The Right to Bear Arms
- Thread starter gurusan
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
I am safer because nutter 3 doors down can't buy a gun, then if we could both buy guns.
Remember statistically in the states most people that are shot, are shot with their own weapons that have been taken off them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
True or false - approximately 1.2% of Americans will be shot dead within their lifetimes?
You may think that stat is perfectly acceptable. But most people don't.
Also if you allow handguns 'for defence', where is the limit? .50 cal? Grenades? Landmines on my property? RPGs? Nerve agent?
(ps please don't come out with the old classics : ie
1) But someone can kill with a pen, so should we ban pens?
2) Bicycles are also dangerous and due to accidents people can die on them, so should they be banned? No? Then why guns?
3) It's society's fault there are 30,000 gun murders in America each year, if they didn't use guns they'd just kill each other with .. er .. 'knives/baseball bats/fluffy kittens' instead and the stat wouldn't change ..
As they're naff and have been debunked 4004 times on every gun discussion forum in the world!
)
Last edited:
I don't see there being a need for the owning of firearms to be a right, but I do think there should be the possibility for someone to own a weapon if there is a need rather than having a weapon just for the sake of having a weapon.
What I do like though is Americas 'castle doctrine', which is all about defending property you own. In this country if someone breaks into your house there is not much that can be done without you getting taken to court for harming the person. There are even lots of states in the US that have specific bits of law that protect a house owner from any sort of legal action against them from thieves who get injured. I think that if someone breaks into your house and you annouce your intent to shoot him and he doesn't leave, that it should be perfectly within your rights to just shoot him.
What I do like though is Americas 'castle doctrine', which is all about defending property you own. In this country if someone breaks into your house there is not much that can be done without you getting taken to court for harming the person. There are even lots of states in the US that have specific bits of law that protect a house owner from any sort of legal action against them from thieves who get injured. I think that if someone breaks into your house and you annouce your intent to shoot him and he doesn't leave, that it should be perfectly within your rights to just shoot him.
I need to read a bit more on the subject to make a statement to be honest. But from what I've read there were some serious mistakes made, and Guantanamo Bay needs to be addressed...we need to go after the perps and do justice.
The nutter 3 doors down can buy a gun though, if he is that much of a nutter that he wants one to shoot people. The problem with laws is that they only limit the law-abiding.
Citation needed? I'm guessing you're using the suicide/accident/homocide figures, rather than the much more honest and comparable homocide figures to present this 'fact'. Especially as you've already committed several gun control fallacies along the way.
Is it this fallacious argument per chance?
http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
Like I said, the suicide fallacy in all its glory.
I refer again to this link.
http://old.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml
We also have an attempt to create a strawman with other examples, despite the fact that they haven't been mentioned, and the same usage without harm criteria does not apply in anything like the same way.
I wish I could say I expected better...
and this means what exactly?
i didn't realise gitmo was all about doing dodgy ice cream salesmen
go after the perps and do justice? yehaaaw!
Yes, I think you have some more reading to do..
they tried, and failed misserably at that. Even obama is stuttering on the issue.
because, they actually have very few terrorists in their hands.
This post is so full of misinformation it's hilarious. You certainly can defend yourself and your property in the UK without risk of successful legal action against you. Furthermore, even the states with the strongest castle doctrine do not protect you from any legal action. Indeed, Tony Martin would have been sent down (or more likely sent to the chair) in Texas for his action, and Texas has some of the strongest castle doctrine laws in the USA...
forget it, stop medling in what they don't understand - the middle east.
they are getting taken for a ride.
stop acting like dicks, people may stop trying to blow you up.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 4,080
- Location
- London
Aha -- another good ol' classic:
The 'but anyone could buy a gun if they wanted to' invention. It's just not true. Even the hash dealer that lived below me didn't have a clue where to get a gun from! Most/virtually all UK criminals don't have a clue where to get a shooter from.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...s-They-Are-Rented-Out/Article/201001215518549
I'm afraid this isn't 'Guy Ritchie' land. You don't wander into a pub in the East End and talk to the guy with the tats and he leads you out the back and shows you an AK47 on sale for a monkey!!
If you try and buy a shooter chances are it'll be a sting anyway.
So, any other reasons you can think of? Are you going to play the 'it actually makes you safer' card .. thats always funny .. then we wander back and forth saying the word 'Ketterman' a few times.
(Think Dolph .. You want to burgle someone's house to steal their PS3.
1) They are definately not holding a firearm. You break in, and nick the PS3, then go home and play FIFA 10 on it.
or in Dolph land its (2) They may or probably are holding their 'defensive firearm' .. you HAVE TO take along your own weapon to defend yourself. If you see them when nicking the PS3, SHOOT, or they will shoot you. I'm afraid yup effectively the home owners potential to have a weapon turned your nicking of a ps3 from a burglery to a murder. And don't say 'Nope they'd be too scared to come for the PS3' as in the States home intrusion crimes haven't gone down in any way whatsoever -- but of course the intruders HAVE TO carry guns to compete. And suddenly surprise surprise you've got a homicide rate through the ceiling.)
Last edited:
You are protected from legal action unless you use excessive force, such as deadly force on a subdued, retreating or surrendering person.
Or you go to continent and just smuggle a gun back
Way to fail to answer any criticism of your misuse of figures
What evidence can you present that the gun ban did anything for either gun crime or overall violent crime rates in the UK. It's not that long ago, so there should be no problem getting the figures...
If you want to look at the fact that gun control makes the streets more violent, we can start with John Lott's studies...
And in the Tony Martin case it could be argued from previous incidents that they were not retreating but rather tactically falling back before attempting another offensive
Now that is just a silly question, as violent crime is due to a failing society rather than due to gun ownership being allowed