General

[quote=anime1990]As I already said, there'll be less crime if it didn't exist in their hand to begin with, which means that there wouldn't be much source of firearms.[/quote]

And I agree, it's just that that's not the case in the US.

[quote=anime1990]There's lots of method to defense yourself. Why does it have to be gun?[/quote]

In all seriousness, what's the best counter to a gun? You can't always wait it out until the armed criminal runs out of ammunition. I get that I'm just throwing in scenarios now, but I don't see anything better to fight against a gun besides another gun.

[quote=anime1990]Don't spout me with "someone that was trying to kill you or the ones you care about." when you can carelessly say "Yes, perhaps people have abused it, but how many real, valid reasons are there to want a gun?"
Violence > Self defense, unless otherwise how can you explain what has been happening all this time?do It's a big issue, not something you can say carelessly.[/quote]

My point in this part was that self-defense shouldn't be seen as an invalid reason for gun ownership, because many people DO own firearms purely for that reason. And again, yes, I'm sure people have lied about it, but it doesn't make it an invalid reason for others. You said something about there being better/alternative reasons to own a gun, but besides sport and protection, what other reasons are you expecting citizens to have for owning a gun?

[quote=anime1990]but if you happen to shoot, even for self-defense, and you killed someone. What would you do. Appeal with self-defense reasoning?[/quote]

If the other guy was shooting at me, and I shot back and killed him, then yes...? If he didn't have a gun, then it'd be easier to harm and NOT kill, but we're purely speaking about defense against other firearms (or at least I was). And I'm in agreement with you in that I'd prefer everyone lives. What's separating our opinions is that if it came down to it, I'd be able to choose which side I'd prefer lose their life. It's the lesser of two evils. No, I don't want to see anyone die, but I'd rather keep the innocent alive than the guilty. (Does this explanation clarify my thinking?)

I don't think it's childish to kill someone if they're trying to kill you, [i]assuming[/i] it's too dangerous to try and control the situation for smaller consequences. Again, I'd prefer no one die, but depending on the scenario, it could be incredibly dangerous to try and keep an armed criminal alive when trying to manage the situation. If he opens fire, then so should the armed citizen. In a case where both sides are returning fire, I'd be surprised if you felt comfortable enough not to aim to kill.

[quote=anime1990]You try to minimize damage. If you don't bother with it, you're just irresponsible as a person. [/quote]

I'll say again that it depends what's happening in the situation. It's not irresponsible if the stakes are too high in the given scenario. We could go on and on about this, but it's hard to argue when things are dependent on the situation.

I hope you don't think killing for defense is my first option in any scenario. I value life and would hope that no one has to die at all. But if there's a case where the decision has to be made, what would you honestly do?

If you don't want to go on with this, I wouldn't even mind. We're not going to change each other's minds and like I said above, it's hard to argue about things that are often situation-dependent. We probably actually agree on certain situations, and it's hard to 100% get our points across over text.

@DrHye: As I already said, there'll be less crime if it didn't exist in their hand to begin with, which means that there wouldn't be much source of firearms.

I do recall UK tried to ban weapons before and it failed. Not because it wasn't effective, but it was because the weapon circulation itself, and any other options for doing crime.
There's lots of method to defense yourself. Why does it have to be gun?

There's something called "Trying to limit the circulation." You can't undo what has been done, but you can prevent it. It takes time for it to be effective, but it's better than seeing random massacres for OTHERS. Not only for one self, or related parties.

Don't spout me with "someone that was trying to kill you or the ones you care about." when you can carelessly say "Yes, perhaps people have abused it, but how many real, valid reasons are there to want a gun?"
Violence > Self defense, unless otherwise how can you explain what has been happening all this time?do It's a big issue, not something you can say carelessly.

Do you know how much life value? I'm sure you do. It's something incommensurate. I ain't a person that goes with "goody goody" and "happy happy" way of thinking, but if you happen to shoot, even for self-defense, and you killed someone. What would you do. Appeal with self-defense reasoning?

Irresponsible. Your law is lax.
Lots of countries knows that it's incommensurate and any action like that would be heavily considered as an act of murder (and self defense incase it's not with weapon), rather than self-defense alone. Not trying to be a good person, but be responsible when thinking and acting. Killing over killing is just childish.

If that's how everything is done, there's no need for jail. Might as well kill all the criminal, give them death sentence. Screw warning shot from police, shoot them straight away, just to protect the citizens.

I do know and acknowledge that its' a person's personality, situation or actions that leads into those incidents, but there's nothing wrong on trying to reduce the harm, even if it'll take time to settle in.

One thing that I can truly agree in general and see as alternate solution - Extensive background check over time. Given a person's personality can change depending on situations, and it is a risky way to rely on attitude alone (A criminal mind - mens rea)

[quote=DrHye]There's times where people can't choose between injure and kill, and I don't think you realize that..I sincerely hope that if someone was attacking your loved ones that you would fight back to your best ability[/quote]

I'm not sure to take this seriously or not, but you're one to jump quickly on this. This is not game. You don't choose. You try to minimize damage. If you don't bother with it, you're just irresponsible as a person.

I might not understand this, since the I've never been a victim of such aside from kidnapping in past, but all I know, crazy craps doesn't happen and doesn't even occur frequently if it happens, and I question "Why" does it happen over there. Heh
@upthere

I'm enjoying this, at least.

such funny wow lol

@anime1990: I had a whole post written up, but I'm going to cut it short. I'm just honestly very disappointed that you don't think self-protection is a good reason to own a gun. Yes, perhaps people have abused it, but how many real, valid reasons are there to want a gun? The real key to owning a firearm should be passing an extensive background check. Shouldn't matter if you say you want a gun for protection or sport.

Based on what you said here: "Self protection was meant to be protecting one, and if one does harm with it, then it's no more self-protection," it sounds like you wouldn't kill someone that was trying to kill you or the ones you care about. There's times where people can't choose between injure and kill, and I don't think you realize that. I sincerely hope that if someone was attacking your loved ones that you would fight back to your best ability.

@DrHye: If you work in a high school, I'd expect you to understand more than that, especially if you're a teacher. There's lots of country that doesn't allow citizen to carry firearms under "self-protection" reasoning. Does these kind of incident/crime exist? Yes, but it's not frequent compared to what you people have.
Self protection was meant to be protecting one, and if one does harm with it, then it's no more self-protection

It's a shallow reasoning and can be always abused by others, and will always given opportunity.
I clearly didn't say "Take out everyone's gun away." What I said was "No to giving citizen guns under self-protection reason."
They can possess it out from different method, but clearly, self-protection reasoning was abuse-able.

"If anything, you'd completely disarm those that legally own a gun, leaving those that are illegally holding and hiding guns still armed."
[b]The funny thing, if citizen doesn't have access to firearm in the first place, they wouldn't see it that way. Gun crimes would be rare, because there would be only specific people who are capable to hold such lethal weapon.[/b]

Not completely disarming them, more like reducing the possibility of such crime. Causes v Consequences

@AllDayErryDay: Yes, I had this topic going on during last massacre with my friend @US, Boston was it?. He said the same thing.
Which one would be more terrorizing, assuming that the government would be tyrannous one day, or letting them firearm crimes spreading out like that.
Maybe during in 1806, that constitution itself may still be effective (UK being tyrannic), however the meaning of gun itself have changed for long time.

Would it still be the case nowaday. I wonder.

Around that time, Thomas Jefferson once said this - "Every constitution, then every law natural expires at the end of 19 years. If it's enforced longer, then it's an act of force, rather than an act of right." - Revising and conforms constitution and law with modern time. Turns out? Nay, none remembered, we still stick to the ol' documentaries.

(And speaking about constitution, the constitution was to protect the rights of the american citizen, and then when you kinda have people using the constitution against you
and the court would just say that's it's an act of force rather than right.)

I think I can see what you meant by bigger issue on revising the constitution. It's a bit to late to change it and personally I might think that lots of people wouldn't be ready at all (Re-educating 310m americans to comply with changes? and each states have to create new constitution if they ever intend to)

But then, what can be done to prevent this?
@momozzz: It can be both, legal or illegally. I just prefer not to go over the detail about that. I don't imply or assume that it has to be legally, but it is always possible that is also ONE of the cause.

@DrHye: sorry, that was my inner canadian speaking
and haha really? thanks i guess

[quote=xtripled]1st you say:
Our generation in full of psychopaths

then you say:
Don't be quick to judge

based on your statement and the details you have told us, what other option is there then being quick to judge.

Ot: think the whole having a gun thing is stupid[/quote]

With the exception of the last line in this one, I just wanted to say that I've agreed with a number of your posts today

[quote=anime1990]Here's the question. What's the point on allowing citizen having gun? That's what I keep asking, and people just go with "For protection/Self-defense"
So that means shooting someone for sake on protecting one self is good? No. That's no different from them.
What good comes out of it? None.
If one doesn't possess a gun to begin with (aside from authorities/sport purpose), things like this wont happen, or at least wont happen frequently.

That's where thing goes wrong in first place. (While knife is easier to posses, it's less dangerous compared from gun, where you can shoot from faraway)[/quote]

If someone holds a gun to you, your friends, family, or other innocent people, why shouldn't you hold a gun back to them? Forget the "we'd be as bad as them" nonsense, because that's not even relevant in a self-defense situation. There's a difference between shooting to mindlessly kill people and shooting to protect yourself and others. I work in a high school and I'd do anything to protect the kids from an armed threat.

And you should probably get rid of the "let's just take everyone's guns away" idea. They're out there everywhere. How would anyone be able to make a clean sweep of all firearms in the country? If anything, you'd completely disarm those that legally own a gun, leaving those that are illegally holding and hiding guns still armed.

In the process of getting my conceal to carry permit, too many crazies out there these days.

Whoa, there was one in Arapahoe High School in Colorado too, 20 minutes from my school. We had to have a lock out (nobody in or out).

[quote=anime1990]@AllDayErryDay:

That's where thing goes wrong in first place. (While knife is easier to posses, it's less dangerous compared from gun, where you can shoot from faraway)[/quote]

lmplying people that see nothing wrong with shooting innocent people are the types to respect and follow gun rules rather than acquire one illegally.

[quote=anime1990]@AllDayErryDay:

Here's the question. What's the point on allowing citizen having gun? That's what I keep asking, and people just go with "For protection/Self-defense"
So that means shooting someone for sake on protecting one self is good? No. That's no different from them.
What good comes out of it? None.
If one doesn't possess a gun to begin with (aside from authorities/sport purpose), things like this wont happen, or at least wont happen frequently.

That's where thing goes wrong in first place. (While knife is easier to posses, it's less dangerous compared from gun, where you can shoot from faraway)[/quote]

It may be a stupid answer to you, but the very real fact is that it's a part of the American constitution. "The Right To Bear Arms" plays a crucial part in the Constitution because it allows citizens to take up arms if the Government starts to become Tyrannous. Without that right, essentially the Government could do whatever they want without fear.

If they changed the Constitution, that brings about entirely different issues that would be much worse than gun rights.

@AllDayErryDay:

Here's the question. What's the point on allowing citizen having gun? That's what I keep asking, and people just go with "For protection/Self-defense"
So that means shooting someone for sake on protecting one self is good? No. That's no different from them.
What good comes out of it? None.
If one doesn't possess a gun to begin with (aside from authorities/sport purpose), things like this wont happen, or at least wont happen frequently.

That's where thing goes wrong in first place. (While knife is easier to posses, it's less dangerous compared from gun, where you can shoot from faraway)

[quote=AllKorean] it was like 2 hours from 3pm.
What are your thoughts? Don't be quick to judge.[/quote]
u couldve just said it happened at 1 PM

[quote=anime1990]Murica specialty.

I blame their firearms law. I find that it's a bit stupid allowing people to have one.[/quote]

It's not stupid to allow people to have them. It's stupid to allow people to buy such large amounts of ammunition, and more dangerous guns. Though it'd be dangerous if our government started limiting ammunition (starts to tread on 'sacred' Constitution grounds), it's one of the only ways to limit crazy things like this happening.

I mean... There's no reason why an average citizen needs a fast-firing rifle, considering a normal pistol would be just fine for self-defense.

Murica specialty.

I blame their firearms law. I find that it's a bit stupid allowing people to have one.

On the bright side, homocide rates are at the lowest in 50 years across the US! Detroit even had a full 36 hours with no homocides.

[quote=xtripled]1st you say:
Our generation in full of psychopaths

then you say:
Don't be quick to judge

based on your statement and the details you have told us, what other option is there then being quick to judge.

Ot: think the whole having a gun thing is stupid[/quote]
but I have a gun and havnt gone on a rampage

"2 hours from 3 pm"

Why not just say 1 pm or 5 pm?

[quote=peterisnoob]Not sure if troll.
"well, i there is only one" what does this mean.[/quote]

it means Im a psychopath

People are shot and wounded/killed [b]everyday[/b] in my city so I don't really pay attention.

To be fair, every generation has its share of psychopaths.

Not sure if troll.
"well, i there is only one" what does this mean.

Well, I there is only one thing to say is that my second half is a psychopath

Your title implied that it was funny, which it isn't.
You disgust me.

1st you say:
Our generation in full of psychopaths

then you say:
Don't be quick to judge

based on your statement and the details you have told us, what other option is there then being quick to judge.

Ot: think the whole having a gun thing is stupid