Gun increase safety

[Senju Bean]

"* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]"


Guns save lives by preventing crime in the first place.

 

[Mattek2008]

There aint no guns among civilians where i am at, and i've never even heard of anyone being murdered here -.-

 

[YokoKurama]

Interesting fact.
Nowadays some people will say guns are the reason for crimes.

 

[Joon]

Interesting fact.
Nowadays some people will say guns are the reason for crimes.

Agree. Everyone carry a gun and murder in the name if self-defense.

I don't need a gun. These two fist are enough.

 

[YokoKurama]

Agree. Everyone carry a gun and murder in the name if self-defense.

I don't need a gun. These two fist are enough.

There are some people who should never come in contact with a firearm.
However, there are lots of responsible gun owners out there.
I myself own several firearms.

 

[Bling Kai]

Guns obviously decreases safety.

 

[Senju Bean]

Agree. Everyone carry a gun and murder in the name if self-defense.

I don't need a gun. These two fist are enough.

No thats naive.

Those two fists are not enough.

Rational criminals are armed to the teeth=> those two fists are not enough.

Irrational criminals are violently strung out on meth=> those two fist are not enough.

Either way, those two fists are not good enough.

 

[Joon]

No thats naive.

Those two fists are not enough.

Rational criminals are armed to the teeth=> those two fists are not enough.

Irrational criminals are violently strung out on meth=> those two fist are not enough.

Either way, those two fists are not good enough.

Violence to extinguish violence, only cause more violence. Guns provoke hostility. Limiting guns, only make them more obtainable.

Naive? Your equation show signs of cowardness. We must cooperate with each other to fulfill a desired result. We are fighting ourselves when the amendment was created to protect ourselves against the "real" enemy.

 

[YokoKurama]

Violence to extinguish violence, only cause more violence. Guns provoke hostility. Limiting guns, only make them more obtainable.

Naive? Your equation show signs of cowardness. We must cooperate with each other to fulfill a desired result. We are fighting ourselves when the amendment was created to protect ourselves against the "real" enemy.

True we should cooperate with one another but the sad truth of the matter is it can't always be that way.
There are a lot of sick, twisted individuals out there that could care less if they hurt you or another person.
I'd rather be safe then sorry.

 

[The Dreamer]

Either way people who make guns profit. Even if a perfect world was to exist sooner or later someone would cause hatred and thus get their business going fluidly. Violence against violence might be effective in short terms but it never ends there...

 

[~WastelandSociety~]

No thats naive.

Those two fists are not enough.

Rational criminals are armed to the teeth=> those two fists are not enough.

Irrational criminals are violently strung out on meth=> those two fist are not enough.

Either way, those two fists are not good enough.

Even if criminals don't use guns there's always Switchblade knife, Gravity knife,Pilum ballistic knife,Electronic dart gun,Chuka stick,etc.

 

[Senju Bean]

Even if criminals don't use guns there's always Switchblade knife, Gravity knife,Pilum ballistic knife,Electronic dart gun,Chuka stick,etc.

Making my case even stronger

 

[BanGinji]

Too bad this contradicts all the studies that say just by owning a gun increases the likelihood off getting shot by one.

just counting misfires alone

/thread

 

[EnDash]

[video=youtube;EmloKDM0Z-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmloKDM0Z-k[/video]

two teens break into a guy's house, he sets them a trap, shots them both multiple times and do a "death check" on the girl by shooting her under the chin. all while screaming and cursing and seeming to enjoy the murders.

the guy was under no threat, the teens carried no weapons, he knew fully well that they were coming and could have called the cops or stop them in a non-lethal way, but instead he decides to execute them regardless of self defense. he just wanted to see blood.

i don't trust humans enough to be responsible with guns, in my opinion if someone needs protection he can get tasers and pepper spray and other non-lethal weapons that are very capable of stopping any criminal. if you want to protect yourself you buy a shield, if you want to kill you buy a sword. it's the simple truth.

 

[Poptart]

I shoot people in self defence all the time.

 

[EnDash]

There are some people who should never come in contact with a firearm.
However, there are lots of responsible gun owners out there.
I myself own several firearms.

True we should cooperate with one another but the sad truth of the matter is it can't always be that way.
There are a lot of sick, twisted individuals out there that could care less if they hurt you or another person.
I'd rather be safe then sorry.

but you don't have to kill to protect yourself, as i said you can have pepper sprays and tasers or even use rubber bullets. all are capable of stopping a criminal without killing him.

 

[Senju Bean]

but you don't have to kill to protect yourself, as i said you can have pepper sprays and tasers or even use rubber bullets. all are capable of stopping a criminal without killing him.

But guns are still more effective.

Can you gurantee that pepper sprays and tasers are equally effective at stopping criminals?

If non lethal methods are even slightly less effective, even by 1%, then guns are the preferred method.

 

[DoubleKamui]

"* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. [16]"


Guns save lives by preventing crime in the first place.

Cool. That's just a statistic based on one specific type of crime. And that's just one example.

 

[EnDash]

But guns are still more effective.

Can you gurantee that pepper sprays and tasers are equally effective at stopping criminals?

If non lethal methods are even slightly less effective, even by 1%, then guns are the preferred method.

if you kill every other kid in your children's school then you make their school safer for them. but you are not going to do that.

guaranteeing absolute safety is not the only factor, morals and other people should also be considered. otherwise you become a criminal yourself like the guy that used the self defense excuse to murder with intent two teenager burglars..

 

[Senju Bean]

if you kill every other kid in your children's school then you make their school safer for them. but you are not going to do that.

guaranteeing absolute safety is not the only factor, morals and other people should also be considered. otherwise you become a criminal yourself like the guy that used the self defense excuse to murder with intent two teenager burglars..

You are taking things to extremes. Of course no reasonable person would go on a shooting spree just "for safety". In fact, such a person would get lynched afterwards, defeating the whole purpose.

Overall, criminals who attacks first give up their right to safety. That's just how it is. If I taze a crazed attacker, there's still a good chance that he can fire back.

Absolute safety is every human's right. Exception: Attackers give up that right.

That vid you posted is an extreme. The kids were defenseless and the killer knew it. And he finished them off. He planned their deaths. So he was in the wrong. Bad counter example to my argument.

But even in the video, they said that if someone jumps in the window at the middle of the night, then it's ok to take action.

Absolute safety is still important.