What Do You Think About Gun Control Law?

What point exactly does this example prove, because it's certainly not a point for anti gun-control. Unlike structured organizations in Poland and France, the German resistance to the Nazis mainly consisted of small groups engaging in subversion, conspiracy and espionage, rather than direct confrontation.

And even for those who fought directly, do you think they got there guns through legal methods? I'm not sure about what the gun laws were in Nazi Germany, but I have no doubt that the Gestapo would have any civilians who they knew owned a gun under surveillance.

I'm not saying that peaceful protest is always the best option, just that direct confrontation is almost never the best option.

And to be honest, the main reason the Axis lost WWII was because they betrayed Russia. Literally, that was possibly one of the dumbest decisions in military history. Thank god the Nazis did it, or the war could have been a lot worse.



That is completely incongruous with most weapons policies. If there was a single instance were using biological weapons would be the best option, would you say that every country should have the right to use biological weapons? If you did, then you would be being rather ridiculous, because of the damage they can cause. The same logic needs to be applied to guns.

That is, we must look at the instances where using the gun is the best option, and look at the severity of the consequences when it is not used. We must then compare this to the severity of the consequences in instances when people commonly use their guns and it is not the best option. There's also some complicated stuff about probabilities and psychology which are very difficult to judge.



Actually there was a lot of major knowledge about the death camps, it's just that the major countries of the war (Britain, France, Russia, America) did not believe the claims of those who had seen it, until I believe 1944, when some actual footage of a concentration camp discovered by the Russians was released.

Have you heard of Witold Pilecki? He was a Polish officer who volunteered to be caught and sent to Auschwitz in order to collect information on it. Not only did he do so very well, he also organized resistance movements whilst inside Auschwitz. After he escaped Auschwitz, he joined the Polish intelligence department, and published 'Witold's Report', a comprehensive report of the Nazi activities and forwarded it to Britain. But they still refused to help, because they assumed he was exaggerating.

So you see, it's not that people didn't know about death camps, it's just that those who did know did not have the military power to feasibly attempt a liberation.

As for North Korea, there are two reasons why nobody helps them. One is because of the fear of a potential nuclear attack (and thus MAD). The other is because of the lack of protest. People in Nazi Germany resisted, and they were certain to be put to death if caught, so why aren't the people in North Korea resisting? It doesn't even have to be direct resistance or peaceful protest, it could be anything. And yet they don't. Even people who escape North Korea rarely ask foreign powers to try to interfere and help the people.

Why do you think this is? I can think of two possible reasons. The first is that they have resigned themselves to their fate, and thus either put up with it or try to leave. The second is that, despite disliking their conditions, still have utmost respect for their leader (like how people can still believe in God when their life sucks), which would be a result of the indoctrination of everyone to what is essentially the worship of their dictators.

And again, their 'rights' have no value, because as you've said, they have no 'rights'. All that matters is their opinions.



Well, as I said it doesn't have to be peaceful protest, but can be indirect resistance, like subversion, conspiracy and espionage. And the German resistance is a good example of such resistance helping to end oppression.

As for other examples of where peaceful protest has worked, there is of course MLK and the movement for civil rights for black people. There's also the Kent State Demonstrations, which tried to stop Nixon invading Cambodia, and stop the war in Vietnam (that didn't help directly, but caused many more protests). There's the Singing revolution, where Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania successfully gained independence from the Soviet Union after four years of protest.

And I know this last one isn't exactly a life or death, but I'm going to include it anyway. The Lusty Lady Strike, where strippers in San Francisco went on strike to try to gain the ability to form a union.



No, you misunderstand me. I know it was the military who fired first (it almost always is), and I understand that they protested peacefully first. But I was asking who the first rebels were to retaliate (with guns or similar) against the military. Were they, as I suggested, a small group who then rapidly gained support?



Firstly, Syria is a completely different situation to North Korea. Syria is nowhere near as secretive as North Korea, and we are much more familiar with how their people are than we are with North Koreans. Secondly, see earlier in my post for my thoughts on the North Korean peoples. Thirdly, sending relief fr a famine or natural disaster is very different from sending military or medical aid to people in a civil uprising.



Tell me, how useful is a gun when you're caught in a gas attack? How useful is it when an armored tank rolls down the street? How useful is it when you're hit by a strafing run? Not at all is how useful. The weapons that matter in modern war are not the ones you can buy from a local dealer. They are the missiles, the rocket launchers, the armored vehicles and armor piercing heavy machine guns.

I think we may also have to define 'best' in terms of these actions. Civil wars are probably the quickest, but in most cases result in the most loss of life. So I think they are not the best. In my opinion the option which causes the least loss of life is the best, which would be either accepting the oppression, or fleeing. However, I understand that many people will be loathe to accept these options, so will resist, in which case non-violent, but discrete methods are usually the best, followed by peaceful protest and finally war. So why is it that you think war is the best?



Yep, and only the non-oppressed people remain. So the country will either exist in peace or rapidly degenerate if there's not enough people, in which case it will die out or attempt to attack one of it's border countries in desperation and be defeated.



I don't see how you can possible argue that even 100 million people with guns are a match for an air force with bombs, and army with tanks and a navy with artillery. Strength in numbers cannot hope to bridge that gap.

And it's my point in both. The 'people vs. US government and military' is just a particularly extreme example of what it is like in almost all countries.



The assumptions I made were the same as the ones I would make in real life, given the situation you described. Would you have assumed anything different in the circumstances? And I'm interested to hear this realistic scenario. As far as I can imagine, the only scenarios where using a gun is a viable option are ones where picking up and/or aiming and/or firing the gun would give them ample time to do whatever terrible thing they are threatening me with.



I'm sorry, but which things are these that you can achieve with the right to bear arms that you couldn't without it? Because as I recall, in all the situations proposed, I have argued that not only is not using the right a better option, but that using the right is often a bad option, that leads to greater loss and suffering. And without that part of your argument, the rest implies the opposite, that the right is pointless, because there is no situation where it is necessary

What's more, this is far more complicated than simply being occasionally a good choice. Far too often, people choose to use it when it is not a good option to do so. And far too often, people abuse it to cause suffering to others. When faced with these scenarios, game theory and statistical analysis could be used to give an idea of how often the use of guns is justified, and I have little doubt that it would be a strikingly small number.

Ok.




No i do not think that, they got them through illegal methods. You know why they had to acquire them illegally? Because the government made owning guns illegal, making armed resistance impossible and in the case of Nazi Germany, peaceful protest didn't seem to have any effect on the rights of the people.




I am not saying civil war is the best option, i am saying it MIGHT be the only option, because the alternative could be slavery and/or death.




No, i would not. Biological weapons are not hand guns or shotguns. They both can be classified as 'arms' or weapons, but they are not the same.

And maybe if you read the part you underlined more carefully, i am talking about the right to own guns to protect your rights, i am not talking about using the gun.




No, the same logic should not be applied to guns. If using biological weapons is the best choice, i would choose the lesser optimal choice. If using guns is the best choice, i would choose to use the guns. The difference in the damage caused by these two weapons is very different.

It is possible to cause more damage with a knife than it is with a gun, should the same logic be applied to knifes?




I am not arguing that it is the best option, i am arguing it could be the only option. It is also a necessary option.




Again, if you believe those underlined parts, i do not understand why you think peaceful protest under oppression is a great option and to hope other countries will come to your help.




Again, if you believe this, i do not understand why you think peaceful protest under oppression is a great option and to hope other countries will come to your help.




Again, if you believe this, i do not understand why you think peaceful protest under oppression is a great option and to hope other countries will come to your help.




Just because you and other people are willing to be forced into object slavery, into torture, into death and accept it without a fight does not mean i am willing to do that. By being against my right to bear arms, you are denying my right to protect my self as human being. You are against me fighting for my life against an aggressor. EVERYTHING you can achieve without the right to bear arms can be achieved with the right to bear arms. If you by now don't understand or see what you cannot achieve with the examples i have given if you do not have that right, then the debate is over, there is nothing more to talk about.




You don't believe in human beings having universal rights?
You believe that if the government deems that its citizens are not worthy of life, are not worthy of having basic human rights therefor they do not have them?

You think that it is all about what individuals like and dislike?
If you don't think that we have rights as being born human beings, then your life's worth is only as much as you like it or others dislike it.

I do not care if all the North-Koreans like the fact that they are being tortured to death, i still believe the government of North-Korea should be removed and jailed. I still believe human beings have basic human rights even if their governments do not.




Martin Luther King, Jr. and the black people during the movement HAD THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

People at the Kent State Demonstrations HAD THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

I don't know about the laws of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania at the time of Singing revolution, but still EVERYTHING they achieved could have been achieve with THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.




I do not know this, but after the first rebel military action, who ever chose to support them, did so because they had the right and the freedom to do so. Or because their 'opinion' was that they did not 'like' the way the government treated them and thought military action was for them an action they can support or want to support.




North-Korean situation (if you know anything about North-Korea) is far worst than it is in Syria from the point of view of the people.

If you are interested, here is little context of what i am talking about.

http://webtv.un.org/meetings-events/human-rights-council/commissions-of-inquiry-hearings/watch/human-rights-in-north-korea-excerpts-from-the-public-hearings-of-the-commission-of-inquiry-23mins/3339582047001




The famine in North-Korea was not a natural disaster, it was the cause of the governments treatment of the people. The reasons why there is no uprising in North-Korea are somewhat same as to why there were no major uprisings in Nazi Germany. People are murdered by the state for publicly disagreeing with the government. In North-Korea you can be born as a enemy of the state.




It is not useful in those scenarios you gave. Is the right action therefor to ban guns from the public? Should it be illegal to own a gun?




Just like it was the best option for the jews to accept the oppression in WW2? Just like it is the best option for North-Koreans to accept the oppression today?




I do not think war is the best option, i do not think civil war is the best option, i do not think war in any way is the best option. I am only arguing for my right to fight for myself and i am arguing for the right to legally own guns to do it.




My question was: "A stranger comes to your home and holds a knife to your child's throat. What would you do, call the cops and wait for them, or shoot the fucker?"

Your answer was: "Neither. I would calmly ask him what he wants."

Everything beyond that is fantasy and hopeful thinking on your part. What if he wants to cut you child's throat for pleasure?

Yes, my question has the assumption of you holding your gun in your hand already, but even if that were the case, you can still do everything you have said. Having the right to own a gun does not force you to shoot anybody!




If i can not convince you by now, then i can not convince you. We should just agree to disagree.

Actually, surprisingly enough, the Nazi Government actually made firearm regulation more lenient. They completely deregulated rifles and shotguns, it was only handguns which were affected by control measures. They lowered the legal age of owning/carrying firearms. They extended the length that gun permits were valid for. They expanded the group of people who were exempt from the regulations.

The only thing they became more strict on was that Jews were not allowed to own guns. And since most of them were taken to concentration camps, them having guns probably would not have mattered.

The main reason people would attempt to acquire guns illegally in Nazi Germany, is because all gun manufacturers and dealers had to make records of all transactions and pass them onto the police. It was not safe for a resistance fighter to use legally obtained guns. And in fact, a large proportion of people in resistance groups were people who were exempt from the regulations. They could have used their guns, but didn't, because they knew doing so was a bad idea.



Civil war is never the only option to resist slavery and/or death. As I have said before, non-violent resistance is always an option.



Why are they not the same? One can cause death to more people than the other, sure, but no deaths is better than any number of deaths. If you believe in human rights as much as you say, than surely the number of deaths is irrelevant, the fact that a death can occur is enough to make it negative.



Then change the wording of the final part of my statement to 'to own biological weapons'. It makes no difference, you would still not legalize the ownership of such weapons.



Wait wait wait. You wouldn't use biological weapons if it was the best option? Why not? Best implies that it is the most effective way to do what you want to, so using a different option would be, well, dumb. Unless you thought that your enemy would be expecting you to do it, so you're being unpredictable.



Yes, and it is here in Britain. There are fairly strict regulations on knives, with a miximum penalty of 4 years in prison and A £5000 fine. The regulations on knives are less strict than on guns because they are less deadly than guns.

And saying it is 'possible' to do more damage with a knife than a gun is a stupid point, because it's also 'possible' to do more damage to someone with a jar of peanut butter than with a gun.



As I've said before, it is never the only option. And, just to be clear, I'm not saying that if it is the best option, you still shouldn't use it. Just that it rarely, if ever, is.



Because we are in the age of information (a term I don't particularly like, but whatever). As you said, we have a great deal of knowledge about the North Koreans, and the state of their country. We got that information through methods which are suitable as proof, which we would not have had in the 1940's. Photographs, films, audio recordings, all on compact and easy to transport devices.

In addition, the discovery of concentration camps, and the spread of knowledge of them about the world, was greatly thanks to the efforts of people like Pilecki. Were it not for them, we would have been unlikely to have learned about concentration camps for another few years, the war would have been longer, and many more innocents would have died.

As for North Korea, the threat of nuclear war is less for some countries. If these smaller countries were to try to liberate North Korea, it would likely be a step on the way to larger countries, like America, China, and Russia, moving in to attempt to dethrone the dictatorship. These smaller countries are stopped from doing this by the second option, there apathy to North Korea, or more pressing civil concerns.



Your right, (pun intended) I am denying your right to protect yourself, because I don't trust you to decide which are the right times (also pun intended) to use said right. Maybe not you specifically, but the general populace (although some of your posts do make you sound a bit trigger happy).



Yes, Yes, and not quite. But I think you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Which is perfectly understandable, because it is a concept which I'm finding hard to iterate.

Human rights are an entirely anthropic creation. It is not a law of the universe. There is nothing forcing us to give people their human rights, we do it because we feel it is moral to do so. If the government does not give you any rights, then you have no rights. But that doesn't mean to say that you can't try to change the way the government works to get rights.

Basically, whether or not you have rights is irrelevant to whether or not you are being oppressed, and thus irrelevant to your decision to resist what ever is happening to you.

And it's more to do with what the general populace likes and dislikes than what individuals like. If a single person protests a decision, they'll likely be ignored (or silenced). If the entire country protests, then there is a far greater chance of change.



Really? You would deny an entire nation a major source of happiness just because you think the way they get their pleasure is morally wrong? That's incredibly self-righteous of you. In fact, if you were to do so, I would call you the tyrant, and try to get you prosecuted for crimes against humanity, because you are forcing your idea of morality onto another group of people. And the entire populace of North Korea would back me.

If you're looking to resolve Human rights issues, do so in countries which signed up to the Geneva convention but still violate people rights on a daily basis. Places like America and Britain, and probably a lot more that I don't know about.



So what if they did? The fact that they didn't use it is a key factor in their success. The fact that using it would have worsened their position makes it a liability.



I agree with you. But I disagree with them, that military action was a good choice, and believe that it is entirely possible the people who started the military action caused an increase in this support for military action; a few bad eggs spoiling the batch, if you will.



I do know the situation (in terms of oppression), is worse in North Korea.

Sadly my laptop will not allow me to view the videos on the link you sent.



If you look at what I said, I said "famine or natural disaster". Even if it was a famine caused by the government, it still very different to aid in a civil uprising/war.

And whilst there weren't any major uprisings in Nazi Germany, there were many smaller resistance groups. Yet there are none in North Korea. The murdering because of public disagreement only puts people of direct confrontation and peaceful protest. They could still do espionage, conspiracy etc.



Yes. I mean, obviously those scenarios aren't the only ones that influence that opinion, but they are a part of it. Basically, in a national context, guns are useless against the military.

In a more individual and daily level, too many people use guns in the wrong situations, because they have the right to use it. Even if having the right is sometimes a very useful thing, the proportion of the help it creates to the damage it causes is very low.

That is the basis of the formation of my opinion.



Basically, yes. This is why a lot of Jews fled Nazi occupated areas in WWII, and why some North Koreans try to escape. Because they knew that gave/gives them the best chance of survival.

The other options are to accept it (more applicable to NK than the Jews), or to resist in subtle fashions.



Then why are we arguing about resisting an oppressor on a national scale? The daily scenarios are the more important anyway, wouldn't you agree?



It depends how sober I was. If I was drunk enough, I may try to shoot him, in which case there would be two dead people, my son and either me or the stranger, because no matter how good quick you are, the stranger is going to be able to slit his throat before you get a shot off. Both results are terrible, and involve 2 dead people.

If I was sober, I would probably let him do it. In this case my son would be dead, and then he would either leave or come after me. So then there's either one or two dead people. Still terrible, but one result involves one less dead people.

So by game theory, the choice to not shoot dominates the choice to shoot, reducing it to a single choice, not shooting.

Is there a flaw in my logic anywhere? I can't see one.



If I have the gun, then I have the ability to choose the worse option. Remove the gun, and I can only choose to make the better option of not shooting him. This is why not being forced to do it is not a useful point, because people are fallible, and entirely likely to make a wrong choice. If you remove a bad choice, more people will make the right choice.

For many people around the world it has been and currently is.




Non-violent resistance has been the very reason why people around the world have become the victim of slavery and/or death.




Because everything about them is different, just because using them kills people does not mean they are the same. Just because we label them both as weapons does not mean they have the same properties, the same amount of power, the same amount of destruction.




Are you series? Are you saying there is no difference between killing a single human being and killing 6 million? I quote you again: "surely the number of deaths is irrelevant." IT IS NOT IRRELEVANT!




Cars kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, should we apply the same logic to cars we apply to biological weapons?




Yes, i would not, because biological weapons have nothing to do with gun ownership. It is not comparing like with like.




If raping children was the best way to teach them about rape, would you rape your child or have him/her raped? If you would not rape your child, then "using a different option would be, well, dumb."

I would not use biological weapons.




It is possible to do more damage with a knife than with a gun, and to say otherwise is stupid. At the same time knives are less deadly than guns. At the same time biological weapons are more deadly than guns. That is why there should be less strict regulation on guns than in biological weapons.




Even though history proves you wrong.




Why shouldn't you use it, didn't you just say that using other way than the best is dumb?




If that is the case, then i refer you to back to image OP posted.

You calling me trigger happy is like me calling you suicidal because you rather die than fight back.




We do not give to people human rights because it feels moral, we do it because we want to live in a society and we wanna maximize human happiness on maximum number of people.

And what happens if the government is unwilling to change?




I have said nothing about morals. I have said nothing about denying anybody anything. I am not forcing anything onto anybody. People can do to them selves what ever they want. For you to call me a tyrant and at the same time think systematical torture is source of happiness for millions of people is pretty sick.

You say i am forcing my ideals onto other people while at the same time you are denying me the right to own guns for my own safety. *sigh* I wonder who really is forcing ideals here.




I am not arguing for using guns in those demonstrations, of coarse it would have been much worse had they used guns, but denying right to self defence is the liability.




Yes, famine caused by the government is much worse than civil war.




History proves you wrong.




Most of the people you are talking about acquire their guns illegally, most of the damage that is done, is done to civilians.




Basically you are saying that the rest of the 6 millions jews best option also was to accept the oppression and be gas to death. And you call me a tyrant. The best option for North-Koreans today is to accept the oppression and be tortured to death. And i am the one forcing my morals to other people.




Would you accept it?




History shows arming your self against the government is better idea than arming your self against your neighbor.




You would only shoot a gun if you were drunk? Maybe not a flaw, but a really stupid idea.

If you shoot the aggressor in the head, the only thing he has time to do is fall down, you and your son still alive.

If you are sober, you would let him murder your son? Are you freaking series? Not only that, he could go kill even more people after he was done with you.

You think that 2nd scenario is better because it involves one less dead person, yet minute ago you said "surely the number of deaths is irrelevant".

SO YES, your logic is both twisted and flawed.




You assume using the gun is the worst option.




If you remove the gun, you no longer can even make the choice, the choice has been taken away from you.




I agree, people are fallible (as you have clearly pointed that out), but being not forced to do it IS A USEFUL POINT! You are forcing me to resort less useful methods of protecting my self and my family.




Using the gun is sometimes the right choice!!!

No. Just because people made the choice to fight does not mean it was their only option.



Are you sure about that? If the victims are not already being oppressed, then what reason do they have to resist? And there are many examples of where non-violent resistance has been effective in helping to overthrow an oppressive government, including one you brought up, Nazi Germany.



The point is that a primary use of both is to kill people. That is what means they must have the same logic applied. The severity of damage caused by their ill-use is what is taken into account when you decide how strict the regulations should be



That's not what I meant. Obviously if it's a choice between one and six-million, one is the better option. But what I was getting at, was that you should, if you believe so truly in human rights, try to stop a single death as much as you would try to stop six-million deaths.

So for instance, you would try to stop someone shooting another person as much as you would try to stop your government launching a biological strike against another country.



Yes, and again we do. We have drivers licenses and psychological, theoretical and practical tests to determine who can and cannot drive. We enforce speed limits to reduce the chance of accidental death. We have an increasing number of things you can't do while driving (be intoxicated, smoke, speak on the phone ect.). We have punishments for people who break the rules.



See above.



In a hypothetical situation where it was the best way, yes. But it will never be the best way in reality, because of the psychological and physical trauma to the child and myself, the fact that it encourages the children and those raping them to enjoy either giving or receiving rape, as well as giving others the impression that they can get away with raping children if they claim it's to 'educate' them.



Yes, I agree that the regulations on guns should be less than on biological weapons. But I believe that gun control in many places is insufficient. Using America as an example, most states (if not all) require you to have a license and to register your firearm. That's good, although the decisions on who is eligible for licenses could be stricter.

What I don't agree with are the laws which allow you to carry guns in public either concealed or openly. I would suggest also banning many types of guns, in addition to those already banned by the NFA. And castle doctrine is the one I disagree with the most.




If you had actually read what I wrote, I said "I'm not saying that if it is the best option, you still shouldn't use it". That is it is the best option, it's fine to use it, but it rarely is the best option.



Calling you trigger happy was actually meant to be a joke. Sorry if it came across as a serious accusation.

As for the picture, what point are you trying to make with it? As far as I can tell, all you can draw from it is that you'll be unable to protect yourself. And I know that, but I believe the benefits from gun control outweigh that negative.



And why is it that we want to maximize happiness? Because we feel it is moral to do so. Why do we feel it is moral to do so? Because it's a way to say we're not doing for our own pleasure, which in most cases we actually are.

If the government is unwilling to change, you try to force it to do so. I would suggest through non-violent methods, blah blah blah, you know all about what I think is best in this situation by now.



If you had read through what you said, you said "I do not care if all the North-Koreans like the fact that they are being tortured to death, I still believe the government of North-Korea should be removed and jailed."

In the hypothetical situation that you posed, it is a source of pleasure for them. Yet you asserted that you still thought the government should be removed and imprisoned. Thus, you would be denying them a pleasure. And since you base this action on your personal opinion that what's happening is wrong, you are forcing your morals upon them.

Yes it is an unrealistic scenario, and if you tried to dethrone the North Korean government in real life, I would have no cause to argue against it. I was just working on what you said.



Well, I'm not actually denying you your right to own guns am I? For one, I'm guessing that you live in an area without strict gun control policies. For another, even if you didn't I would have had no say in the decision to introduce said gun laws.

And even in the context of this debate, I'm not trying to force you to accept that gun control is a good thing, I'm trying to convince you of it. And even so, you are not my main target, as in most debates, I'm more aiming to convince anybody who reads this and hasn't decided on their stance already that my side is the better one. That and sharpen my debating skills.



Yes, denying the right to self-defense is a liability. I'm simply putting forward the point that having the right is also a liability, and a worse liability at that.



Well, that's kind of subject to one's opinion, but that's not what we're arguing about here.



Maybe in the past, yes, guns were a major help against the government. But in modern times, the governments have enough military technology to make guns almost completely ineffective.



No, in my statement I was referring to the law abiding citizens, with legally obtained guns, who can't distinguish between good and bad times to use a gun.



No, because fleeing and accepting are not the only options, as I have already stated multiple times. Non-violent resistance and peaceful protest etc.



No, I would flee. If I couldn't flee, I would probably try to join the side of the government (unless the government were losing, as unlikely as that is).



Really? I can think of several examples where, had a country not armed itself against it's neighbours, it would have been overtaken by foreign powers and it's people likely slaughtered.



Well yeah, that's the point. I would only do it if I was drunk, because firing it is a stupid idea, and the drink impairs my cognitive reasoning, so I'm liable to make a stupid decision.



The only instance where you would be able to stop him killing your son is if he had incredibly slow reaction times and muscle fibres. Which, if he has managed to get into your house and grab your child in the same amount of time as you grabbing your gun, is highly improbable, to the point where it's affect of the mean result is negligible.

Let me do the maths. Chances are, in this instance, he's going to start his hand movements the moment he finishes his sentence. Lets give his brain a fairly appreciable 100 ms to start the impulses to tell his arm to move. Even at the high end of their speeds, 120m/s, and a long neural pathway to the arm of 2m, the impulse only takes around 17 ms to activate the muscles. Even with a weak bicep and a heavy arm, it'll accelerate at a rate of at least 0.5m/s/s. At this rate, the child will be as good as dead in about 600 ms. That's 737 ms in total. And since the human brain will produce an 'impulse explosion' if it is shut off (ie with a bullet), clenching the muscles for a further 40ms, and the arm will continue moving till the resistive forces of the neck stop it, you need to hit him in about 650ms for your child to have any hope of surviving.

You will need to be standing at least 3m away from him to have a clear shot at his head, so the end of his sentence reaches your ear in 9ms. It takes a further 4 ms to reach your brain. And then there's the analysis in the brain, it will take at least 200 ms to decipher sound information to language and a further 300ms for your brain to analyse this information and decide what to do. Then again, around 17ms to activate the arm. Pulling the trigger takes a surprisingly large amount of time, about 100ms. The gun then takes around 30ms to fire the bullet, and the bullet takes around 12ms (assuming it's a good gun) to reach the target. That's a total of 655 ms.

So yeah, it's pretty close, assuming a very slow criminal and a very fast victim. But as I said before, it's far more likely you have a fast criminal in this situation, so the chance of you saving your child, even with a perfect head shot is incredibly small.



Yes, I would. And if he is going to try to kill more people, he would try to go after me, at which point, since it is now me or him, sure, I would use the gun to fight him off, or anything else I had on hand, but not to kill him, to maim him. And a non-gun object would be preferable for that.



I've already explained what I meant with the number of deaths bit. And anyway, you disagreed with that point, so why are you using it to argue against me?



Yes, because I have yet to be convinced that it isn't.



Good. Then I'm forced to take the better option.



Could you elaborate on how exactly giving people the choose to make things worse, even if they are not forced to take said option, is useful? Because putting it in all-caps and tacking an exclamation point on the end does not constitute an argument.



I agree, but as I have already said, the instances where it is used as the right choice are far outweighed by the instances where it is used as the wrong choice.

Yes it is because the alternative choice is either worse or unobtainable.




Yes i am.




As much as i can stop anybody doing anything at anytime, yes.




How in the hell you can judge my morals if you are willing to do this? You understand what you are willing to do (even though its just hypothetical)?




And this is where we disagree, and we have been going in a circle for like 3 days now.




Mine or yours or anybodys happiness is not tied to morality. Happiness is a state of mind, an emotion caused by an action in the world. Certain things can make certain people happy even if we regard them as morally wrong (like the people i am trying to protect my self against with guns). We want to maximize human happiness on maximum number of people because society's function better that way. Not because it makes us feel moral.




And me, history and a lot of people agree with you. All i am saying that we have to sometimes resort into violent methods when yours fails and history shows yours fails a lot. That is why we should never ban guns.




Stupid thing to say in my opinion!



If it is done in the scale of whole country, generations after generations of people forced into practice that is factually harmful and deadly, i am happy to force my 'morals' into that system.

Anybody can torture them selves as much as they want in the privacy of their home, but if that is done systematically by the government and even if all the masses of people turned out to be masochists, hypothetical or not, i say that it is wrong. And a system that only produces one way of living or accepts only one style of living is faulty by design in the matter of humans living their life.

Please don't lecture me on morals on such stupid stuff.




I live in Finland where it is illegal for me to own a gun just for the sake of owning it. I would have to join into hunting club or something. And it is legally impossible to own those crazy ass automatic weapons you can get in states. Thankfully we don't have as many fucked up people as USA has for example.

If you are not for denying my right to own guns, then what the hell are you for? We have been debating for 3 days and the only thing you have said is anyway except guns is better.




I am for gun control the same way i am for car license control. In the context of USA and what i know about it, i would say there should be WAY more gun control in USA than there currently is. It is so stupid that you can buy guns without background checks in the gun fairs.




The same :) !




You either have the right or you don't. Are you for guns being banned from the people? Or are you for simply stricter controls every where than we currently have, meaning who can have them, what type of weapons they can have etc?




To say today they are not major help is wrong. To not use the most effective weapons against violent and/or oppressive government is stupid.

I am not saying being passive and peacefully protesting can not be the most effective way to fight, it can be, i am saying if you do not have weapons and the peaceful protesting doesn't help and fails, you are fucked in the worst kind of way.




So the majority has to suffer because of the mistakes of minority? And i am talking about a very series minority in terms of percentages.




And i have already stated that non-violent resistance, peaceful protests and passiveness can be the very reasons for slavery and/or death.




Again, you think you are lecturing me on morals, yet you are basically willing to do anything just to survive, you are willing to join the enemies side so you can survive. If you really mean that then you don't have any morals to speak of or to lecture others. If there is nothing you are willing to stand for then there is nothing you have to judge others.




I am not talking about the arming of the governments army against other countries, i am talking about the arming of individuals against the government and the individuals neighbors.

So you support the arming of your government? Why not use your method of peaceful protest on the country level? You understand that people would have been slaughtered, yet you don't seem to understand that people are being slaughtered because they are being denied their right to defend themselves.




Then you are the flaw.





So the better thing to do is just let him die and not even try like you said?




It is pretty sickening how you try to lecture me on my morals, yet you admit you would let your son die.




No, it would not be. You do not have to use deadly force with the gun.




You are the one who should also disagree with that point. The number of human deaths in most scenarios is relevant.




You assume having no gun is the better option.




Again you assume people are making things worse when the reality is they can choose to make things better.




In your opinion maybe. I say it again, everything you can accomplish without the right to bear arms, can be accomplished with the right to bear arms.

Land of the free...yeah, right.

I support the ownership of guns by citizens with no prior felony convictions, but i dont think that people need to own automatic weapons. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, all fine.

Firstly, even if it is a worse choice, it is still an option. Secondly, you have yet to give me an example where I have not refuted the use of guns being the best option.



Then can you support your claim with an instance of where non-violent resistance has lead to slavery and or death?



Exactly. So you should try to prevent people causing, either intentionally or unintentionally, deaths with legal guns as much as you would try to prevent someone using chemical weapons.



It's simple. I listed (some of) the reasons why doing it is obviously not the best thing to do. In a hypothetical situation where it is the best option, none of the reasons we don't do it can exist, and therefore, by definition, there is no reason not to do it. There are no negative consequences, for anybody.



The reason we think things are morally wrong are because we feel it causes unhappiness to ourselves, or other people. We think murder is wrong because it causes the victims friends unhappiness (and that could be us). We think theft is wrong because it causes the victim unhappiness (and that could be us). So we stop these things happening to protect our own and others happiness, because as you said, we want to maximize the number of people who are happy. That is all morality is, a way to protect our own happiness.



Perhaps so. But has there ever been a case where all methods of non-violent methods were used before either the situation was solved or they resorted to violence? I doubt it, because people are impatient and move onto civil war before trying the more likely non-violent methods, simply because they think it will be quicker. I think they are wrong. In addition, unlike non-violent resistance, it is very difficult to change tactics once you start a civil war. Furthermore, there are a large number of cases where violent resistance has also not worked.



Then you are self-righteous. If a system makes all the people involved in it happy, why is their any need to change it? Additionally, so what if it's factually deadly? So is euthanasia, but an increasing number of countries are legalizing it.



Cool. I like Finland. Hunting is pretty big there, isn't it? And maybe you don't have as many fucked up people as America because of the gun laws. You've got to admit, you hear a lot less about such people from countries with gun control than places without it. But then again, the same could be said about places that aren't America compared to America. In fact 15 of the worlds worst 24 mass killing in the past 50 years were in America.



I'm trying to convince you (or other people, more likely) that you don't need that right. That way, I don't need to deny you that 'right'. You will reject it by yourself. In other words, doing what I think is right whilst causing as little discontent as possible.



Tell me about it. In Alabama, for example, pretty much once you're old enough you can buy a gun, so long as you haven't already done a crime, and walk about with it openly in public. Which is just stupid.



That's cuz we're both smart people :D



I guess in the end, I'm for the banning of all lethal guns. So for instance, you could own a tazer or a gun that fires tranquillizers darts (low voltage/dosage), but not anything that fires live bullets. That way, you can still use it to protect yourself or others, but you have a much lower chance of killing someone, either by accident or on purpose.

There may be some exceptions though, for instance as a historical piece, or to rent for hunting on licensed properties. Those sorts of things. And of course everyone would need a thorough background check before being allowed to handle a live gun.



In what way are they the most effective weapons? Do you think the government is more afraid of the untrained civilian rebels with rifles and handguns, or the untrained civilian rebels with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles? Which will be do any damage at all to the heavy armor of the military?



Is it a minority? Because all the statistics I've seen suggest otherwise. In every piece of evidence I've seen, at least 60% of gun-owners have been involved in a shooting incident. But then again, observation bias, so show me the studies.



Just because I'm 'joining their side' doesn't mean I'm not going to try to change thing. Like Suzaku Kururugi in Code Geass, I'll try to change the system from the inside. Or something along those lines. Maybe anonymously encourage a coup by the military. It's a lot lower risk to myself then fighting or protest, whilst at the same time, I can keep my moral integrity at least somewhat intact by trying to stop the oppression.

And there isn't much in this world I would be willing to stand up for, to the point where I would die for it. But that's mainly because I'm a huge physical coward, rather than any lack of morals.



The problem with arming yourself against the government, is that unlike when countries arm themselves against each other, is that you'll never be able to reach the same level of armament as the government, and so doing so may in fact just provoke the government into acting against you, as a sort of pre-emptive strike against a civil war.



Yes. Arming yourself as a country is a fine, because war between countries is a viable option. The level of armament is on a much closer level, so the chance of victory is not much higher. Additionally, all the people fighting will have been fully trained in their weapons, and so be much more effective therewith.

Do you think having the right to defend yourself stops your people being slaughtered? You pointed out yourself, that MLK and the black people had the right to bear arms during the fight for civil rights, but yet there were many instances of lethal attacks on black people.



Yeah, that's why I don't tend to drink too much. And why I would never mix drink and weaponry.



Yes, because that choice has the higher probability of resulting in no additional deaths.



I'd only let them die because it was the best option in regards to minimizing the amount of suffering the incident caused. I wouldn't be happy about. In fact I'd probably be distraught about it to the point where I would cry myself to sleep for the next month or so. But I would be confident that I made the right choice.



Just because I don't have to, doesn't mean I won't either accidentally kill him (which would be incredibly easy), or be overcome with loss for my son and try to kill. Either way, it would just make me feel worse and cause suffering to more people. There's a much lower probability of accidental death with something like, say, a bat of some kind.



As you should recall, I pointed out that I agreed that the number of deaths was relevant if you're choosing between 2 non-zero numbers of deaths, and that you had simply misunderstood what I was saying.



Yes, I have already made that assertion and backed it up with a valid argument.



Again, I have made the assertion that it is more common for people to make things worse when they use the right than to make things better.



And I say again, that statement in itself is not enough to justify having the right to bear arms if said right is also the cause of suffering in many instances.

I have never claimed the use of guns being 'the best' option to solve anything. I am claiming it is an option we need to have when everything else fails.




Jews in Nazi Germany during WW2.
Civilians in North-Korea today.




Yes, i am for more restrictions on gun use, i am for more gun control. I am not for banning guns all together. I am for banning chemical weapons not only from individuals, but also from governments.




If morality is nothing more than a 'feeling,' then it doesn't really mean anything. What is moral to you, maybe is not moral to me, morality is just ones own opinion.

Happiness and sadness are caused by events or actions in the world. Certain actions can make us happy, but those things have nothing to do with 'morality'. Getting a new job can make you happy, but getting a new job is not moral or have anything to do with morality. Or do you think it is?




What about the people who think it is morally right to murder certain people, like some muslims do? What about people who think it is morally right to steal?

Our society is build around what functions best for the society, not what is moral.




Yes, because society functions better that way.




Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). A right action can make us unhappy, a wrong action can make us happy. Like i said before, happiness is not tied to morality.




I don't know all the non-violent methods so i don't know.




The are many nations and groups of people who have tried the "more likely" non-violent methods and payed a heavy price for it.




Nonetheless, the right to bear arms should never be taken away from the people.




Countries, groups, people or parents who force children into one way of living or thinking are self-righteous. Countries, groups, people or parents who tell their children that being different from their way is wrong are self-righteous. If i want to give those children an alternative or fight for their right to have it, that does not make me self-righteous. Any person who has reached adulthood can choose what ever they want to do to themselves.




If such system existed, i am all for it.




I claim if a person enjoys painful torture and enjoys hes or her own death as a result of that torture, there is something mentally wrong with that person. And i claim no person borns to enjoy those things. There are people who are masochists, but that is not the same thing what is happening in North-Korea.

You yourself listed things that made rape not the best way to teach children about rape. What if those children enjoy or like that teaching method? Am i self-righteous for being against it?




Some years ago we had two school shootings back to back years, i think 10 students died on each or something like that. I think we have same gun laws now we had back then.

Maybe we don't have as many fucked up people because we have free universal health care and free schools.




It is much more about culture how fucked up people are than if they have access to guns or not. Illegal gun trade happens all around the world.




If you convince me or others of not needing that right, what difference does it make if the right exists or not. If you convince me, then i am not gonna use that right.

Then only civilians who have guns are the people who get them illegally.




If i reject it by myself, again what difference does it make if the right exists or not. If i reject it, i am not going to use it.

Then only civilians who have guns are the people who get them illegally.




That is not a bad idea, but the most important reason i want to have the right to bear arms is to fight against the government when such time is needed.




In a way that every adult in the world is able to carry one and use one.




Anti-tanks and anti-aircrafts do more damage to the heavy armor of the military.

Do you know how to use anti-tanks and anti-aircrafts?
Does you father know? Does your neighbor know?
Do you know anybody who knows how to use anti-tanks and anti-aircrafts?




Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year in USA in 2011.

Total is 10.3 deaths
Homicides is 3.6 deaths
Suicides is 6.3 deaths
Unintentional is 0.30 deaths
Undetermined is 0.10 deaths.

This shows only deaths in USA, but unintentional and undetermined deaths combined happened to 0.4 people out of 100,000. Yes, i would argue it is a series minority out of the law-abiding-citizens who make mistakes.

When it comes to shooting incidents that did not have casualties, i do not know those statistics, but in those at least you live and you learn (hopefully).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate




That sounds so believable and realistic that i am almost willing to take your word for it.

If you are not able to change your government before it starts to oppress its people, what makes you think you can change it after?




Standing up for your morals does not mean you have to die for them (some people might disagree).




So you should just give up when government oppresses you? Lets assume you have done all the non-violent methods you say people can do and all those fail. What then?

Should Finland stop having an army because our country will never be able to reach the same level of armament as Russia can?

If Finland joined NATO or started talking about joining NATO, Russia could see it as preemptive strike against it, should we therefor not join it?




War between countries is a viable option? Is it really? If Russia invaded Ukraine today or Finland, neither country would have a chance.




Yes it can if you use that right.




They chose their methods, and suffered the consequences of it.




How do you count that probability? You gave me the long example with funny math equations and assume that the person who has a gun is more likely to result in more deaths? It is sad you are more worried about the killers life than you are of your 'sons'.




It is sad you are more worried about the killers life than you are of your 'sons'.




It is sad you are more worried about the killers life than you are of your 'sons'.





There is a much higher probability of your own death if you hold something like a bat.




Your argument is an a assumption.




The right to drive a car causes suffering in many instances, should that right be taken away from everybody?

Or maybe just from the people who are responsible for the suffering? I argue that the same type of reasoning/logic should be applied to gun ownership.

If it isn't the best option, and everything else has failed, than that means the best option has failed. If the best option has failed, then a lesser option has a very low possibility of success.

And even so, that's not the main problem here. The problem is that people will jump to violence before they have given other, superior options a fair run, because when people are part of a herd, they become stupid (see bandwagon effect).



As I recall, the Jews were oppressed in Germany long before they attempted any sort of resistance. And any who attempted armed resistance were almost invariably killed or imprisoned. Subterfuge and passive resistance resulted in far fewer deaths.



So far as we know, there have been no organized resistance movements in North-Korea. The extent of most resistance is individuals trying to smuggle information in and out of North-Korea, and obviously people trying to escape. And this has only been going on recently, long after the government began oppressing its people.



That's a very respectable view. And certainly in places where there is a deep rooted culture of gun ownership, it would probably be more feasible to bring in softer regulations at first and tighten them up over time, rather than just go from little to no control to outright banning them.



That is exactly right. And that is why you shouldn't try to force your morals onto another society. Because they may see things differently to you, and both will be 'right' in the sense that neither of you are 'wrong', given the subjectivity of morality.



Yes, you make a good point, so let me change the wording of my argument. Morality is to do with the preservation of our happiness. So whilst getting a job has no morality attached to it, we may think it is immoral for someone to fire us, particularly if we dislike/disagree with the reasons why they fired us.



They have reasons for that. Muslims, or more specifically, Jihadists (and other violent Islamic groups), believe fervently that theirs is the only path to God, and that basically it is their 'holy duty' to 'struggle' against the 'enemies of Islam'. Basically, they give little to no value to the happiness of people they consider enemies, and feel it preserves their chances of getting into their afterlife, and preserves the happiness of their own people.

A similar thing could be said for people who steal; they may believe that the benefits for themselves or others outweighs the repercussions for others. And in some cases, it is certainly a justifiable stance.



Actually isn't it both? They're basically the same thing aren't they? Society works best when the rules of the society pander to the morals of the majority. That's why different societies have different laws and cultures, because of differing moral views changing how it works best.



So why do we do things that are right if they cause us unhappiness? Is it not because it preserves the happiness of other people? And are not the wrong actions that cause us happiness wrong because they cause others unhappiness?



In those situations, I would argue that either they were incorrect in deciding which were 'more likely' to be useful, or that using violence would have just made it worse (or both).



Sure, wanting to give children a right to an alternative is not self-righteous. But trying to force a country to give it's children such rights is. You can try to convince them to do it, that's fine, but once you try to forcibly change the system of a different peoples, you're taking it to far.



Well, that was the type of system you suggested in your hypothetical situation.



There's a whole other conversation here about paraphilias. For a start, most people with sexual fetishes (including homosexuality) could be described as having something mentally 'wrong' with them. Furthermore, there's actually a vast majority of research to suggest the development of paraphilias is prenatal (although not necessarily genetic). And I know that we're not talking about sex here, but the same rules apply.



No, but you would be self-righteous if you tried to force a system where it happened to stop (unless there was internal resistance to it in the system). I mean, there are still many reasons not to do it: physical trauma is still a very real possibility, as well as the 'teachers' potential psychological teachers, and encouraging rape in more 'real' scenarios. But if there is a system where it happens, and everybody is okay with it, then that's fine, if you don't like it, don't take part in that system.

Plus, if they enjoy it, it's not really rape is it? At least in the literal sense. Not that that gets rid of the other reasons. And it's also worth noting that there are instances where you can be self-righteous and still do 'good' deeds.



Yeah, there are a lot of factors to differentiate Finland and America. Although it's worth noting that of those 24 worst mass shooting in the past 50 years, 6 were in Europe, and 1 each in the middle east, Asia and Australia. So that means in south American and African countries, where the illegal gun market is very big, there were no mass murders at all. Interesting stuff.



True, but then, look at for instance Pakistan. The illegal gun industry is massive in Pakistan, and they have very few mass murders (although probably lots of accidental death). But that may be because lot's of the 'fucked up' people aim their attacks more at people of other nations than their own.



If I convince you that you don't need it, then the benefits of having a gun are gone, and all that's left is the negatives. Which means you will want to get rid of it



True, but a lot of criminals really only want guns as a sort of insurance, rather than to actually kill someone.



Well, I'm sure you know my stance on that. I maintain that having guns is ineffective against the government and military.



Even aside from obvious exceptions to that, I imagine that there are a large number of people who are so bad with guns they would cause more harm to their allies than the enemy. Not everybody can shoot straight, or even stand up whilst shooting a gun. There are enough videos on the internet to prove that point.



Certainly, but that will likely be the main weaponry of the military.



I actually know two. But one is military, and the other is ex-military. But I do have a laptop, and an entire internet at my fingertips. With the right technological skill, and enough patience, it would certainly possible to find some instructions. And even so, most guns being supplied to rebels in a civil war will come with at least an instruction manual, and if you're lucky, a demonstration.



There is one problem I have with the source of this data. Nowhere does it say any of these statistics are confined to legally owned guns. So whilst the percentage of firearm deaths which are unintentional is very low, there is no way to tell from the source how high the percentage of legal firearm deaths are unintentional.



I would certainly try to do those things if I joined the enemy, but how successful I would be is a completely different matter. Well, quite simply, after the government starts oppressing people, there will be a lot more people willing to resist it, and it would be easier to start a coup, or subvert those at the top.



Certainly. I'm generally quite active in standing up for things I feel strongly about (like hentai). But I can be quick to back down if there's a threat of physical violence. I'm basically a massive wimp.



Flee, or join the enemy side (if possible). Or if you're against either of those, then sure, fight. But at this point, there will be plenty of opportunity to get decent weaponry, either from foreign aid or international gun-smugglers.



No because Russia is not the only country that might invade. Norway or Sweden invading is something where you're much more on equal level. Although maybe you've got the advantage if the Finnish people display the same Sisu they have in past conflicts.



If they feel the risk of Russian invasion is too great, or that there NATO allies wouldn't help, then no, probably not. Avoiding war with a superior country is a key part of political and literal survival.



I think that depends on the scale of the invasion. If it's too small, then the chances of the smaller country winning is high. If it's too big, other countries will leap to help (mainly America), because very few people want another soviet union. They're already getting funny looks about their involvement in the Ukrainian conflict.

And sometimes you have to engage in war to defend your country. Take the six-days war. The president of Egypt is quoted as having said “our basic goal is the destruction of Israel”. Under those circumstances, you have to fight. Although in this example I think Isreal took there counterstrike a little to far.



As I've said before, if the government truly wants to slaughter you, they're not going to give you a chance to use any rights you have.



But they would have suffered more had they used the right.



I never said that I wasn't worried about my son's life. It's just that seeing that his death is inevitable, I have to then consider the action which will result in the least additional death.

Here's how I count the probability. He will either attack me or not. I can either attack him or not. If I attack him, whatever he does is irrelevant, at least one more person will be injured and possibly die (me or him). If I don't attack him, and he attacks me, again, at least one more person dies. If neither of us attack each other, then no-one else dies. That's 3 out of 4 options resulting in at least one more potential death. Only if I don't attack them is there a probability of no more deaths.



I don't know about that. Guns can be quite difficult to use, especially in close combat, which he will try to initiate if he has a knife. The ideal weapon would be a taser.



Which assumption is this?



No, because the benefits of cars outweigh the potential negative impacts. And even so, there are people who will never be able to learn to drive, because their risk of causing accidental damage to people is deemed too high.

And yes, that is another thing to add to my ideas for gun control. If there is an incident with a gun (a hired hunting gun for example), then, unless it is deemed as out of the shooters control completely, the shooter should be banned from guns for a few months, and have to take a class in how to shoot (or something like that) before he can go hunting again.

Yes, when plan A fails we go with the plan B.




Ok, is that good enough reason not to try it? I guess the last option is to die.




When it is a matter of life and death, slavery and freedom, resorting to violence can be the superior option.




That is what can happen when you don't fight for your rights or for better rights.




Also those who did nothing where invariably killed or imprisoned. Around 6 million people died due to passive resistance.




Because it is already too late, and to some extent impossible or very unlikely. They are living the time when their only options are either trying to flee, join the enemy, accept their circumstance and die or hope that outside countries help them.




I simply cannot fathom how this can be the 'best' or 'superior' option for a nation of millions. Had they had their weapons and had they fought against their government in a armed resistance, this countrys people would be in much better condition.




I am not forcing my morals onto anybody. In the hypothetical example i gave (North-Koreans 'liking' their current way of life) i was not trying to deny persons right to their own happiness, i was trying to save the next generation from being forced to live in culture or society that is harmful.




It seriously depends who you ask, i personally would not use the word 'moral' or the concept of morality in that context.




That is also why some societies work better than others, why others succeed better than others. Pandering the majority is not a good thing if the majority is wrong, be it morals, justice or anything.




Every single action on planet earth can cause happiness to some people, there for every single action is moral to do. It is a paradox to say building a happy society is moral, when part of that very society might be happy if that society was destroyed, meaning building and destroying that same society would be moral.

This is why i try to avoid using the word moral and morality.




I would argue that if you believe using violence and/or guns is wrong 100% of the time, you would rather choose to be killed than kill to survive.

I am against that type of ideology and the reason why we never see eye to eye on this.




I was not trying to deny persons right to their own happiness, i was trying to save the next generation from being forced to live in culture or society that is harmful.




Far from it, all i suggested was that the population currently 'likes' their lives in North-Korea, other than that the situation was the same as it is now, and in a militarised state like North-Korea, i was only trying to save the next generation from being forced to live in culture or society that is harmful.




Trying to save the next generation from harmful society (doesn't matter if the current populations likes it) is not self-righteous. Forcing the next generation to live under that rule is self-righteous.




In some South American and African countries there is some of the highest per capita murder rates in the world. And to say there is no mass murders in Africa is simply a lie, Boko Haram which operates in Africa does mass murders almost on monthly bases.




I don't know any statistics so i don't know. Besides it is not about the number of mass murders, it is more about the overall number of people killed by illegal guns. (Maybe your point was that mass murderers buy their guns legally?)




Hypothetically, yes.




So law-biding-citizens buying this same insurance legally, under government supervision and under strict regulations is some how bad or even worse?




Yes, it was a generalisation, sorry about that. But still your 'large number of people' is in reality very small percentage of people i am talking about.




You brought that up, not me.




With the right instructions and training methods and enough patience, your 'large number of people' who are just bad with guns can be trained to use guns properly.




Then maybe you should show some statistics you have seen, the pieces of evidence that "at least 60% of gun-owners have been involved in a shooting incident". Maybe you should "show so me the studies".




That is why we have to fight for our rights now so we don't have to wait for the government to oppress us before we fight.




The same way North-Koreans are getting 'plenty of opportunities' from foreign aid and from international gun-smugglers? The same way people in Syra are getting 'plenty of opportunities' from foreign aid and from international gun-smugglers?

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 good thing?




The government is not the only enemy i might need my gun for. My neighbor or a gang banger attacking is something where i would be much more on equal level.




And sometimes you have to engage in violence to survive.

If you understand that exact same point i have been saying all this time about right to bear arms in countries, i don't understand why you pretend the same point doesn't apply in individuals!




If the government wants to make its own people extinct and does this, then that is the fault of the people for 1. voting such government into power, 2. giving government so much power over the military that it can use it against its own people.

Yes, corruption can make those possible, but that is why we have to fight for our rights even when it is not a matter of life and death, and if violence is the only way we can do it, so be it.




Yes, possibly.




In which scenario is he most likely to attack you and in which is he least?

1. You have a gun in your hand.
2. You have a bat in your hand.
3. You have a taser in your hand.
4. You have nothing in your hands.




Just because you don't know how to handle guns, doesn't mean the rest of us don't know.




That having no gun is always the best or better option.




I argue the benefit of right to bear arms outweigh the current negative impacts of that right.

This whole argument is getting out of control.

The main problem with anti-gun people is that most of them don't even know what exactly they are trying to control or ban. All of these recent bans target pure cosmetics and do not have the back up of statistics or expert information.

The most egregious example is that anti gun legislator seek to ban guns like these

but actually doesn't touch guns like these


Performance wise, these guns are exactly the same(half of the guns are exactly the same but have a different stock and chasis) but the bottom ones are not affected while the top ones are.

From where I'm from, gun control makes more harm than good. See, we're a resourceful folk that could make something that can kill out of garbage. A metal pipe armed with a nail launched by a strong rubber/metal spring is practically how our small time criminals kill people. The cops could only rely on cctv footage and manhunt operations only to find the perp in another region after getting reported by a bounty hunter; pathetic, ain't it?

From my point of view, it's just something they make because they're either too lazy to give chase or they slacked off in registering everyone hence difficulty in investigations.

I live in a gun loving state, so I doubt anything will change. But who knows, it's mental health that needs to be look at as well. The system is terrible.

Are you fucking serious? I'll fill out the likely possibilities (excluding any spouse):

a. Through some Disney fucking miracle, no one dies and you all go your separate ways. Complete bullshit.
b. One person dies. (Very unlikely in this situation)
i. Your son; the intruder escapes as YOU DO NOTHING.
ii. Your son; but the intruder is caught by the police (somehow).
iii. The intruder.
c. Two people die. (Probable occurrence given the situation)
i. Your son and the intruder.
ii. Your son and you who wouldn't kill your son's murderer.
d. You, your son, and the intruder die (somehow). (Highly unlikely)

Of all these, which would you prefer? Would you honestly allow your son's murderer to escape so he /may/ commit another crime, possibly killing more people, or would you terminate the piece of shit and eliminate any possibility that he'll do it again? Seriously, a simple yes or no would be sufficient instead of you squirming way out of with exceptions.

You would allow someone to harm your blood and not take action against them when you can clearly deal with it? That's naive gibberish.

Additionally, you live in this black and white world where using a gun is always baaaad. There are times to be idealistic; there are times to be compromising; and there are times to be peaceable, but it's quixotic to believe that all the time is the right time to be those things. Shrewdness and prudence is essential. Just reading your shite is nauseous.

*bites nails*

I live in a country with Gun Control Laws.

Do you think that avoid peoples to kill each other?

Of course not, guns ain't the only weapons we got at our disposal. Knives, baseball bat, a car, everything can be used as offensive weapon.

The only limits are your strength and your imagination.

And yes I think Guns should be controlled for civilians, at least stopping from selling military equipment and psychological testing for the whole family, instead of only the user.
Also, doing publicity for prevention, a small child must not be able to touch and use a weapon, this is the parent's fault for any bad event that occurs.
If you have the urge to buy a gun, at least avoid any other people than you from using it. It's would be quite the irony to be murdered by your own weapon, don't you think?

This is my most neutral opinion.

*bites nails again* [size=10]Likhos, are you masochistic? I still wonder...[/h]

My first take on gun control is that some guns are so heavy duty that the average joe really doesnt need it. I dont know of anyone who would need a minigun to protect from home intruders, sort of thing.

It looks like sometimes people with poor mental health will go around shooting guns and hurting people. some sort of control to make an attempt at not allowing people with these tendencies to purchase and own guns so easily would be nice.

Mostly I think that gun control is necessary if we are not going to shove gun safety down the throats of everyone. more gun safety and not allowing those with mental breakdown or violent tendencies would make strict gun control less needed.

I dont like the argument "well, criminals can always buy guns illegally so gun control would only inhibit the good guys". thats just saying well whats the point of making a law when people can break it.

There was a brief movement to make guns with fingerprint scanners so that only you could shoot your own gun. Pro gun guys then sent death threats to the pro gun guy who came up with the idea. he dropped the plans to produce the technology for fear of him and his family being gunned down.

most countries dont have a problem with school shootings. america seems to struggle with solving this issue. bullet proof blankets for grade schoolers are not addressing the actual problem.

I feel I was too long winded

Why?
People have individual rights whether they live in a family setting or not. It is wrong to demand other people to take psychological tests if somebody else is getting a gun license or buying a gun.

Assuming you think this because the gun might be passed around in the family?
Should everybody in the family have a driving license before anybody can buy or have car?
Should it be illegal for parents to have alcohol in the house if their kids are not old enough to drink them selves?

The responsibility of the gun is with who ever is getting the gun. He/she has the responsibility of making sure nobody else gets the gun in the family the same way an individual has the responsibility to make sure his/her friends or who ever is visiting his/her house doesn't have access to the gun.

Security measure, if you got someone mentally unstable in the family you'd like to avoid him getting around anything lethal.

Of course this massive testing would be useless if the owner doesn't live with the rest of his family. He'd still be subjected to it, though.