many anti-gun Basilers around at this time of the day. I wanted to broaden my perspective.

I think they should be controlled, not banned. Gun control - Proper use of guns in society.

@ShiroMugetsu:

I found that logic to be fallacious. Guns aren't the intent behind the injury; they are merely a tool which reinforces the outcome behind the user's purpose. Their mechanical purpose is to fire a bullet, which usually has the intent to cause injury [mostly for self-defense, or stopping crime], but you can observe beyond this superficial point. For the most part, they are a tool used to intimidate and prevent a circumstance without needing to fire it. The military, police officers, and security guards are trained to present the firearm, and fire [b]only[/b] as the absolute last resort.

Naturally, our sins cause destruction, but we are also equipped with the basic special instinct of collective survival. In a nutshell; a normal person [outside of murderers and mentally disturbed] will not carry a gun with the intent to unnecessarily kill.

Banning gun is overdoing it
AFAIK no reputable country has banned guns yet