Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Like I said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gun Control: Does Owning Guns make some people feel Special?
- Thread starter Rainbow Mage
- Start date
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
What gets me is people who feel safe with guns. If guns are made avaliable to for defence, they're just as avaliable for crime, thus, the playing field is levelled out because assailants will generally have a gun as well. Therefore, change in safety is essentially nothing.
My family in New Zealand have guns but they're for hunting, i don't know anyone who carries around guns for "defence."
My family in New Zealand have guns but they're for hunting, i don't know anyone who carries around guns for "defence."
TheKnight
Guardian of Life
So you don't know any cops? Because the cops carry guns for defense from criminals who might attempt to kill them as they enforce the law.
Sure, you could argue that regular citizens are not cops and thus do not need guns. However, I think it would be important to remember that a criminal's main target when committing a crime is usually a civilian. Besides, enforcement of the law is not something that is only the job of the cops. There must also be a social intolerance of those who would break society's laws.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Well other than cops. But i don't get why citizens need guns, thats what cops are for. If they're the ones with guns then they're immediately in control. In America, crminals get hold of semi-automatic weapons, so what good is it a cop having a handgun?
Civilians don't need guns. Although i think people who committ petty crime would get justice in being shot for their stupidity, accidents happen with guns. Random people can get shot.
I don't know, i think its just an opinion of mine living in a society where guns are strictly regulated and are not for use against intruders so i feel that guns are not necessary. Perhaps if i lived in America i'd see things differently.
Mathematician
Reason, and reason again
Guns are fine if one knows how to properly use one and which situations they're appropriate. Obsessing over firearms seems a bit queer, but to each their own.
Hunting, self-defense, and antiques or family heirlooms all seem like good enough reasons.
Last edited:
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
It's really not. It's unrealistic to expect the police to be available to prevent a crime. They can't be on every street, and if they were we'd be verging on a police state and worse off than we were before. Police exist to apprehend criminals after the fact, but in terms of crime prevention you're more-or-less on your own.
The most common reason for people to hate weapons is because they don't understand them. The fact that you don't know what semi-automatic means (hint: the sidearm carried by most cops will be semi-automatic, as is virtually every modern firearm) is kind of telling.
Things that kill more people annually than firearms include cars, cigarettes, and home swimming pools, to name a few. Yes, accidents happen, but as long as you handle your weapon responsibly the actual risk is negligible.
Or not. Weapons aren't for everyone, and no one is trying to force you to buy one.
JMorris
Democratic Socialist
until that day, we'll continue to give inbred rednecks and people who eat roadkill guns
'cause we all know, in a country of millions where 25% are clinically insane
but gosh darn it....I'm an american, it doesnt really matter, as long as my pals are rich and alive.....
I often need to go hunting in the supermarket
I also need a semi automatic when I am golfing
Now it is 1984
Knock knock at your front door
It's the suede/denim secret police
They have come for your uncool niece
Come quietly to the camp
You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
Don't you worry, it's only a shower
For your clothes here's a pretty flower
DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown
California Uber Alles...
frubals
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
So if a women finds herself cornered in some dark back alley by an assailant, she can contact the police instantaneously via telepathy, who will then immediately teleport to the location to save the day?
Amill
Apikoros
And if she had a gun, that assault might turn from a mugging to a murder(as she tries to get her gun out), so guns aren't necessarily always helpful.
My personal stance is that gun ownership is fine as long as the people have a clean record as well the training and mental stability necessary to operate the weapon. I don't think you should be able to carry a gun in public though, there's too many morons around for me to feel safe knowing that some of them have weapons.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I agree. I don't see why citizens NEED guns. The cops have guns for a reason.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Um, pepper spray?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I do not understand the defense argument either, since most people who are defending themselves will hesitate before they pull the trigger, if they even pull it at all.
Two men with AK-47s loaded with armor piercing rounds and wearing full body armor out-gunned the Hollywood police. They didn't actually kill anyone, but they did shoot plenty of people. The one gunner got his finger shot off and when his AK-47 jammed he wasn't able to clear it because his hand was shot, so he just dropped that and pulled out a hand gun and eventually killed himself to avoid capture. The other gunner bled to death, from being shot in the leg I believe.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
So you're saying that it's better for her to just allow him to have his way with her (and then probably kill her anyway) than to attempt to defend herself? A risky chance is better than no chance at all, isn't it?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
There are plenty of alternatives to using a gun though. Pepper spray and stun guns are two of the most common. There is also basic self defense. I read years ago that a device that a woman puts inside her, and if someone tries to rape her, he ends up sticking his penis into a what is essentially a pouch with barbed tips. It also goes back to the fact that most law abiding citizens using a gun for self defense will not pull the trigger. Due to moral complications, it's much easier to spray a bottle, push a button that emits painful levels of volts, or just knee a guy in his family jewels.
Not really. For example, in Massachusetts stun guns are illegal. Also, both pepper spray and stun guns can be very ineffective compared to even a 9mm. I have a few friends from the military who became cops, and we've had several discussions on the efficacy of non-lethal arms. They often simply don't work.
1. Most martial arts don't effectively train for actual combat (there are some exceptions, such as TMA's with a focus on combat readiness, or martial arts like Krav Maga which are designed for combat). You can have six black belts and freeze up when it comes down to actually using techniques.
2. Size matters. Bigger and stronger people without training will almost always dominate much smaller and weaker people regardless of training. This leaves women at a particular disadvantage.
Moral complications play a much smaller role when flight/fight/freeze responses come into play. The kind of complications which really matter are using techniques that require greater coordination. Pulling a trigger is much easier than using hand-to-hand techniques.
Also, people who wouldn't think twice about attacking someone with a knife or pepper spray or whatever will leave someone with a gun alone.
Using firearms effectively requires training, and this includes using them in a way that shows an attacker should just leave you alone.
Pepper spray will not always work on everyone, nor will a stun gun. Even when it does work, force is still required by people such as law enforcement and security (more times than not by more than one person) to apprehend the attacker and put them in cuffs. Good luck doing that if you're a 110 pound woman against a full grown man who is bent on harming you.
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
I'm training to be a cop. We are taught that criminals are opportunists. The majority of criminals weigh the risks against the possible payout. If a criminal even suspects that you may have a gun, that is a huge deterrent. The risk is too high.
So having a handgun on you can be a major deterrent. Criminals, for the most part, do now want to get into a confrontation. The risk is just too much. First, it requires them to be on the scene too long for comfort. It can bring attention to them. It can worsen their actual sentence. It can cause them harm. Really, the risks, for most criminals, is just to high for them to waste their time on someone who has a gun, or is suspected to have a gun.
Yes, there can be a down fall from this; however, it is minimal. The fact is that a gun can save ones life. Especially since the likely hood that a cop will show up at the scene of the crime and save you is usually unlikely. There simply are not enough police to protect everyone meaning that sometimes we have to take things into our own hands in order to protect ourselves.
Even ignoring handguns and what not, guns have another very good reason. Hunting. There is nothing wrong with hunting. It is actually a necessity in order to ecological systems balanced, and actually existent.
Not to mention that a stun gun or pepper spray will not be effective against coyotes, wolves, or mountain lions that are walking off with one's calf.
So having a handgun on you can be a major deterrent. Criminals, for the most part, do now want to get into a confrontation. The risk is just too much. First, it requires them to be on the scene too long for comfort. It can bring attention to them. It can worsen their actual sentence. It can cause them harm. Really, the risks, for most criminals, is just to high for them to waste their time on someone who has a gun, or is suspected to have a gun.
Yes, there can be a down fall from this; however, it is minimal. The fact is that a gun can save ones life. Especially since the likely hood that a cop will show up at the scene of the crime and save you is usually unlikely. There simply are not enough police to protect everyone meaning that sometimes we have to take things into our own hands in order to protect ourselves.
Even ignoring handguns and what not, guns have another very good reason. Hunting. There is nothing wrong with hunting. It is actually a necessity in order to ecological systems balanced, and actually existent.
Not to mention that a stun gun or pepper spray will not be effective against coyotes, wolves, or mountain lions that are walking off with one's calf.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
It is true that most criminals do not mess with a victim they perceive as not being an easy target. The way you carry yourself also plays a role in your likeliness to be a victim.
Taking local ecology into one's own hands is not wise. Man has managed to really mess things up when we thought we knew what would be best. Hunting coyotes can cause a rabbit over population, while hunting rabbits can cause a drop in coyote population. While hunting is not wrong, and I know people who can only afford to eat by hunting and planting, ecology systems are best left to agencies like the DNR.