A World Without Guns Is Not A World I Want To Live In

[ladsin]

Before I start I should point out that I actually am in favor of stricter gun legislation. This Take is going against those who say that the world would be better without guns.

A world without guns is a world in which the strongest and most violent among us can kill with impunity. It's the world where a man armed with a knife can hold down and rape a woman with half a dozen people sitting nearby who are too afraid to attack and stop him. It's the kind of world in which a person can't defend themselves when a few burglars break into their house and kill them and their children.

You can't be serious, it's impossible to kill multiple people with knives.

March 1, 2014 8 men and women armed only with knives went on a slaughtering spree in Kunming China. They killed 31 and injured 143. Police arrived within ten minutes of the first calls and only stopped this spree of violence when an officer opened fire killing 4 of the assailants and injuring 1.

July 2016 a man kills 19 and wounds 26 in Samagihara Japan.

2008 Akihabara Massacre man goes into a shopping district armed with a knife killing 7 and injuring 10.

Tel Aviv man enters a bus and stabs 12 before being shot by a police officer.

March 22 2017 British man kills two and injures 40 before being shot dead.

December 2012 man stabs 23 children in Chenpeng

Any sane person would just call the police!

Really? Why? If you want to protect yourself and your family calling the police is not likely to help. It takes the police time to get to you. Police are always reactionary, this is just the nature of a crime. If you want to be alone with a serial rapist and murderer armed with a knife for 5-15 minutes be my guest, but this is not a situation I would want to find myself in.

Lawrence Singleton, man who served 8 years in prison for raping a 15 year old girl before chopping off her arms and throwing her off a roof. Do you really think if an armed and properly trained person was nearby that they couldn't have stopped this?

Conclude

I think that's enough case examples. 1600 people were killed by knives in America during 2016, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only reliable way to defend yourself/ others from being killed by a person armed with a knife is a gun. Hell, this is why we call police to come to our aid in the first place. I will reiterate that gun laws should be stricter, but I'll save that for my next take.

[EpicDweeb]

I agree with everything except the statement that gun laws should be stricter. I'm all in favor of doing whatever it takes to prevent gun violence. However I'm interested in what has been proven to reduce or increase gun violence not what people THINK will decrease gun violence. Murder rates go up with the introduction of new and stricter gun control laws. Violent crime goes down when gun control is done away with or reduced. This is objectivelying true. It has been proven by statistics time and time again. People who advocate strickery gun laws have never seemed to truly debunk these studies only claim they are inaccurate under highly questionable arguments.

I don't have time to write more but if you want know why I support constitutional carry in every state... just read the book "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lett. He was a professor and economist who studied the effects of gun control as well as the relaxation of gun laws. People have made claims to discredit them but all of them have been based on false premises.

[ladsin]

I would have to disagree. Japan is a place which has strict gun laws and has much less crime overall. Obviously sociological factors account for much of this, but I can't see or at least any argument that America doesn't have a problem with gun violence.

[EpicDweeb]

Whether that be the case or not regarding Japan. The fact of the matter remains that statistics show stricter gun laws result in higher crime rates. Perhaps very strict gun laws begin to work after 100 years as guns just get filtered out of society... but during those 100 years how many unnecessary deaths will there be?

Did you know that between 1968 (the year illinois began requiring permits for the owning of firearms) and 1990 the number of violent crimes increased from 57k to 131k violent crimes with almost double the amount of murders? It's not enough to compare areas with strict gun laws to areas with lax gun laws and say areas wit lax gun laws don't have as much crime. You have to compare the places with strict gun laws to themselves before they had those laws. Even then, if population has been steadily on the rise it may not be very clear.

[ladsin]

Well, no. I think you're slightly looking over a particular point I'm making. The Japanese show us that no one can have guns, and violent crime can be extremely low. This shows us that there is not a causal relation between the two. Instead there are multiple other factors involved.
Left, Right, You're Both Wrong About Guns ↗
This was my other one on the subject.

[EpicDweeb]

In that case let me put it another way. Our culture/society the way it is (one that is so self focused rather than community focused like japan) can't expect the same laws to have the same effect. We can look at statistics in the US to see what the effects of gun control and gun freedom are and they seem to very clearly show that more strict gun laws result in more murders and the oppositems is true of lax gun laws. You say Japan has one of the lowest crime rates with strict gun laws? Well so does Switzerland which literally requires everyone to own a gun. Guns aren't the issue. People are. We live in a culture amongst people who commit crimes based on risk. The greater the risk the less likely the crime. The more guns, the greater the risk. It's that simple. We can't look to other countries for the answer because they have very different cultures from us.

[ladsin]

Wait. I think you contradicted yourself so maybe you can explicate, "You say Japan has one of the lowest crime rates with strict gun laws? Well so does Switzerland which literally requires everyone to own a gun. Guns aren't the issue." We agree that guns don't cause the problem, why then would you want well-intentioned, properly trained people to not have access to the best means of self defense?

[EpicDweeb]

When did I say that was what I wanted? My point is that to point to gun restrictions in other countries as the means of fixing gun violence is silly. People say less guns means less violence, and point to places like Japan as evidence... while ignoring places like Switzerland which has virtually no gun restrictions. Basically I feel like arguments saying we need more gun control point to very limited evidence and actively ignore evidence which shows that promoting guns decreases crime.

The thing is, even assuming a gun ban works to remove all guns... government can still become corrupt and at that point they've removed all means of self-defense its citizens have against it.

[EpicDweeb]

I want more people to have more guns. I see that as the best way of reducing gun violence both in the short, as well as the long term. It also maintains citizens means of defending themselves should government become corrupt.

[ladsin]

Ah, my apologies. I have many conversations going on at once. I agree that gun violence isn't simply a result of increased gun ownership, although that has to be a factor involved in gun violence.

[EpicDweeb]

Except I'd say the factor is the more guns (at least in our culture) the less crime.

[ladsin]

www.scientificamerican.com/.../
Interesting dialogue. I'll have to look more into it

[EpicDweeb]

Again I'd recommend the study done by Dr. Jon Lott Jr. Some people tried to discredit his work under the fast pretense that he was sponsored by gun manufacturers to forge his findings.

[ladsin]

The link is a conversation between him and another woman. Well, it's a response from her about his research in which she points out that he uses his own research to buff up his own research and uses... questionable standards. That's why I've got to look more into it

[EpicDweeb]

Gotcha. His book explains much of it in detail. Just remember, using info from previous studies to support current studies is something most all scientists do and in no way does it somehow invalidate his findings xD

[ladsin]

"But his two-thirds claim is false. Many of these 18 supposed pro-carry studies are off-topic. One is a paper by Lott on gun storage laws that has nothing to do with concealed carry. A second paper investigates how abortion relates to crime, a third concerns laws that prevent minors from owning guns—again, irrelevant to concealed carry. Lott also includes the second edition of his own book as one of these 18 peer-reviewed studies."
"Lott is also wrong in his contention that I ignore 24 peer-reviewed publications “showing that crime in the U. S. drops after people are allowed to carry concealed handguns.” Included among these 24, which are listed on his Web site, are the irrelevant papers mentioned above, as well as other studies that do not show links between concealed carry policies and low crime. One of them, for example, is a paper on the relationship between crime and subscriptions to Handguns magazine." -Moyer

[ladsin]

I've conducted my own research before XD I get the idea of how it works.

[EpicDweeb]

Lol well let me know what you find. I think it's pretty reasonable to think that criminals avoid mugging or attacking people with guns. The more guns around, especially when concealed carry is allowed, the greater risk that any given target will have a gun thereby deturring violent crime and protecting those subject to it. There's always risk, but the alternative is worse based on every statistic I've seen.

[ladsin]

On a contrary note my state allows everyone open and concealed carry yet I'm pretty sure we have high crime rates

[EpicDweeb]

And yet you've failed to ask the question... "as opposed to what?" What reason is there to believe there would be LESS crime should there be restrictions on guns? It may be that it would have an even HIGHER crime rate were guns restricted.

[ladsin]

I'm not, I was just pointing out my particular state's issue.

[EpicDweeb]

Indeed. Yet that kind of flawed thinking is the source of motivation for many gun control arguments. Whether or not they are valid, people will argue that high crime in places with lax gun laws means there is a correlation between more guns and more crime, rather than asking the question... as opposed to what? They don't know what the alternative would be. They can't say more gun control translates to less gun violence because they can't know that. They can't experience the "what if" of restricting guns unless they do just that... oh wait yes they can.

Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat the same (to paraphrase Winston Churchill's quote)

We can look at what has happened elsewhere when guns have been restricted. It results in more violent crime. More guns results in a shift and reduction, from violent crime to non-violent crime with an overall drop to total crime.

[lumos]

Honestly it's kinda ridiculous how emo people seem to get over guns.

[ladsin]

On both sides XD
It seems to make it hard for either side to see reason. That's why I did my other Take, Left, Right, You're Both Wrong About Guns ↗

[oddwaffle]

And how does that compare to guns? Imagine all those cases with guns.

It's called escalation. They bring knife so you bring guns. They bring guns you will need grenades. They bring grenades then you will need machine guns. They bring machine guns to you will need anti material rifles. They bring sniper rifles and you will want armored vehicles.

If you counter people with bigger guns then you will need ever bigger guns.

Rely on statistics rather than case study. Asian are really bad at dealing with mass murder. Unlike the US which happens on a daily basis, they are ultra rare in those Asian countries. Nobody got the training and knowledge to deal with bloody cases that involves multiple victims.

You can easily trace this back to ancient times of China when possessing a 10-inch blade would be considered a crime. When government had strong crack down on weapon possession, you got a lot of hidden weapons. During the period of weaken laws and government control, you get a massive development in weapons and methods of murder.

[ladsin]

So your argument is that people should not be allowed to defend themselves with a gun because someone else may get a gun?

Guns can increase the lethality of an attack, I'm not pretending otherwise, but guns can also prevent these things. There's a reason that in most of the cases I mentioned the police came. They came with a gun and stopped the attacker.

[oddwaffle]

You read it wrong. Because you have a gun doesn't mean the other guy can not. Your access to guns means the other guys will to.

If both of you have guns then what?

If the other guys don't have guns and have to use a knife then you can also use a knife. Why can you use a gun but not a knife? Or even kenjutsu?

[ladsin]

Well remember that I said I'm in favor of greater gun control. It's not unlimited access.

Learning to succeed in a knife fight against someone bigger, faster, and stronger than you is quite ridiculous. Even trained security guards in prisons have been known to only be able to sit by and watch as one of their brothers is stabbed to death by an improvised shank.

[oddwaffle]

The point is with greater control, it doesn't mean you will carry a gun around.

Japan has gun control laws too. You just need to demonstrate you are trained, competent and not a criminal as well as know what to do with one.

[ladsin]

Not necessarily. You could apply for an open carry permit, and even if not you can at least have a weapon for home defense.

I'm not sure of how crazy Japan's laws are, but I've read a few articles pointing out that the cultural differences in Japan make them incomparable to America. I don't know

[oddwaffle]

Law isn't crazy. But hardly relevant by the way.

#1 You need to be trained to handle and store firearms.
#2 You need to be sane and mentally competent.
#3 You need a reason to have firearms other than shooting people.
#4 You need a place to store firearms.
#5 You need to let law enforcement check your firearms locker to see if you have 'misplaced' your firearms.

As I said hardly relevant.

Why? Ask yourself this: Do you leave your house hoping to shoot somebody? If not then why do you carry a gun? For fun? Just in case? Why not a sword?

[ladsin]

What do you mean by #3?
The rest seem perfectly reasonable to me.

Who said I'm hoping to shoot someone? If I carry a tazer am I hoping to taze someone? If I'm carrying pepper spray does that mean I'm hoping to use it? No... "a gun is there to save your life when nothing else can do the trick."

[oddwaffle]

It's simple. If you buy a firearms for self defense means you are buying it to shoot people. It's obvious.

If you carry a gun around, hoping for something to happen so you can use your gun to shoot people then it's obviously to shoot other people.

It is what it is. You pack weapons in case you need to use it. It's obvious what you are using it for. I know it's not for hunting.

A cop carry guns because it's his job. A guard carries gun because it's his job. You carry guns just in case you might need to shoot someone.

[oddwaffle]

A gun is designed for the sole purpose of shooting. You aim to shoot at other people.

It doesn't matter how you colored it. It's the sole purpose of a weapon.

You defend yourself by making sure the other guy is dead or incapacitated.

[ladsin]

Right. I'd carry to defend myself. I'll point out that it's not just against people though. Just two weeks ago I ran into several thousand plus pound elk that are known to kill several people a year. 3 months before that I ran into a lone wolf. In a few months it's highly likely that I'll run into some bears.

[oddwaffle]

Then you use it for hunting even though you don't actively hunting.

And how common is that? Everyday or just once I a while? Does it apply to everyone?

[oddwaffle]

And do you think anyone would carry a gun in a jam packed city for the occasional animal that fall from the sky?

[ladsin]

No... my argument has been and remains that PROPERLY QUALIFIED persons should be allowed the best tools for their personal protection, and the protection of those near them.

[oddwaffle]

That means police and guards. Not random civilians even if you are trained to open fire on humans in populated area.

You point example is in case you need it for some animals.

[ladsin]

No, if a person attacked me I'd also have the right, or should have the right, to defend myself with the best tools possible. So long as I demonstrate myself capable.

Apparently we just disagree on this point. I don't want an innocent person to be victimized without adequate protection just to have the police come to give them blankets and cocoa.
monstersconquertheworld.files.wordpress.com/.../200_s.gif

[oddwaffle]

Because you are entitled to defend yourself is not a valid reason to carry a gun. You could use master class swordsmanship.

As I said before if you can carry a gun then so is the other guy.

Also, if you carry a gun to defend yourself against humans means you are arming yourself to kill another human being.

You can sugar coat it but it doesn't change that fact.

[ladsin]

An extension of my self defense may result in that person dying. This is no different than if I'm using my fists and feet. In fact more people are killed by these than rifles every year.

Just because I can have a gun doesn't mean that anyone can... Remember that I said we should have greater gun control.

[oddwaffle]

Actually no. Gun is a lethal weapon where as hands and feet are a lot less lethal.

Why do you need a lethal weapon for defense?

Sure not everyone can but some people can. This is your second point and I said that it's like the police force. Police and guards can have them. l but not civilian. A single civilian have them means others can too and the probably of one of them doing something stupid with it is higher.

[oddwaffle]

Also, where is your data on guns kill less than hands and fists. I want to see that data. Do you know how hard it is to knock someone out with striking?

[ladsin]

Well the point is that hands and feet kill more than RIFLES I put it in caps to ensure that there wasn't any confusion. (Just look at the FBI stats, they separate it by type of weapon)

The weapon doesn't need to be lethal, and as soon as Tazer, or PepperSpray (don't know their spelling) comes out with an equitable weapon that doesn't result in death this entire argument goes out the window. If that were the case we SHOULD obviously prefer the non-lethal method.

[oddwaffle]

Rifles and handguns are both guns.. why do you single out rifles? How many people carry rifles around in populated areas anyway?

Because you already have the alternative of less lethal method then there is no reason to carry a giant block of lumber and steel around while you go shopping at the mall.

[ladsin]

I would simply disagree that we have an equitable means of protection. You can just youtube videos of tazers and pepper spray and see how frequently they're ineffective.

I just mentioned rifles specifically because they are the most deadly weapons. They offer killing force at a greater range, offer a greater capacity, larger caliber etc. These aren't used often in killing. This was trying to preemptively, or perhaps just point out that things like the AR15 (which many people are terrified of) actually aren't the problem with American gun violence.

[Anonymous]

Ya but what about poison gas? Your pussy ass gun is useless when I dump a canister of VX gas in your direction. Thats why it’s my god given right to protect my property and family with poison gas. And no pinko trump government is going to take it away. We would all be safer with a little nerve agent, to melt the lung tissue of a potential attacker (or just plain asshole).
And when it comes to mental health; we live in a country where we have no problem stepping over a homeless guy to get our frapichino and kfc. Why the hell would we throw money away on the have-nots? These people are too lazy to even eat 3 meals a day. Wtf do I care if some of them think god is telling them to kill unbelievers? Just gas ‘em if they get outta hand.
And I know what your thinking- but what if someone gets the drop on you with his gas bomb? Well that’s simple. Just have a bigger one. And stand up-wind. Now instead of an ugly situation, you can just watch his skin blister and melt into ooze.
As you see -cops become quite unnecessary. Those boys in blue can resume donut cramming and harassing ‘undesirables’ on their own time and coin.

Isn’t YOUR safety worth it? It’s time we made America safe again!

[LittleSally]

For me that would actually be an interesting world to live in. Killing someone with hands or knife or anything from a close proximity takes more viciousness and makes the person really feel what they've done - since they literally have blood on their hands.
(You definitely can't deny that today's firearms kill a lot more people than any one person with a knife... And much faster as well.)
It would be interesting to see how the world would fair without any firearms. It will never happen, that's 100% for certain, but it's an interesting thing to think about.

[ladsin]

I wouldn't recommend it. We know a fair amount about the violent death rates in pre-gun societies and they were almost always worse. This isn't an argument that guns reduced the violent death rate, but just an acknowledgement that people will find a way to kill others without weapons, and as best we can tell at similar if not greater rates.

Some of the more devastating weapons (rifles) actually kill less people yearly than fists and feet do. Only about a quarter of the knifing deaths, etc.

[LittleSally]

Oh, I definitely know people have always killed people... they'd do it with or without guns... I'd just imagine it would be a lot more primal and with a lot more feeling involved than just pointing and firing.

[ladsin]

Eh. Maybe. You can look into hunter/gatherer societies for an example.

[LittleSally]

Yeah... but then we'd probably be more inventive in a futuristic way than those societies that exist today as tribes, or the first humans.

[ladsin]

There are still hunter/gatherer societies today... You could look into Mathew's works on the Turkana, fascinating stuff. http://www.sarahmathew.net

[LittleSally]

Yes... I mentioned them in the comment below... tribes...

[ladsin]

Ah. Missed that

[jacquesvol]

A worldwithoutschool shootings must be so boring: news.google.com/.../school%20shooting

And there was one mentioned in the Chicagotribune too : www.chicagotribune.com/.../...-20180302-story.html

[zagor]

So if that guy at Sandy Hook had gone in with a machete instead of rifle, who do you think would have stopped him? The first-graders? The 90 lb teacher?

[ladsin]

If a well trained officer had been there with a gun to stop the sandy hook shooter would you consider that a good thing?

[jacquesvol]

There was a cop outside in Pparkland, waiting for the shooting to stop.

[ladsin]

Do you suggest think he's a properly trained, well motivated individual?

The whole point of calling police officers is to get someone to come to your aid that is well-trained and can protect you. I'm saying that individual citizens who prove themselves capable of this as well should be allowed to have the best tools available for protecting themselves and their family.

[jacquesvol]

Gun toting Joe Average isn't properly trained, well motivated either.

[ladsin]

Did I say he was?
You did see the part where I multiply stated that we need tighter legislation... right?

[FinalVow]

Sad fact is the only true way to stop the spree of violence that is tearing our world apart is to change how every human in the world acts. For the entirety of humanity bloodshed has been very common. Wars have been fought over food, money, land, people. Entire kingdoms and empires have fallen over such simple things as love, anger, jealousy etc.. To eliminate all conflict you have to eliminate the very thing that makes a human unique you have to get rid of there emotions and there ability to have curiosity. Other than that about the only way to truly bring the world together and stop the wanton spread of violence seems to be when an extinction level event happens. Assuming that the movies are basically saying that given global extinction people smarten up and put aside all hatreds etc... Good luck and Best regards.

[Harsh_5299]

Just make those guns harder to get, and put a mental stability test before they get their gun license
But semi auto and auto fire type guns must be banned, they'll tremendously increase the casualty rate even if the crime rate is the same

Guns are only useful in societies where violent crimes are frequent...
Especially America
But places where the crime rate is low, they'll just serve to increase the collateral damage hence I assume that's why they're banned

It's quite interesting to see the others thinking of preferring not to have a gun even if a violent crime happens to them... although they're stubborn in this aspect, I'm sure they'll change their minds when they actually become the victim's themselves!
I personally feel they're indoctrinated to think guns = more crime and casualties by watching the media and the left wing news... what do you think about this?

[Kiran04]

A world without guns isn't even feasible, let alone desirable. What do you do when a semi-truck is coming at you and a crowd full of people? Pull your knife on it? It took one man 60 seconds to kill 71 people with a truck. What's the answer to that? Ban semis? Outside of shooting the driver, that truck ain't stopping. Even concrete barricades are laughed at by objects that massive. And we already know you can make perfectly good bombs out of everyday house hold chemicals. Hell, fertilizer plants can explode with massive force without extra additives, let alone if you actually tailor your chemicals to optimize the explosion.

[meowcow]

If you want to see a world without guns, look to Japan. All firearms are illegal, and even police do not have them. As a result, there are about 4-5 gun fatalities PER YEAR in Japan... a country with half the population as the USA.

The reason why Americans feel the need to arm themselves, is because their culture is COMPLETE SHIT. Rape is glorified among many men in America, where 9/10 men have porn addictions. Violence is glorified in American culture such as TV shows, Hollywood movies, music (mostly from rap music) and video games.

As a consequence, civilians in shithole countries like America NEED guns, because they have been taught to fight against everyone, including their neighbors.

[ladsin]

Mexico has strict gun legislation and a very high gun crime rate.

So yes, cultural factors are at play.

[Tdieseler]

I dont know... i want a world with no weapons... period. I mean, if you wanna hurt/kill someone, you would have to go in close and personal. Its ridiculous to be able to kill without even being in the same vicinity as the person. Like a sniper or even worse... destroying an entire city with the push of a button.
i mean.. if you don't wanna be hurt... then get stronger.
but with guns... you can be as strong as you fucking want... spent 38 years building it up, and some 5 year old happens to find your.45 and accidentally pulls the trigger while its pointed at you. and poof.

I like guns... but i hate bullets. Im more of a Katana guy.

[ladsin]

True. All the women of the world should be at the whims of whatever big/strong guy happens along her path.

[Tdieseler]

then maybe they should get stronger. period.
or get a strong guy. i mean... we want good looking children, so we fuck the good looking girls... if a woman wants to feel safe... she gets a strong guy.

but guns just work the middle... anyone can use it and negate all someone has worked for.

[ladsin]

Gals have to constantly be on the arm of the strongest man or be worried about being raped any time she steps out her door?

[Tdieseler]

or she can uglify herself... make herself less desirable...
and plus... most rapes are just reactions... stop making it sound like its only guys that rape women... the shit goes both ways. I've been raped twice. the problem is society... i don't bitch about it. It happened... i moved on.

[ladsin]

Alrighty

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

The invalidity of your take isn’t your opinion, it’s the assumption that the world would somehow be worse off, mostly cause you don’t know a world where no guns exists. After that, I subscribe to the Chris rock quote from his last special. 3rd, I’m pretty sure 10 people with knives is a lot different than 1 dude with a knife compared to 10 people with a gun and 1 person with a gun. Also, that last question about the dude chopping some chick’s arms off is kinda invalid given that we still have guns and it happened and no one saved the chick... that’s a self defeating question

Side note, what dickhead thought it would be a good idea to
1- only give a pedophile who chopped some bitch’s arm off only 8 years?

[ladsin]

No well-trained person was nearby with a gun to save her. Additionally, most of these knifing sprees I mentioned ONLY ended when a well-trained person with a gun came to put an end to it.

He was sentenced to 14 but only served 8. He got out ok good behavior before he went on to rape and murder another woman.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Well, that’s the case in the vast majority of crimes, regardless of whether there are guns or not. Most crimes happen and the damage is done before anyone can do anything. That’s not saying anything profound

14 years isn’t much better. He still raped an underaged chick and tore her arms off and pushed her off a roof. You’d think 20 years would be the minimum

[ladsin]

It's not something profound. I agree. This is the question of how hard we make it for people to attain guns. Should they have to have training? Should they have to have mental health checks? Etc.
I agree with all of these, but I see no reason to think that a world without any guns would be better.

I don't think it's good either, but I think he got the maximum sentence because she didn't actually die.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Who’s “they”?

Again, that point is invalid given that there’s no precident in modern society where guns don’t exist

[ladsin]

Well... We know what life was like before guns: "poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Although guns certainly didn't cause the increased living conditions we enjoy today (to ensure no one believes I think guns magical)

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

Well, I mean, old society is not much to go off of given that pre guns (and post guns), the idea of bathing was considered stupid, cars didn’t exist, the sun revolving around the earth was blasphemous, the world was relatively isolated and feudalism and slavery were somewhat still in vogue. The only definitive thing you could say guns would be a benefit for is war due to lack of close combat against armies and large swaths of people (ie the battle of the bastards)

[ladsin]

Yeah, that's why I said that guns didn't cause the difference.

I don't know how much I could agree though. Old warfare used to be much bloodier. I think the suggested rates are ~15% of people dying from violent injuries in antiquity. Then the violent death rate dropped to it's lowest point (until now) in the 20th century when, despite two world wars, our violent death rate was less than 1%. Plus we've actually had a lot more than just two world wars, and as far as casualties go only one of ours makes the top 10 (I think it comes in around 6)

[Browneye57]

You'll never convince the anti's. The only way they get convinced is if they suffer from some kind of violent act of a perpetrator and realize if they had a gun they could have defended themselves.
Otherwise, they are acting out on emotion - there is no logic and there are no facts to backup their position.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

100% agree.

[monkeynutts]

I would still have a go with a knife wielding psychopath. We had a case here in Oz, where an Islamic extremist attacked an man in a park, the victim suffered serious injuries and ran into a shop for protection, and islander and his kids came to his aid, he picked up a fence post and fucked the guy upside the head a few times, then the cops came. Saved the aussies life, otherwise he terrorist would have finished him off.

[kittycat119]

And your point? In your first example it was 10 men doing the killing and they only managed to 31. That's a very low number for that many people. Had it of been 10 men with assault rifles yeah everyone there would be dead. So this stupid comparison you're attempting to do has no real point

[ladsin]

And injured 143 in ten minutes... I'm not arguing that all criminals should be outfitted with guns. So... It only took one police officer with a gun to stop all of these people. If there had been a person with proper training and a gun they could have stopped this atrocity.

I'm saying people have a right to defend themselves from those who would victimize them.

[kittycat119]

Yeah guns are highly unnecessary and actually make crime rate go up. If you actually bothered to research you'd find out the year it was legalized for someone to own a gun in their hime that crime and murder went up dramatically. But in countries like japan and South Korea where guns are banned and outlawed crime and murder is basically nonexistent

[ladsin]

I did a lot of research. You like to make quite a few assumptions don't you? If a guy is raping you and cutting your arms off I'm quite certain that you wouldn't think a gun unnecessary.

[kittycat119]

And you're making assumptions. Literally everything I said was true. And like I said if you bothered to research you'd know it.

[ladsin]

Do you know what "assumption" means?

[kittycat119]

Why yes I do. And you're mytake is full of them with your messed up logic

[ladsin]

What assumption have I made?
Where's my faulty logic?
If I made any I'd be happy to hear them.

[kittycat119]

Simple acting as if guns are the only way to protect ones self. Then explain why in Japan and South Korea where guns are banned and a crime happens can people and cops still defend themselves?

[ladsin]

Japan just has less violent crime in general. Guns don't cause crime. The problem in America is that we have higher rates of all violent crime.
Two of the mass stabbings I mentioned were in Japan. It was harder to take them down because of this.

[AynonOMouse]

I am against most gun control laws. If there was a way for guns to just not exist at all for anyone I would like that, but I admit, I am one of the type that would be violent and take what I want from so many people that couldn't stop me without guns. Because without guns, if you are better at close quarters combat that the local law, you really could get away with a lot.

[NeglectedChild]

"A world without guns is a world in which the strongest and most violent among us can kill with impunity."

A world with guns is a world in which the weakest and least violent among us can kill with impunity. Which is why scrawny little white boys are able to massacre dozens of school children.

[ladsin]

Interesting.

[candycanehearts]

i think a world without guns (including criminals) would be better for crimes and stuff but like i think farmers and stuff would still want them to kill rabits or like sometimes dogs get hurt and are in a lot of pain, and they have to be shot, but hunting for fun isn't necessary so we should just use them when theyre absolutely necessary

[ladsin]

I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that the world would be better without criminals at all? I'd agree with that, the problem is that there are criminals, there are people out there who want to bring you harm, and I think you (general) should be allowed to defend yourself with the best possible tools for the job.

[candycanehearts]

no i mean like if guns were just not made anymore, and criminals and police both didn't have them then that would be fair but if criminals have them then police need them too but they should only shoot if its absolutely necessary and should have to have like psychological tests and stuff to make sure theyre stable to have one in public

[ladsin]

Did you see all the cases I pointed out in which people used a knife to kill multiple people and were only stopped when a person with a gun intervened?

[candycanehearts]

well yeah but if they had guns imagine how much more damage their would be, like the damage is still going to be there but it will be a whole lot smaller and easier to control

[ladsin]

But I'm not arguing criminals should be given guns...

[candycanehearts]

oh yeah i just mean like if no one has them or if some of us has them but one side doesn't work

[ladsin]

You don't think we can make sensible legislation to prevent criminals from getting guns?

[candycanehearts]

well we haven't so far so no i dont think we will ever stop criminals getting guns, since even if they can't buy them, they can make them illegally and stuff

[ladsin]

I mean... We can't stop people from using knives to kill, but we still allow people to buy them lol.

I'm saying that we need better methods in place to prevent criminals getting guns, but also still allow people to defend themselves.

[candycanehearts]

well no we need knives but theyre a lot less dangerous- if criminals and normal people both didn't have guns, sure, ciminals would still use knives but the proportion of deaths would still decrees an extremely large amount, which even if it would never happen, i think is the main point of wanting to completely get rid of guns

[ladsin]

Sure, I get the idea. I'm saying that I think the individual's right to defend themselves is more important. It's a judgement call.

[candycanehearts]

eh i desagree because people often have very bad judgement, like when they would normally be fine, they get drunk, or a bad break up and they just suddenly go nuts, or some people even keep them in hand bags where kids can get into, not to include criminals who haven't been discovered, so i dont think someones judgement should decide weather another gets to live or not- if they are so concerened they can learn to fight and carry a knife, which is a lot less dangerous , but can still help if theyre being attacked

[ladsin]

So everyone should take classes in knife fighting and become physically strong enough to dominate anyone who would victimize them or others?

[Nivinxus]

That's a bit naive, there is a reason why guns are used by law enforcers and it is because it is the most efficient tool at neutralising threats while not being a danger to the user of the gun. If there is no guns, I could imagine how easy it is to get away with things because it becomes far more difficult to stop you. IEDs and other improvised weapons will become more difficult to deal with as there are little to no tactical answers that is safe for law enforcers.

Besides there are far more terrifying weapons than guns. The only thing guns have over those weapons globally is efficiency, the ability to remain hidden and range. On the other hand, bombs (even home made ones) have greater potential for damage, easy to make and doesn't require a lot of money to make either. Melee weapons like knives and bats are excellent at inflicting pain without killing someone, far more silent, thus you can injure or kill before people becomes aware of what's happening and easier to conceal.

[Nivinxus]

Guns also have a psychological factor in that it can instill fear among people far more effectively than knives or bats. Bombs can outdo a gun but they take time to set up. Well whatever, pick your poison, any criminal who wants to cause large loss of life or destruction will always find a way. They don't need guns, guns are just efficient.

[candycanehearts]

@Nivinxus I dont think its naive- jsut because police sometimes stop criminals, those criminals shoot far far more people than the police ever would, so say if police and criminals had a ration of 5-10, then that 5 would still be alive,
also bombs are completely irrelevant from ur argument bc its not like you can shoot a bomb to defuse it- bombs are awful and i wish they were gone too but they dont have anything to do with guns
also i didn't say everyone should learn self defense, but if they want to carry a gun, that takes a license and stuff, self defense + a knife vs self defense + knife is the same as gun vs gun, except people in between are less likely to get shot, and might even be able to help because they aren't in danger of being shot

[Nivinxus]

You missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is criminals won't play by the rules and improvised weaponry always have an element of surprise. Guns on the other hand generally tends to have tactical advantage + psychological factor over most weaponry. Knives and other melee weapons are sorely weak in that department for both criminals and law enforcers.

You are right shooting a bomb is a dumb idea and it doesn't defuse it, but what about other improvised weaponry? Am I right in that you are suggesting that law enforcers should forsake their safety because 'guns' aren't right or something? Let's take a simple scenario, you are dealing with a bomber, in actual fact a bomber who is suicidal. Shooting the guy dead is probably the smarter answer than engaging him/her with a baton or a knife because that way they are less likely to get you in range of their explosives. After all, the effective range of the explosive could only be so much... right?

[candycanehearts]

@Nivinxus oh well yeah i thought we were talkign hypothetically about no one having guns, like obviously criminals wouldn't go a long with it in real life, but in the situation i was talking about, i meant if like guns just didn't exist anymore, but if criminals have them then obviously police are going to need them too

[Nivinxus]

The annoying thing about technology is that so long as it is invented and made public, there will be replications of it. After all, I'm sure you are familiar with people making guns using 3d printing right?

[candycanehearts]

@Nivinxus omg no but thats so weird, that means like schools could print them! haha that kinda sucks though, there's not much point in controlling guns anymore then

[Nivinxus]

No there is a point, it just means the Government will have to be more restrictive in not only guns but the means to make guns. In Australia, it's not just guns that are restricted, but ammunition and empty bullet shells as well. Remember, no matter what, guns are weapons that requires specific sets of conditions for it to be a functional weapon.

[zagor]

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

[ladsin]

I like that quote

[laurieluvsit]

Only law abiding citizens obey gun laws Mr Lad.
Law abiding citizens do not need to be punished for what criminals do.
Loved the rest of your myTake though :)

[bubble_tea]

People in countries without guns are doing fine and aren't petitioning for their right to shoot though.

[ladsin]

Are they? If someone is being raped and murdered do you really think that they're thinking, "oh thank god im not allowed to have a gun."

[bubble_tea]

Yes, we aren't bloodthirsty. There are weapons less lethal than a gun to take the perpetrator out, like tasers or pepper spray. If it happened to me, I'd think "Oh well, that's horrible. But at least we don't have to deal with school shootings every other month and worry whether our toddlers will find loaded guns at home or a family's or friend's place and accidentally kill someone or worry in public places whether a maniac will start waving around his gun after getting drunk in a bar."

[ladsin]

"Oh well, that's horrible"
I can't seriously think that this would cross your mind while you're being brutally raped and having your arms cut off. I can't seriously think you'd believe, "thank god there's no one here with a gun to protect me!"
The whole point of calling the police is that well-trained professionals can show up to help you.
Most of your argument is against who we let have guns, not whether or not we should have them at all.

[bubble_tea]

If you grew up in a country without guns, your reaction obviously is never "where is the guy with a gun to protect me?" or "where is my fucking gun?" or imagining things that wouldn't happen if you only had a gun. Yes, police officers should have guns, but I'm sure people weren't arguing that they shouldn't have guns.

[ladsin]

Well there are several countries in which the police can't have guns. When someone attacks it is much worse, but it appears that both you and I agree that professionals who are properly trained should have guns. Is that correct?
If so, why can't your average citizen meet those standards to be able to defend themselves? As I pointed out, police are always reactionary. If you're in a back alley and don't have your phone with you, you're screwed. Someone who wants to violate you can do so as long as they want and no person can have a reasonable certainty to protect you. We've got cases in which half a dozen or more people sit by and watch as a woman has been violently raped and murdered because they are afraid of the attacker turning on them. This is not an irrational fear. This is sensible, and I can't blame them.

[bubble_tea]

Because as I've said there are other weapons you could use to defend yourself.

[zagor]

Yeah, places with strict gun control are doing really well - like Mexico, with strict laws and more than triple the homicide rate of the US.

[Ahsthen]

@zagor : don't be a fuckin retard. The point is that decent countries, like The Netherlands, are doing quite well by their own citizens without weapons. It's the other fucks who come in a shit all over. In uhmerica it's still mostly it's own fucks.

[ladsin]

Pepper spray isn't that effective. Tazers are a bit better, but have nowhere near the stopping power of a gun.
I want qualified persons to have the best possible means of protection. If tazer continues to make advancements and becomes a non-lethal alternative to a gun then more power to them. I'll recommend that instead. That is not the world we live in.

[bubble_tea]

Handing guns to people who don't know how to aim and shoot under stress situations isn't effective either. If by qualified you mean professional hunters and bodyguards, I agree.

[ladsin]

Yeah, I've sad like a dozen or more times now that they have to be properly qualified and that we currently aren't doing that properly.

[bubble_tea]

I know, but I think we're in disagreement about their qualifications which is why I specifically said people like hunters and bodyguards. In other words, people who only want guns for self-protection purposes does not qualify.

[ladsin]

Oh. Perhaps we're talking about something different.

I'm arguing that a person should be able to become qualified to protect themselves with a gun, and my understanding is that your position is that no matter what civilians should not be allowed access to guns.

Have we been talking past each other this entire time? XD

[bubble_tea]

Like I said, it's dangerous for kids to find and play with it. I'm sure you know that in order for it to be safe at home, you need to lock your guns away and keep the bullets separate from the weapons. I don't think that people who buy them specifically for self-protection purposes do that. They don't want to keep the unloaded gun in the bedroom and upon hearing someone break in in the kitchen to have to run to the living room to get the bullets and load their gun in the darkness.

[ladsin]

Oh yeah I completely disagree. There's all sorts of ways to have your gun locked away and easily accessible. In fact you have to do this if you want to be a responsible gun owner.

[LegateLanius]

How did he he only get eight years? He ripped her arms off and threw her off a roof!

[ladsin]

He got 14 but was allowed out after 8 on good behavior. I think 14 was the maximum punishment because the girl lived.

[LegateLanius]

I would've given him so many charges that he would have stayed in there for life.

[ladsin]

Would've been good. After he got out he moved to florida and raped/ killed a woman. He died in prison.

[LegateLanius]

That's ludicrous. They let a monster like that out after eight years, whom didn't learn a damn thing in prison to not be a piece of shit.

[ladsin]

Nope. 'Merica

[LegateLanius]

Yeah, I know.