Weapons

Certainly knowing those reasons would be interesting and may help me get an understanding of your view, but it sorta sounds like there is something personal to make you biased?

I also consider myself open minded and change my opinion about things all the time. But gun control is a very grey area of discussion so there is hard to give a right or wrong type answer, since it kinda boils down to opinion.



First off, i did not say what i said because my opinion would never change but i thought the discussion would simply end up being a recyclement of what people has said on the other thread which would prove pointless.

Secondly of course a government can dominate it's people with weapons, but honestly think about the times we live in. Most likely if a country decided to go overboard it would lead to people getting their hands on weapons through illegal means, and possibly if not most likely a different country would try to intercept. Sure things has happened in the past, but that does not menan that we as a society can't move forwards. Kids get their hands on weapons, and mentally unstable people use guns because they have easy access to it, which leads nowhere, and sure, the gun is not the reason the crime happened, but it was certainly the tool for it. Like the other user said, guns are certainly a double edged sword, and there is times when it can be a good thing to have accesible or bad.

You said you had read through the 'Gun control law' topic where over half the pages i debate with Silence of the Yanderes on gun laws, so if you do not know my reasons by now, i have no idea what the hell you have been reading.




Right to self defense is not a matter of opinion. Or do you think it is?

I mean yeah, not a single human idea can be 100% factual (atleast i can't think of one), but that is why we use reason, logic, and rational to explain ideas to others and debate them. It is reason, logic and rational thought that have brought the human race this far.




I would like to hear your reasons to as why you don't think civilians should not be allowed to bear arms. Even before that it would be interesting to hear your position on this.

Should guns be banned from civilians completely or should they just be restricted even more? (I don't know where you live so i don't know what kind of gun laws you have there.)




How have other countries intercepted in Syria other than taken the chemical weapons away and given aid in medical and food supplies?
How have other countries intercepted in North-Korea other than given medical and food aid?
How have North-Koreans been getting their hands on weapons through illegal means?

What is good about relying on international gun-smugglers? If people had the right to bear arms they would not have to rely on criminal organisations or illegal methods. Do you suggest that relying on these is a good thing?

(I asked these same questions from Silence of the Yanderes and still haven't gotten an answer)




Yes, i totally agree. I accept the fact that it is a double edged sword. People fuck up with guns, they also fuck up with cars, drugs and knives for that matter, but these don't get banned when people screw up with them, we just punish the people who screwed up.

What is your logic and reason for guns getting banned but not the other hundreds of objects that cause accidental deaths?

The thing is, you may be using the gun for self defence, what are you trying to do? Your trying to kill the guy trying to kill you. The gun isn't made for scaring him away, it isn't made to simply knock him out. It's designed to kill the target. You may use it in self defence, but a gun is designed to kill. Don't mix why your using it and what it was made for.






I remind you the point of this thread is if weapons deserve to exist. Not a gun control. If theoretically there was no weapons, people would not have to worry about a bad guy with a weapon.

To protect myself against an aggressor, how i use the gun depends on the situation.




Yes, if it is the matter of either me or him dying, i would try to make sure it is him and not me.




You do not have to use lethal force if the situation does not call for it, no matter what the gun was made for, it is the matter of how you use it. The deterrent effect also still exists (atleast against some of the people).




It is a human decision to either use lethal force on purpose or not. Yes, gun is a tool that has the capabilities to kill another human being. So does a knife even though it was designed to cut your vegetables.




I accept the fact that i use an object that is meant to kill other human beings for my self defense. The very pinnacle of self defense is to take another human beings life in order to protect your own.




Yes, they deserve to exist!




We would still have to worry about the bad guys.

Eh...difficult to say whether they deserve to exist or not. On one hand it is true the usage of guns and other weapons do in fact preserve life but if we compared the amount of life lost vs. saved then they would certainly have done more harm than good. Plus the mere existence of weapons gives rise to distrust between countries which eventually leads to war. I personally would rather a world where no weapons exist (never going to happen) since I'm afraid of knowing someone down my street could start shooting the place up any second (a little paranoid but not a baseless argument).

I'd be more liable to allow things like stun weapons or have self-defence classes taught to the general populace ahead of weapons used to protect our population since they would lead to less deaths as a result and would also disarm attackers just as effectively. But that's unlikely to happen so I guess weapons like knives and guns are a...acceptable alternative? Best way I can describe it (Using "acceptable" loosely here) since they do manage to protect people. I'm still not happy with it and I would prefer the stun-weaponry over them.

But can a gun cut vegetables? I agree it's up to the person using the gun, on whether to point the gun and pull the trigger at the person, or fire into the air. But a gun has only one job, it's to kill, or at least cause serious damage to the target.





In a theoretical world with no weapons, there wouldn't be any bad guys as there is no bad guys for weapons to be needed. Everybody is friendly and shit, but that's a unattainable utopia.

I haven't tried yet.




Ok, so what? What is your point?




Theoretical world with no weapons just means that there is no weapons. Bad guys are not bad guys because of weapons. They would still be there.

A rapist does not rape other people because you can buy fire arms in gun stores. A serial killer does not become serial killer because he lives in a world where there are guns.

Guns exist to deter violence against the wielder as well. Whether the weapon kills depends on the conscious or panicked decisions of the wielder. Police often shoot a suspect in the leg, unless they are reckless mavericks who think a man with an IKEA knife needs 22 rounds in their chest.



So, you're implying by banning firearms, then deranged, angry and otherwise disturbed individuals would vanish into thin air? No, that is nonsense, mentally unstable, anger-prone, psychotic, etc people will still exist. The Akihabara massacre alone nullifies this childish daydream. In Japan, handguns are absolutely forbidden. Small-caliber rifles have been illegal to buy, sell, or transfer since 1971. Anyone who owned a rifle before then is allowed to keep it, but their heirs are required to turn it over to the police once the owner dies.

Japanese Gun Control Study

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

So, if banning weapons would be a panacea for our societies ills, then how do you explain Tomohiro Katō the man responsible for the Akihabara massacre or the a stabbing spree in Tsuchiura?

The RCMP tasered an unarmed man 20 times to death. Sometimes you just shake your head at the overkill.

A Guns job is not made to deter violence. A gun is a weapon. Definition of a weapon from the oxford dictionary. "A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage".

So it's job is to inflict physical damage. Maybe my use of kill was a bit strong, but it's along the same lines. The part where it deter's violence is a..... I can't find the right words here, but something like a secondary effect.





Yeah I think you both horribly misunderstood me here.

I'm not saying if we go poof weapons are gone, all problems are solved.

What I'm saying is the only way weapons could theoretically not exist in this theoretical world is if, no bad guys exists, no need for violence existed, we all just got along. If we didn't care about what religion people are, if skin colour didn't matter and etc.

Ok, so what? I ask you again: What is your point? What does this prove that fire arms are build to cause physical damage?




What about all the weapons we use for hunting animals, for sports and for fun?
What about the weapons that are used in Olympic games for example?
What about the times we use weapons for entertainment and enjoyment, like shooting beer cans for example?

A rifle that you use to hunt moose is way more deadlier than a 9mm pistol that police have for example.

Allow me to correct your statement somewhat:

1) Ukraine IS the original Russia (there is even a saying: "Kiev is the Mother of Russian cities"), so separating Russians and Ukrainians is like saying butter is not a milk product because its not actual milk, and is only derived from it.

2) The situation in Ukraine is somewhat different than what you may have been told in the media-, For the last 20 years, Ukraine suffered from corrupt politicians that stole from the government, and right now the "good Ukrainian government" is controlled by oligarch thieves that havent been able to didvide the bounty amongst themselves as of yet.

The result you see now only looks like a conflict of ideology taking the form of a civil war on the outside, but in reality its just a huge-ass mafia feud that fucked the whole country for someone's monetary gain, while feeding nationalistic bullshit to the masses (and plain bullshit to the rest of the world), and using them to fight their battles.






OT: I think weapons are instruments like any other. If you are a dick, you will find a way to use something to hurt someone else, and if you are not a dick, then you will use it as intended, unless drastic times force you to use drastic measures.

I believe that the overwhelming majority of weapons are useful for both defense/offence (unless its some shit like poisons, and stuff that is intended only for assassination and has no defense potential, like biochemical/chemical agents or single shot silenced pistols that are perfect for shooting someone in the back, but have no use for a face to face confrontation).


tl;dr, im pro-gun.

You know reading back on the discussion, I think I misunderstood your Knife analogy as saying that a Gun can be used for more than doing physical harm. So I was just restating facts that where settled. I apologize for this unnecessary part of the talk. Doing this at like 1am, easier to misread things.






And again i'm not talking about poof and it's gone. But a civilization built from the ground up. There probably wouldn't be an olympics, and I'm not going to get into to deep here, as it's starting to get into much to detail.

I'm sorry, but I'm one guilty sonofabitch around weapons. I love them to death. Probably due to the amount of games I play, but I just look at a gun and go nuts over how it looks, how it shoots and pretty much every aspect of it.

On the matter of whether or not they are needed, I believe they are, genuinely. I'm one of those guys who believes in the theory that if everyone has a gun, people are less likely to fuck with one another. I know some may disagree with me, but hey, it is a theory that can work.

Carrying a weapon, regardless of what it is, whether it's a bat, mace, T.A.S.E.R., handgun, knife, etc. The threat of harm or injury from a weapon is a deterrent for violence against the user. The act of killing someone with a firearm or any weapon has to be a decision made by the user of that weapon.

I have actually used the implied threat that I was carrying a concealed weapon to deter an aggressive individual. I had an irate man threaten me in a public place. To clarify, he wasn't just talking trash, he was physically aggressive (pushing), verbally abusive (racial/sexual epithets) and had all the signs that he wanted to beat the life out of me. I reached my hand behind my back knowing that if it came to a straight up fight, my much larger and significantly more muscular opponent would probably throw me around like a rag doll. The moment he saw my hand move as if I was reaching for a concealed weapon, his demeanor and expression changed. He immediately backed down by putting his hands up, backed away several steps, apologized for losing his temper and walked away. While this is anecdotal evidence at best it still serves as fuel for my argument.



We don't live in this theoretical world so I choose not to deal in such theories. We need to deal in reality.

Weapons are just tools, like any other tools, that assits human beings. They can either used to hunt down food or to kill, its dependant on the user.

I might have been biting more than i can chew by saying such, as it is a while since i checked it out.

Guns don't need to completely dissapear either from our reach, but regulation as to who can own one, and how kt is kept should become more strict. That way mentally unstable people wil jave a harder time getting guns, and hopefully guns will be held away from children better.

What i said above badicly answers what i believe there, and i live in Norway which is basicly gunless, so of course my point of view is not completely objective, just as an american with a gun would not be since it might end up with having to part with it

Different situations will happen in different countries, and i am not tailoring what i am saying for viole t countries, bit rather places that is peacefull like USA, Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia and so on. And also if the guns are banned in opressive countries, then getting guns legally for the resistance group would end up difficult anyways, and illegal means is simply a step for the resistance force to use to end the hard times.

True except that people don't need guns to get to work, nor do they need guns to keep their diabetes or heart in check, nor do they need guns to prepare they're food. Guns can be used for good, but also gives it's user a sense of power, and possibility. People who get their guns who might not had done anything otherwise might do something they might regret, and even if they do save themselves with a gun, the scar of having killed someone with it might rest on them for their entire lives. Also i would believe that if you would cling to your gun anywhere you go it would make you feel more paranoid, and uncomfortable.

I apologize for not answering by using quotes the way you do, as writing on an ipad and editing text is rather annoying.

I like to think learning how to use a weapon will actually prevent its use. Put a gun in the hands of some amateur wannabe gangbanger trying to prove himself, and it's obvious how dangerous it is. Put the gun in the hands of say a soldier, or firearms expert and he'll respect the weapon enough to understand that it's a not toy or something that solves a problem. A weapon is just another tool to them, a means to survival that should be respected and handled with care and caution at all times.

I totally agree with you on that. Even though i might sound little like a 'gun nut' here by advocating that everybody should have the right to bear arms, i still totally agree with you that there should be very strict rules as to who can get one.




I live in Finland and we also are almost a gunless nation without the hunting weapons people have. I get it that we usually think that "what works here, works on other countries as well" but when you look at the world you should realize pretty fast that that isn't the case.




But that is why you should not push your morals (or even advocate them) onto others if you don't even apply them to everybody. If you pick and choose your morals depending on what part of the world we are talking about, you don't really have morals then. It is a double standard and that is hypocrisy.

I totally understand that different rules and standards work in different parts of the world, but if there is a moral standard that you are supporting, it should be the same for everybody.




I understand, that is why we have to fight for our rights before the government becomes oppressive.




We need guns for something as if not even more important, self defense.




Yes, like small women who now has the real means to defend her self against a strong man.




The same way people do and regret things with everything else they get their hands on. There will always be consequences, there will always be accidents, there will always be the few who are out there to spoil everything for the rest.




Is having that scar worse than being dead?




I actually don't have a gun or even the license to use one, so i wouldn't know that.

Take all weapons away and people would still beat the fuck outta each other.

Resources/Distribution/Availability are really the root cause of all large-scale conflict.


So until we can get the entire human population living comfortably in a current upper-middle class standard, there shall always be war.


And even if such preposterous goal were achieved, there still exists envy and greed.