Strongest argument against guns for defense.......

So, kinda like the war on pot?


"Irony can be pretty ironic, sometimes."

you are missing the point.

Nobody is against for responsible gun ownership, people's having simple pistols, shutguns to protect themselves after passing certain courses and training is pretty legitimate. I'm totally for people keeping A gun (maybe two) in their house, or carry a small pistol (with no more than two or three bullets) in public places for protection.

However, there is huge difference between buying ONE gun to PROTECT yourself, and buying multiple semi-automatic assault weapons.

Would you carry your semi-automatic weapon to your school or work everyday to protect yourself and people around you? Or would you buy several semi-automatic weapons just to attack and kill? That's the whole argument is about.

Hope you get the difference.

Nice points, but please, for the love of god, USE PARAGRAPHS!!

People lock their doors in Canada. Often the exterior door frame has two doors both of which have locks which are often used. the only person I know who left their door unlocked was an American and she actually left her keys in the key hole as well as leaving the door unlocked.

You advocate police protecting us rather than ourselves; I ask with what? Surely not with Guns! A police officer is just a person with a shiny badge and just as disposed to corruption as any other person. The sad thing is that crime, assault and murder, make up a very small percentage of human mortality. The number one cause is disease but once you look at man made cause of death it is without a doubt government. Wars, genocides, all kill more people than petty murders and thieves could ever hope to kill. The number one man made killer of man is government. That is why we need "assault weapons" that is why we have a second amendment. Not for hunting, not for self defense, but to protect us from the eventual collapse of our own governmental system into tyranny. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Colorado constitution defines the militia as such "The militia of the state shall consist of all able bodied male residents of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty five years" So The normal populace of the state of Colorado is, according to the 2nd amendment, necessary to the security of a free state. As is an armed populace everywhere, that is how we prevent government from killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men women and children.

Your comments on concealed carry is off base; anyone in possession of a handgun can stuff it in his pants. Nobody on their way to rob a bank cares that it is against the law to conceal a gun (they are planning to rob a bank which is against the law anyway). The mere fact that a person pays, undergoes a criminal background check, is fingerprinted and has a clean record testifies that they are not someone looking to go commit crimes. They are already gun owners and if they wanted they could conceal illegally and nobody would ever know. Instead they choose to jump through legal hoops to prove that they are willing to follow the law.

ME:I couldn't think of a worser, more misinformed anti gun rant. I didn't want to respond but I can tell that you put some thought into it even though it is terribly misinformed.

Your first paragraph seems a perfectly rational, neutral explanation of the viewpoints of both sides, except for the last sentence, and your analogy to Puss in Boots makes no sense whatsoever.
Why can't we disarm the guilty? It's actually not so difficult. Most guns in America are bought legally, even by individuals whom will eventually commit crimes. And you're not disarming the "innocent" ("not guilty" is the more appropriate term considering no one is truly "innocent") if gun restrictions make it difficult for them to arm up in the first place.

ME : You simply believe that all people will someday commit crime just because they are capable of it. Well, all men have a penis so I guess you'd like some kind of restriction and registration scheme with those.

"The odds of a gun stopping a crime that will never occurr are by definition zero, so there's nothing to offset the risk of having a gun. That puts the risk factor at infinity."

Me: Wow, you don't even think guns stop crimes. Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 per day according Gary Kleck, Criminologist at Florida State. They don't get reported because they are the "dog bites man" of the news world.

Exactly! Even if we're not talking about gun ownership, just places guns can be carried, I sure as hell don't want to live in a state where gun owners are allowed to carry concealed weapons in public places: malls, hospitals, playgrounds, etc.


ME: Well, if you lived in the states you probably would, seeing as Concealed and Open Carry of guns is allowed in 48 of the 50 states. Most people sit aside someone everyday with a gun in most unrestricted areas and never even know it. Eww, scary. Were're talking 30,000 plus people per state who are not mass murdering or killing anyone, but they are just going about their business.

The Columbine kids used guns obtained through legal means. Same with the Virginia Tech shooter and, I believe, every single presidential or other political figure assassination. If memory serves, Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Franz Ferdinand, Gandhi, JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, RFK, Harvey Milk & Mayor Moscone, Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and Dr. George Tiller were all shot by assassins using guns obtained through the legal means.

ME: Most of that might be true but don't you think those with the inclination and will to plan something so heinous as a school shooting or assassination would find a way to obtain guns through illegal channels. Also the Columbine killers had propane bombs, yet we don't see an influx of restrictions on them. And each of these killers broke numerous firearm and other laws committing their acts that don't lead me to believe a ban on guns would stop them.

Carrying a gun doesn't increase your chance of coming out of any interpersonal encounter unscathed, it only increases the chance that you will fire a gun that will hurt someone, and, even if in "self-defense," if your victim wasn't actually trying to attack you but was just a studious black youth wearing a hood and walking at night, you can bet for sure you're going to jail. Or what if someone DOES try to rob you? You having a gun increases the likelihood of the mugger getting freaked out and shooting you before you have a chance to shoot him.

ME: I don't think you understand the intricacies of gunfighting in a self defense context for me to even begin to describe to you how wrong that paragraph was. You already have such a limited perspective on the uses of guns in crimes considering you think that "black youths" in hoodies are what would trigger a situation to use a gun in self defense.

"If we don't, we're ogres!" Exactly. We're disgusting, idiotic creatures that can get outsmarted by a cat. In "Puss in Boots," the cat is totally in the wrong, invading the ogre's territory and tricking and brutally murdering him. It doesn't matter whether we--currently, as you say, "the ogres"--have guns because criminals will figure out how to outsmart us.

ME:?


In Canada, most folk don't even lock their doors. And yet there's less crime, less violent crime, and even those whom are personally victims of crime or know others whom have been victims do not get all paranoid and start ranting about guns for security. The fact is that our culture is one of cats. We tell ogres--here meaning the general, ignorant public--that cats are going to kill them, so they must become cats in order to stop cats. "Tough on crime" doesn't prevent crime.

ME: Most people are not victims of violent crimes because there are more people than them to be victims of those crime. But everyones luck runs out.


The most successful crime PREVENTION strategy was employed in New York City and employed everywhere else in the country and many other countries as well. Called "Broken Windows," this strategy consists not of fighting fire with fire--as the gun lobby would have you believe is the best solution--but rather cleaning up graffiti immediately after it is sprayed, fixing all broken windows immediately after a gang breaks them, and putting cop cars on every street corner that was previously a "hot spot" for crime. Suddenly, in a matter of no more that a few years, New York City had gone from self-despising, hypocritical symbol of the deterioration of America to a veritable tourist attraction. I visited in 2006 (or was it '07?...) and saw a city so startlingly different from that depicted in The Warriors that--had I not known proof positive that the city was once a cesspool of criminal activity--I would never have guessed that The Warriors was NOT considered a work of science fiction depicting a dystopic and purely parable version of the city.

ME: Yeah, nobody gets shot in the NYC anymore. It's pure heaven, for the gang members and Mafia. http://newyork.timeout.com/things-to-do/this-week-in-new-york/20855/gangs-of-new-york


Prior to this policy, there was an incident in which a meek white man, tired of criminal youths robbing folk on the subway, shot a few black youths in cold blood and was practically regarded as a hero because everyone--blacks included--had had it with the criminal youths and were glad someone had finally stood up for the honest folk of the city. But the problem is, the man was still a murderer. If his intention was his own protection, he need not have KILLED the youths. Injury is enough. I suppose guns would be more acceptable to me if all gun owners learned to shoot to injure, not kill. If a man enters your house in the night, you have a right to defend yourself, and I suppose in this circumstance if you have a gun, you may shoot him, but you should aim for the kneecaps, not the torso! Even if you miss, after firing one shot he'll probably flip out and take off, so your goal of protection is accomplished.

ME: More proof that you know nothing about self defense, since most people who use their guns for self defense whether police or civilian shoot to stop aggression. There is no magic bullet that immediately kills or incapacitates. There are plenty of cases of assailants getting shot in vital areas and they continue their attack, even killing the people they try to assault. That's why you take as many shots to the most vulnerable places on the human body against your aggressor to STOP his aggression.

The problem with guns is they must not get into the hands of "the wrong people" and yet we're okay with them in the hands of "the right people." In my opinion, no gun owner, criminal or otherwise, considers himself to be on of "the wrong people," so words as vague as "wrong" and "right" lose all meaning in the context of this argument.

ME:I don't care if anything gets in the hands of the wrong/right people. I'm not going to lend a crackhead a handgun, but what a person does with a tool whether a knife, gun or car is their own will. I accept that there are people who will rob, maim and kill for inanimate objects in our world and I arm myself because that is the reality of our world. The same way a fire extinguisher becomes a viable tool to me because fire exists. Sure, I could rely on the statistics of not being a victim of crime or fire but I CHOOSE not to, because that is my right that my founding fathers of my country thought so importantly to protect for future generations.


The best thing to do is to severely restrict the use of guns (also, if for hunting and self-defense, why can't people just use shotguns? Handguns are SPECIFICALLY designed to kill human beings whereas firing a shotgun at someone whom has entered your house increases your likelihood both of hitting the criminal and of scaring him away...)

ME: Handguns were designed to be portable, not just kill things. Besides aren't all you anti gun folks always saying that all guns are designed to kill. Which I agree, but some people like criminals committing crimes need to be stopped and the gun is the most efficient tool to do so.

and to create highly-patrolled environments (put a single cop car outside every high school and the chance of a school shooting would decrease dramatically, not to mention teens would be forced to slow down as they pull into the parking lot, thus decreasing the risk of crashes; put metal detectors at all the entrances to a mall and set them at a very liberal level so that it won't beep for someone's belt buckle, only if they are carrying a lot of metal, and if it's just a computer it could be run through an x-ray machine like at airports or it could just be ignored) in high-risk areas. Cats are solitudnal creatures and we certainly don't want to think of ourselves as ogres, so let's be HUMANS.

ME: That was a terribly contrived paragraph, but I will just say that we don't have enough cops to put at every school or street corner that's why guns are so necessarily for the protection of the individual.

We CAN be BETTER than cats and ogres. We can all agree to a little more hassle if we absolutely insist on the current, loose interpretation of the Second Amendment (it says "arms for militias," so I don't see why a law absolutely prohibiting handguns would be unconstitutional since shotguns can still be used should the need for a militia ever arise [which it won't, in spite of what Glenn Beck says] and modern shotguns are already far more accurate and deadly than anything the original revolutionaries ever fought with).


ME: Well, you absolutely don't have any idea about OUR Second Amendment cause the militia clause is not as important as the PEOPLE clause. If you'd listen to a AMERICAN Supreme Court ruling called Heller you would know that like many amendments in our bill of rights, the courts have decided that we have the INDIVIDUAL right to own and bear arms. Any byproducts of the 2A like hunting, militia organization and even self defense come from the inherit natural right of AMERICANS being protected to own arms. It's all about LIBERTY.

In conclusion, individuals pull triggers of loaded guns and cause bullets to be fired at other human beings, resulting in the deaths and injuries of many human beings. That fact is indisputable, incontrovertible and 100% backed up by data. Individuals wielding guns shoot other humans and thus become criminals EVERY DAY.

ME: Wow, yeah, I'm sure cops really appreciate you calling them criminals. And what is the court system in Canada? People in the states are innocent until proven guilty. You don't automatically become a criminal because you shoot someone, because it is all about context. The police investigation that follows will decide if a shooting was lawful and if not it goes to trial. Then at the trial a jury of your peers decides if your actions were lawful and most importantly reasonable under the circumstances that you were in.

Laws allowing handguns to be owned at all, let alone laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons in public, only increase the risk of serious injuries and deaths of citizens. And don't even get me started on assault rifles. The fact that any person would actually want one of those to feel SAFE shows the disturbing, weak, childish and immature undercurrent of the pathological inferiority complex that infects the American--and Western, in general--psyche. If any human being needs a gun to feel safe, then I pity that person and plan to stay away from him; the afraid are the ones most likely to fire a weapon. Instead of therapy and understanding that hyper-masculinity will NOT bring anyone any happiness, we medicate irrational, fearful males of all ages with a phallic weapon of "power" that to me shows nothing but a pitiable weakness of character.

ME: And now we come to it at last. Your extreme bias against gun owners, which I would almost define as bigotry. The one that you base all your feelings and so called facts and conclusions on. But I will not condemn you for you are just a human who is unwilling to extend trust and see from the perspectives of others. This is inherit in your entire post and proves that the immaturity is in a anti gun culture that refuses to understand the complexities and inherit dangers we face in our world. Which is not of a man/woman wielding a gun but any tool including their bare hands and being willfully malicious, immoral and unethical to their fellow man. To take what is not theirs for profit or any other reason.

You started out strong, but ended in ignorance. Yeah, some guns are purchased to 'compensate' for something small, but so are SOME cars. That doesn't make sweeping comments about all cars being phallic compensation responsible or accurate.

And yes, legally purchased weapons have been used to commit a handful of very famous crimes. What doesn't make the evening news because ppl like you just aren't interested in the whole truth is that they've also been used to halt and prevent crimes.

You wait on the police if you like, that's your prerogative. When seconds count, they'll be there in minutes.

Your post is *beep*

Not because it is wrong (I didn't read it). But because your writing skills suck.

Good movie. However, I always agreed with the defense in this case. I am not a huge fan of guns by any means. But, I think the line "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" says it all. People should be held responsible for their own actions.

It would be like suing a car company because one of their cars was used in a vehicular homicide.

The sad part is these liberal idiots are too dumb to understand that our Founding Fathers did not have 'hunting' with 'two or three bullets' in mind when they were talking about having guns!

Totally lost on the 'Anything to disarm us!' liberal ideology.

They pretend to care about those murdered with guns, but it's really just another tool, much like 'Global Warming..er..Cooling...er Climate Change!', to be used against Americans in the quest to destroy us from within.

Always using our compassion and laws against us...