Reply to Re: School shooting in Connecticut
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
December 18th 2012, 03:05 AM
shevek
Have you considered that police can't always get there in time?
Yes, I have; I mentioned it in my post: It's bad luck if you happen to be the first one where the shooter breaks into, but then still you are safer without a gun in your house than with one. You are saying that you don't care if you get shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're a hero. But you're also saying that you don't care if your neighbor gets shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're forcing everyone to be a hero, and not everyone is capable of that...
Huge amounts of damage can be inflicted in that amount of time, physical or financial.
Yes. And with guns even more so. This doesn't at all support giving guns to people. With stricter gun control, most regular burglars won't have guns, and you'll be safer even when they do break into your house. They'll have more chance of staying alive, too, which you seem to consider a downside (I don't, by the way). So it comes down to what I just wrote: do you want him to die so much that you will risk dying yourself?
Also, if we outlawed guns, do you really think it would stop criminals from obtaining them?
That depends on which criminal you're talking about. We don't have to be so hypothetical; in large parts of the worlds guns are outlawed, so we can simply see shat the result is. As has been written multiple times here, organized criminals will still have guns, but they will mostly use them on each other. Simple robbers who think they can get some easy money will indeed be stopped from getting a gun. And the police knows them anyway. If anyone reports they were waving a gun around at any time, the police will search their house and arrest them for having it.
Lastly, alcohol and cigarette kill more people then guns.
Yes, but there is one big difference there: with alcohol, cigarettes and unhealthy food, people kill themselves, not others (well, with cigarettes this is debatable, but then I also support our laws which forbid smoking in public indoor places).
With traffic you do kill others, but there's a big difference, too: the driving itself is useful. We don't want to make it impossible to do useful things. But owning a gun is not useful in any way (for most people). I just asked for even one example and I didn't get one so far. There were two attempts, but they don't work:
JFK: I know this was a joke, but I'll respond anyway: this was probably a person who felt the government (or at least the president) was doing improper things, and he had to defend himself. It didn't work (the government didn't do different things after it), and it shows more that guns should be illegal, than that they shouldn't (even though this incident might not have been avoidable; such a determined person will probably be able to get a gun anyway).
A police state (with or without Godwin's law): If you've looked at the police states in history, there are several things they all make sure of: First, they will not upset everyone at once (so there will not be a revolution); this is mostly a matter of propaganda, which in the USA does seem to be a problem indeed. But guns will not stop it. And second, when they will arrest people (one at a time), they will hugely overpower them. Police state aren't stopped by citizens owning guns. If you think that you can defend your home against the national army (with or without guns), keep dreaming. But don't keep your dream so real that lots of people get killed because of it.
So my question remains: name me one realistic example where a normal person should own a gun for defending himself.
I may not sound like it, but if you give me a good example, you may actually convince me. I am hoping that you let yourself be convinced as well if you realize that you cannot find such an example.
Yes, I have; I mentioned it in my post: It's bad luck if you happen to be the first one where the shooter breaks into, but then still you are safer without a gun in your house than with one. You are saying that you don't care if you get shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're a hero. But you're also saying that you don't care if your neighbor gets shot, as long as you can shoot a criminal. You're forcing everyone to be a hero, and not everyone is capable of that...
Huge amounts of damage can be inflicted in that amount of time, physical or financial.
Yes. And with guns even more so. This doesn't at all support giving guns to people. With stricter gun control, most regular burglars won't have guns, and you'll be safer even when they do break into your house. They'll have more chance of staying alive, too, which you seem to consider a downside (I don't, by the way). So it comes down to what I just wrote: do you want him to die so much that you will risk dying yourself?
Also, if we outlawed guns, do you really think it would stop criminals from obtaining them?
That depends on which criminal you're talking about. We don't have to be so hypothetical; in large parts of the worlds guns are outlawed, so we can simply see shat the result is. As has been written multiple times here, organized criminals will still have guns, but they will mostly use them on each other. Simple robbers who think they can get some easy money will indeed be stopped from getting a gun. And the police knows them anyway. If anyone reports they were waving a gun around at any time, the police will search their house and arrest them for having it.
Lastly, alcohol and cigarette kill more people then guns.
Yes, but there is one big difference there: with alcohol, cigarettes and unhealthy food, people kill themselves, not others (well, with cigarettes this is debatable, but then I also support our laws which forbid smoking in public indoor places).
With traffic you do kill others, but there's a big difference, too: the driving itself is useful. We don't want to make it impossible to do useful things. But owning a gun is not useful in any way (for most people). I just asked for even one example and I didn't get one so far. There were two attempts, but they don't work:
JFK: I know this was a joke, but I'll respond anyway: this was probably a person who felt the government (or at least the president) was doing improper things, and he had to defend himself. It didn't work (the government didn't do different things after it), and it shows more that guns should be illegal, than that they shouldn't (even though this incident might not have been avoidable; such a determined person will probably be able to get a gun anyway).
A police state (with or without Godwin's law): If you've looked at the police states in history, there are several things they all make sure of: First, they will not upset everyone at once (so there will not be a revolution); this is mostly a matter of propaganda, which in the USA does seem to be a problem indeed. But guns will not stop it. And second, when they will arrest people (one at a time), they will hugely overpower them. Police state aren't stopped by citizens owning guns. If you think that you can defend your home against the national army (with or without guns), keep dreaming. But don't keep your dream so real that lots of people get killed because of it.
So my question remains: name me one realistic example where a normal person should own a gun for defending himself.
I may not sound like it, but if you give me a good example, you may actually convince me. I am hoping that you let yourself be convinced as well if you realize that you cannot find such an example.
