This organization against guns opened a gun store in NYC to make a point.

[The_Bloody_Nine]

apples or not, the analogy is still limping (german saying, dunno how to translate). The guys in the video (ignoring retardness of the video) go to the shop to buy a gun with the goal of more security/safe life, then learn that the guns in the shop actually led to the opposite. In your example people go buy a car to drive it, then learn that the car was misused to kill people.

Anyway, the analogy suffices to show that the video is crap, no need to argue the next 10 sides of this thread over tiny inconsistencies.


typo

[Gravoth_iii]

Good ol' gun debate, cant really decide what side makes more sense, and its hard to say since i am masterrace swede and we dont need no guns, those who die to guns here are probably already connected to crime and probably have illegal weapons of their own. Anyways I'm not sure the statistics on the amounts of gun crimes vs successful uses in self-defence, but im sure the accidents/crimes/misuses of the guns outweigh the successful self-defences, since you wont be the one getting the drop on whomever is about to commit the crime, and so you probably wont be ready to pull the gun before you are at a point where it would just get you killed.

I would say though that with thorough background checks and teaching how to use it and all that jazz would make it slightly safer, maybe? Hard to say actually, i dont see why one would need guns if they were illegal though, since those that still manage to get their hands on guns probably wont use them on civilians but on different gangs (probably in self defence). Getting a gun should still be possible, if its for hunting, specific guns that arent to kill multiple people really fast for example.


As for the actual video, i really hate the emotional bullshit "oh i was blind but now i see" obvious actors are obvious etc. What a cheap way to try to get people on your side of the issue, allthough probably effective compared to the effort.

[Clockworkkiller]

Also all of those people going to buy guns... all their fingers are on the triggers. It's no wonder so many accidents happen with firearms if that's the basic instinct.

And yeah, guns are a fucking awful rape prevention tool. Good luck getting it out of your handbag and using it when there's a 300% times heavier and stronger guy on top of you. Even if you get it out, you're just going to lose it. Anything is better. Pepper spray, a knife (a LOT harder to take away from someone panicky...), scratching/screaming...

First off, this video was staged, dumbass liberal actors who try to exaggerate dangers and generally try to look like dumbasses

Go to an actual gunstore, ask to see a firearm, and place your finger on the trigger. see what happens. The responses will range from the gun getting snatch out of your hand, you getting yelled at then kicked out of the store to you getting tackled, disarmed and then kicked out of the store.

Secondly, by the time someone is on top of you, the time to pull whatever weapon out or perform whatever martial art ninja move is long gone.....a self defense weapon is designed to be drawn BEFORE that happens. And a gun compared to pepper spray? have you not seen videos of people shrugging off pepper spray, not to mention goodluck trying to use the thing when it requires a direct shot to the eyes, is affected by the slightest breeze and only has a range of 5 feet. dont even get me started on the idea of giving a untrained person a knife to try and ninja fight their way out of a mess

No reason for people to own guns.
Hunting, self-defense, sport, collection....

Yeah, you might be fine, cool headed and responsible today, but tomorrow or 10 years ahead, or when u get old and senile something clicks in your brain that makes you kill off your family, yourself or whoever. It's just too easy to do massive damage with a gun.
if your assuming that you and any other person around you is gonna snap and go violently insane at any moment, you might want to get your head checked

The analogy with cars meh. Much harder to kill a target with a car than with a gun. Besides they are not excluding each other. The gun comes on top of the potential of the car. Why not allow people to carry bombs and grenades? They can also be fun!

But if I lived somewhere where everyone had a gun, every nutjob had one, with triggerhappy cops (cuz many guns around), and a generally paranoid environment, I would probably get one myself..
A armed society is a polite society, you know the most polite, least confrontational people out there? CCers. they dont want there to be ANY excuse for them to have their firearm taken, to get involved with the police, etc...So they arent gonna get into a barfight or heated argument with that douchebag who wants to fight.

A few triggerhappy cops, compared to the majoritiy of cops being decent, good folk


It's not hypocrisy, it's a nasty catch22, a consequence of environment (like in a warzone..), and why (in some parts of america) they should start making it really hard to own a gun. You should have to pass state tests, mental tests, and do so regularly for the rest of your life if you want to keep it.
tests and checks, tests and checks....no amount of mental checks or background checks will make a difference

Blitz, wouldn't it be nice to have non-triggerhappy cops, criminals who see guns as a liability, generally a more at-ease environment? It has to start somewhere..
yea i would love more cops who are great at their job. criminals woouldnt care, theyll see it as another tool to bully the unarmed, good citizens with.
you know, things are actually really calm here, nice and peaceful

(fyi I've been in army and shot the G3 and mp5, that's about the limit of my gun-experience, sure it's fun, but cmon. Not that much fun after a few hundred rounds..)
Yea dude, i played cRPG, thats about my limit of video games, sure its fun. but cmon. not that much fun after the first hour or two

[AntiBlitz]

It's not semantics at all. I can't think of any gun that was designed for anything but to maim and kill, from the lowliest calibre to .50. The things you listed are other applications, but doesn't change the fact that a firearm is designed to main and kill. If you don't think what the original purpose of something matters in terms of regulation and laws that's fine, but to think that a gun isn't designed to kill is the very definition of playing semantics that you accuse me of.

i can think of plenty......

Line Gun
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Flare Gun
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Stun Gun
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Lighter Gun
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Pellet Gun
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Tear gas Gun
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


its semantics all the way bud.  I can kill people with a butter knife, even though its meant to cut butter, it still cuts people.

[Thomek]

if your assuming that you and any other person around you is gonna snap and go violently insane at any moment, you might want to get your head checked.

Statistically, people go crazy all the time. And that might just affect you in a bad way. The chance of it happening is much bigger cause everyone have a gun or can get one in 5 minutes.

Just so you understand, from a European perspective, the pro gun arguments from the US seems pretty much idiotic and near absurd. Sure you can have guns here too, if you really want, but people feel no need to have one for protection. Because criminals almost exclusively use guns against each other, and on extremely rare occasions like bright day bank robberies, against cops.

In the US people have guns because people have guns . In the EU, we don't have have guns for self defence, because no one uses guns against each other. (and the criminals only target each other.)

Now. Wouldn't it be nice to not have to have a gun for self defence? Wouldn't it be nice to not having to worry about everyone having a gun?

The problem is not YOU. I'm sure you know exactly how and when to use or not to use a gun, how to store it etc.. The problem is statistics. A certain % of any society are unstable retards, and the best way to stop them having access to guns is to remove most of them from society.

OR: Rigorious checks on people allowed to have guns, I'm talking lockers, tests, no carry permits etc.

[AntiBlitz]

(click to show/hide)

First off, this video was staged, dumbass liberal actors who try to exaggerate dangers and generally try to look like dumbasses

Go to an actual gunstore, ask to see a firearm, and place your finger on the trigger. see what happens. The responses will range from the gun getting snatch out of your hand, you getting yelled at then kicked out of the store to you getting tackled, disarmed and then kicked out of the store.

Secondly, by the time someone is on top of you, the time to pull whatever weapon out or perform whatever martial art ninja move is long gone.....a self defense weapon is designed to be drawn BEFORE that happens. And a gun compared to pepper spray? have you not seen videos of people shrugging off pepper spray, not to mention goodluck trying to use the thing when it requires a direct shot to the eyes, is affected by the slightest breeze and only has a range of 5 feet. dont even get me started on the idea of giving a untrained person a knife to try and ninja fight their way out of a mess

rubs clockworks shoulders, relax my ginger friend who wipes his but oddly, itll be okay, there is a lot of bad facts with what you said, but ill let you pass. 

Statistically, people go crazy all the time. And that might just affect you in a bad way. The chance of it happening is much bigger cause everyone have a gun or can get one in 5 minutes.

Just so you understand, from a European perspective, the pro gun arguments from the US seems pretty much idiotic and near absurd. Sure you can have guns here too, if you really want, but people feel no need to have one for protection. Because criminals almost exclusively use guns against each other, and on extremely rare occasions like bright day bank robberies, against cops.

In the US people have guns because people have guns . In the EU, we don't have have guns for self defence, because no one uses guns against each other. (and the criminals only target each other.)

what we have are left over ideas from an old world, our ideas and certain euro countries will obviously not see eye to eye on the matter.  So really, its living with what we have, and improving upon it, and making it better, safer for people to own them, or atleast thats my idea on the matter.  Triggerhappy cops and all that crap are just media blitzs to force agendas, im sure you didnt hear about the 3 dead officers who died this past week from criminals who shot them, but youll gladly hear about the cop who shot someone.

[Thomek]

See, in EU criminals don't even own guns. Because if you get caught with one you are in much deeper shit. If you use it chances you'll get caught increase 100fold. Yeah they bring guns for spectacular bank robberies, but so do the cops.

It's a kind of contract between the criminals and the cops. Not saying the same would happen in US though..

But as a start, would you agree to ban carry permits, and forcing people to lock their guns in some kind of safe or closet? I really don't see a reason to carry guns on the street..  at least

(And no, GC won't stop cold hearted murderers, but it will probably stop a lot of split second, really bad, decision making. A lot of accidents, some suicides, generally a lot of momentary rage. And it IS possible to do GC without affecting passionate hobbyists who would easily pass a test or two to have their collection, hunt, or go to the range.  )

[Xant]

apples or not, the analogy is still limping (german saying, dunno how to translate). The guys in the video (ignoring retardness of the video) go to the shop to buy a gun with the goal of more security/safe life, then learn that the guns in the shop actually lead to the opposite. In your example people go buy a car to drive it, then learn that the car was misused to kill people.

Anyway, the analogy suffices to show that the video is crap, no need to argue the next 10 sides of this thread over tiny inconsistencies.

They didn't learn the gun was the opposite, they were led to believe that by appeal to emotion. They think that it's too unsafe to own a gun in the end. In my example people go buy a car for a reason and then think it's too unsafe.

Secondly, by the time someone is on top of you, the time to pull whatever weapon out or perform whatever martial art ninja move is long gone.....a self defense weapon is designed to be drawn BEFORE that happens. And a gun compared to pepper spray? have you not seen videos of people shrugging off pepper spray, not to mention goodluck trying to use the thing when it requires a direct shot to the eyes, is affected by the slightest breeze and only has a range of 5 feet. dont even get me started on the idea of giving a untrained person a knife to try and ninja fight their way out of a mess

No, it's not. That's one reason BJJ is recommended to women concerned about safety. I don't have to watch videos about pepper spray, I know how it works. There are different kinds. You spray it in a S pattern to make sure it hits generally. Don't even get me started on the idea that to use a knife you need to be a "ninja."

[Swaggart]

I knew I shouldn't get involved in a gun debate.

Anyway, yes the analogy works for the video like I originally said. I also said the analogy makes no sense in terms of the overall gun control debate. If what things are designed for makes no difference in its regulation then fuck it I want a nuclear bomb as a lawn ornament. Sure, it can be used to unleash destruction in a wide radius, but it also looks really nice sitting on my lawn.

Since I'm getting drawn back into this unholy quagmire where literally no one's opinion's will be changed, I'm gonna do something constructive like visit the Ukraine, wiping your ass standing or sitting, Facopalypse thread.

[Xant]

I knew I shouldn't get involved in a gun debate.

Anyway, yes the analogy works for the video like I originally said. I also said the analogy makes no sense in terms of the overall gun control debate. If what things are designed for makes no difference in its regulation then fuck it I want a nuclear bomb as a lawn ornament. Sure, it can be used to unleash destruction in a wide radius, but it also looks really nice sitting on my lawn.

Since I'm getting drawn back into this unholy quagmire where literally no one's opinion's will be changed, I'm gonna do something constructive like visit the Ukraine, wiping your ass standing or sitting, Facopalypse thread.

Yes, what things are designed for makes no difference in its regulation. If you take an apple and "design" it to kill people, it wouldn't be illegal. Your nuclear bomb thing is just a slippery slope fallacy.

[Eugen]

Assume two cities, both with trustworthy and reasonable equipped police-force.

Only difference of the two cities is: one city allows people to carry firearms and other lethal weapons with nearly no control. You must assume that everyone you meet potentially could be armed and therefore one must consider to get armed as well

The other city has strict controls on ownership and transactions with firearms and other lethal weapons. You can assume that people on the street are not armed - and if you meet someone who is armed it is only natural to be deeply alarmed an run for cover and call for help.

I would still prefer the city with strict controls on weapons. I dont want to get armed myslef.

And for those who still hang to the argument that also a car can be used to damage and hurt others:  firearms do this job a lot easier and effective.  Point and pull the trigger. Its really not much of an effort to bring pain and death - even accidentally.

I appreciate the spirit of the original video. Only legal place for firearms in my opinion is in lawenforcemnt, professional hunt and war.

[Xant]

Only legal place for firearms in my opinion is in lawenforcemnt, professional hunt and war.

The problem is that criminals don't care about legality.

[Eugen]

Criminals - could be me and you too. 

Who knows.

I still would prefer that ownership of weapon is a criminal act on itself (with exception of lawenforcemnt, professional hunt and military).

Only argument pro firearms for me would be civil unrest against corrupt goverment, basically in case of civil war.  However ... if someone really wants a weapon he will find ways to get one. Still consequences should be harsh imo.

[Xant]

My personal view on the matter is that ownership of guns should be controlled but law enforcement and military personnel should be allowed to carry concealed even off-duty.

[Thomek]

This is actually kind of funny.. with some good points:

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/24/8283199/gun-control-comedy-jefferies