Gun increase safety

[EnDash]

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.

that guy bought a gun with the "absolute protection" excuse. if he didn't have a gun he most likely wouldn't have been able to kill thoose children. that was my point. if you give humans weapons of murder some of them are bound to kill with cold blood, reasons can be made up after the fact.

you think differently than me, but i just can't trust ordinary citizens with guns. if i see someone with a gun under their bed or shop counter, i feel afraid, not safe.

 

[Senju Bean]

that guy bought a gun with the "absolute protection" excuse. if he didn't have a gun he most likely wouldn't have been able to kill thoose children. that was my point. if you give humans weapons of murder some of them are bound to kill with cold blood, reasons can be made up after the fact.

you think differently than me, but i just can't trust ordinary citizens with guns. if i see someone with a gun under their bed or shop counter, i feel afraid, not safe.

People have been killing each other since the dawn of humanity. Taking away guns is not going to change anything. Take away that guy's gun and he'll just hack them down with an axe.

About the ban issue. The average response time from 911 is over 10 min. That is an infinite amount of time, INFINITE.

An assailant armed with an AK47 can fire 6000 armor peircing rounds into someone's house before the first cop even arrive. At least people need to have some means of self defense.

 

[EnDash]

People have been killing each other since the dawn of humanity. Taking away guns is not going to change anything. Take away that guy's gun and he'll just hack them down with an axe.

it takes more time to kill multiple people with an axe, at the least it gives others time to run away, at the most it's easier to survive an axe attack then a gun wound.

About the ban issue. The average response time from 911 is over 10 min. That is an infinite amount of time, INFINITE.

An assailant armed with an AK47 can fire 6000 armor peircing rounds into someone's house before the first cop even arrive. At least people need to have some means of self defense.

if a men with an AK47 who can shoot 6000 round of armor peircing bullets comes to your house, the smartest thing to do is to point a gun at him. it will obviously not motivate him more to shot at you or your family and will certainly buy you time until the police arrives.

if someone like that comes to my house, i will hide my family somewhere that is hard to find in the house (under the sink or in the roof or something) and if he starts shooting i will lay flat on the ground and try to crawl to hiding. if he's in close range at a theatre or a mall, i'm probably dead already, best i can do is curse that he was allowed to carry a gun so close to me.

 

[Senju Bean]

it takes more time to kill multiple people with an axe, at the least it gives others time to run away, at the most it's easier to survive an axe attack then a gun wound.



if a men with an AK47 who can shoot 6000 round of armor peircing bullets comes to your house, the smartest thing to do is to point a gun at him. it will obviously not motivate him more to shot at you or your family and will certainly buy you time until the police arrives.

if someone like that comes to my house, i will hide my family somewhere that is hard to find in the house (under the sink or in the roof or something) and if he starts shooting i will lay flat on the ground and try to crawl to hiding. if he's in close range at a theatre or a mall, i'm probably dead already, best i can do is curse that he was allowed to carry a gun so close to me.

That guy planned their deaths. They are not running away.


A full on assault like that means that they would most likely burn down or explode the house after emptying the 6000 rounds. The only way is to fire at him and hope to get a lucky shot. But do nothing, and it's even worse.

You are right, if he is in close range, you're probably screwed anyways. But if you have a gun, you might get that lucky head shot.

Believe it or not, there are situations where violence is the only resolution.

If someone took aim at you with a rifle and is about to fire, but he somehow lost his concentration briefly, and a gun magically appeared in your hand,

Would you throw it away or use it?

 

[EnDash]

That guy planned their deaths. They are not running away.


A full on assault like that means that they would most likely burn down or explode the house after emptying the 6000 rounds. The only way is to fire at him and hope to get a lucky shot. But do nothing, and it's even worse.

if i'm not mistaking there are laws against possession of explosives for ordinary citizens so it's very difficult to throw a grenade at your house or something similiar. shootings happen all the time, but explosions are very rare. and if you are afraid he will burn your house with fire, he will need to pour gazoline all over the place, which gives you enough time to run the hell away from the house and the police would probably arrive by the time he's done. again, the number one cause of fires is forgeting a heater on, not crazy maniacs.

You are right, if he is in close range, you're probably screwed anyways. But if you have a gun, you might get that lucky head shot.

Believe it or not, there are situations where violence is the only resolution.

If someone took aim at you with a rifle and is about to fire, but he somehow lost his concentration briefly, and a gun magically appeared in your hand,

Would you throw it away or use it?

i would use it out of lack of options, but considering we talk about magical solutions, i would much rather have the rifle magically disappear from his hand rather then magically appearing in mine.

on another example, i would much rather have no country in the world that owns nuclear weapons rather then every country owning nuclear weapons. in the cold war and arms race the more weapons the united staes and russia ammased the more safe it's citizens felt right? the chance of war went down with each new rocket, no? it's the same situation with people in my opinion. more guns highten the crime, not lower it.

 

[Rioxnation]

It makes me wonder why specific firearms are available to us. Like how did someone get an AK47, M16 and all of that? Enough earnings to be able to conduct a massacre. People in the united states may have needed the firearms back in the west, but now that modern society has changed and adapted. I believe that we do not need the providence of guns anymore, or huge ones anyways. I've always thought that perhaps pepper spray or a loud, signal sending gun would do.

 

[Senju Bean]

i would use it out of lack of options, but considering we talk about magical solutions, i would much rather have the rifle magically disappear from his hand rather then magically appearing in mine.

on another example, i would much rather have no country in the world that owns nuclear weapons rather then every country owning nuclear weapons. in the cold war and arms race the more weapons the united staes and russia ammased the more safe it's citizens felt right? the chance of war went down with each new rocket, no? it's the same situation with people in my opinion. more guns highten the crime, not lower it.

Ok, just making sure that you are not an absolute moralist. So you agree that its ok to kill when there are absolutely no options?


What are you talking about? Nearly every cold war situation since the dawn of humanity has erupted into full scale war. With the advent of nukes, humanity had saw something highly unusual. For the first time in history, two massive opposing superpowers didn't engage in full scale war. Clearly nukes were deterring them.

 

[Senju Bean]

if i'm not mistaking there are laws against possession of explosives for ordinary citizens so it's very difficult to throw a grenade at your house or something similiar. shootings happen all the time, but explosions are very rare. and if you are afraid he will burn your house with fire, he will need to pour gazoline all over the place, which gives you enough time to run the hell away from the house and the police would probably arrive by the time he's done. again, the number one cause of fires is forgeting a heater on, not crazy maniacs.

.

You are right. It is rare. But one must prepare even for rare situations.

 

[EnDash]

Ok, just making sure that you are not an absolute moralist. So you agree that its ok to kill when there are absolutely no options?


What are you talking about? Nearly every cold war situation since the dawn of humanity has erupted into full scale war. With the advent of nukes, humanity had saw something highly unusual. For the first time in history, two massive opposing superpowers didn't engage in full scale war. Clearly nukes were deterring them.

the cold war came so close to erupting that no one died and they still consider it war. nuclear rockets didn't cause massive peace otherwise they would've called it "the cold peace". it's really a bad argument to say the cold war was beneficial to the world.

and it's ok to kill to protect yourself when you have no other options. what i'm saying is you have other options.

You are right. It is rare. But one must prepare even for rare situations.

then i suggest you build a bunker for the rare possibility of a zombie apocalypse. and make sure to pack as much oxygen tanks as you can since the earth might split one day and send you're house flying into space.

here is a picture of adam lanza as a baby, that as you probably already heard killed 20 children in a school before commiting suicide. this is the people you agree to giving guns too in order to prepare yourself for every rare situation:

You must be registered for see images

 

[Senju Bean]

the cold war came so close to erupting that no one died and they still consider it war. nuclear rockets didn't cause massive peace otherwise they would've called it "the cold peace". it's really a bad argument to say the cold war was beneficial to the world.

and it's ok to kill to protect yourself when you have no other options. what i'm saying is you have other options.



then i suggest you build a bunker for the rare possibility of a zombie apocalypse. and make sure to pack as much oxygen tanks as you can since the earth might split one day and send you're house flying into space.

here is a picture of adam lanza as a baby, that as you probably already heard killed 20 children in a school before commiting suicide. this is the people you agree to giving guns too in order to prepare yourself for every rare situation:

You must be registered for see images

Cold war prevented WW3. It prevented hundreds of millions of people from dying. That is fact. Nukes are deterents. Proof, no nuclear power ever fought each other in full scale war.

that is off point. A zombie apolcolype is impossible while a random violent attack, while rare, is possible. Being ready is always good, especially when there isn't much prep to get ready other than obtaining a license for a firearm.

Adam Lanza was a sociopath. Keeping guns away only means he'd find another way of killing. Perhaps he'd be a serial killer instead of a spree killer.

Fact, about 5% of society are sociopaths/psychopaths. 5% is quite a lot. Everyone has met one at some point in time without knowing it. This also means their complete disregard for morality would not be affected by a gun ban. They would be armed and we wouldn't should there be a ban.

 

[EnDash]

Cold war prevented WW3. It prevented hundreds of millions of people from dying. That is fact. Nukes are deterents. Proof, no nuclear power ever fought each other in full scale war.

cold war almost was WW3, no one died because we were lucky enough no side decided to shoot, but they were extremly close to doing that. it only takes one crazy man to fire a nuclear rocket at the united states and they will have to respond by firing a nuke and then we can all have a merry bloodshed 10 times stronger then hiroshima and across the entire globe.

my country of israel and gaza strip are constantly firing rockets at each other and it always start because we have to respond to their response to our response to their response to some random act of war by a group that is usually indepenedent and decided to take matters into their own hands. NO ONE on our side or their side is happy that rockets exist because those rockets actully kill people. but i'm sure that peace is just around the corner right? right?!

that is off point. A zombie apolcolype is impossible while a random violent attack, while rare, is possible. Being ready is always good, especially when there isn't much prep to get ready other than obtaining a license for a firearm.

Adam Lanza was a sociopath. Keeping guns away only means he'd find another way of killing. Perhaps he'd be a serial killer instead of a spree killer.

Fact, about 5% of society are sociopaths/psychopaths. 5% is quite a lot. Everyone has met one at some point in time without knowing it. This also means their complete disregard for morality would not be affected by a gun ban. They would be armed and we wouldn't should there be a ban.

if adam lanza didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill so many people. there will always be psycopaths, but you don't have to give them guns so they can kill even more people.

and not every psychopath is born that way, some of them grow to be crazy. probably because their mother took them to a shooting range at the age of 4 and prepared them for the apocalypse. there is a price for your protection, and the price is more crazy people with more guns and more death.

 

[Senju Bean]

cold war almost was WW3, no one died because we were lucky enough no side decided to shoot, but they were extremly close to doing that. it only takes one crazy man to fire a nuclear rocket at the united states and they will have to respond by firing a nuke and then we can all have a merry bloodshed 10 times stronger then hiroshima and across the entire globe.

my country of israel and gaza strip are constantly firing rockets at each other and it always start because we have to respond to their response to our response to their response to some random act of war by a group that is usually indepenedent and decided to take matters into their own hands. NO ONE on our side or their side is happy that rockets exist because those rockets actully kill people. but i'm sure that peace is just around the corner right? right?!

Well, if they had nukes then no one would mess with them. Basic rockets and nukes are a completely different thing.

I'm sure if Isreal were the first out of the two to develop nukes, and used one, the Gaza strip would back off, just like Japan backed off from American after losing only 2 cities. Heck they wouldn't even need to use one. An ultimatum would be enough.

No one invaded the Soviet Union after they got nukes. No one invaded China after they got nukes. No one invaded Britain after they got nukes. The act of obtaining nukes automatically puts up a shield.

Nobody would mess with a nuclear power. American faces terrorism because that's literally the only way other countries can even attack. If they do it directly, it would be suicide. So essentially being a nuclear power eliminates full scale invasion.



Risk of everyone dying? Sure there is a risk. But it's worth it.

The world is better off because of the cold war. It's a risky medicine, but it's better than the alternative.

Peace with fear/great risk is far better than perpetual war.

Life isn't even worth living if there is perpetual war.

 

[Senju Bean]

if adam lanza didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have been able to kill so many people. there will always be psycopaths, but you don't have to give them guns so they can kill even more people.

and not every psychopath is born that way, some of them grow to be crazy. probably because their mother took them to a shooting range at the age of 4 and prepared them for the apocalypse. there is a price for your protection, and the price is more crazy people with more guns and more death.

Of course. And if guns were banned the thousands of cases of sucessful self defense with guns would be gone as well. You do the math.

A sociopath is a sinister planner. Take away the guns, and they will just do the research to obtain one illegally immediately.

And no, it's not guns that make people sociopaths, its many factors, including genetics that do so. But one thing is certain, after a certian age, sociopathy is irreversible.

The price is fair, because, the right to absolute safety is more important.