• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

The 2nd Amendment needs to go

lloebet

[color=#58FAD0][font=geo][u][i]Ancient[/i][/u][/fo
598
Posts
13
Years
Conservatives will always be conservatives and liberals will always be liberals and no amount of debating will ever change that and since the second amendment is one of the rights top political platforms finding a middle ground is going. Like I heard a right winger talking on the news the other day and said something to the extent of "The left won gay marriage but they lost gun control and they're always going to be upset about that".
There are some things on each side that are very hard to get past because it's their top political platform, but we sure as hell can complain.
 
318
Posts
6
Years
I have nothing against the Second Amendment. While I could care less about owning a gun, I support it. However, there needs to be some sense of reason concerning what we can and can't own. I mean, how many people do you know of that owns a Rocket Launcher/ RPG or Flamethrower? Those are wartime weapons. I highly doubt too many people outside of the military are going to have those. I feel the same can be said about fully automatic and possibly semi-automatic machine guns.

To put it simply, I don't feel weapons with a high rate of fire have any place other than on the battlefield. Their sole purpose likely is nothing more than a high rate of casualties. We won't necessarily take them all off the streets if we ban them but I feel it's a step in the right direction. At the same time, I know this won't fix everything but I feel banning these guns will go a long way toward preventing more mass shootings.

Thank you for your contribution. :)
 
221
Posts
7
Years
I'm Canadian. Because of that and because of my own morals, I don't think any person (with the exception of the police) should be allowed to own a gun for any other reason than hunting/skeet shooting. If you do not intend to use a gun for any of those purposes, than you don't need to have a gun.

In the US, people have always been allowed to have guns, which is why the mere mention of taking away this right enrages a large number of Americans. In Canada, we've never been allowed to freely own guns (without things like a licence). Thats why the idea of not allowing any guns is accepted by a large number of Canadians.

I think its pretty clear that it is better to ban all guns than it is to allow them. The main argument for allowing them is for self defence. The only problem - gun owners are defending themselves against other gun owners. I understand if you ban guns its not like they'll all disappear, but getting rid of guns would get rid of the inherent reason for keeping them.

Just look at the laws here (Canada) and Britain. Very harsh gun laws, and as a result a very low number of gun crimes. I get that comparably, Canada is just smaller than California in terms of population. Even still, I guarantee California has much more gun violence than Canada.

Bottom line - there is no need to own a gun unless you hunt or use it for sport.
 
3,509
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Nov 5, 2017
Enjoying my life in Europe where we enjoy our social freedoms to the same extent as the USA, are not "tyrannised" by our government, (except we get better healthcare) and do not live in fear of being shot.

When there's an existing model of a western democratic country, with the same values, in the same time period, + heavy gun restrictions; you really don't have an excuse to say that you need guns for some reason.
 
Last edited:
318
Posts
6
Years
Enjoying my life in Europe where we enjoy our social freedoms to the same extent as the USA, are not "tyrannised" by our government, (except we get better healthcare) and do not live in fear of being shot.

When there's an existing model of a western democratic country, with the same values, in the same time period, + heavy gun restrictions; you really don't have an excuse to say that you need guns for some reason.

Thanks, that's exactly what I'm aiming for here.
 

Palamon

Silence is Purple
8,147
Posts
15
Years
Tbh, I don't think the second Amendment is going anywhere, but I do highly believe in strong gun control/regulate guns. I've always found guns to be a disgusting device. To completely get rid of the second amendment, that amendment would probably have to be repealed.
 

Pinkie-Dawn

Vampire Waifu
9,528
Posts
11
Years
25,509
Posts
11
Years
Here are two interesting point of views, this Canadian youtuber made a video debunking arguments of pro-gun owners, and there's this American youtuber who made a response video counterarguing the Canadian's points and belittling him for not understanding how American laws work. Is it considered to be fair for foreigners to tell Americans what they must do, including when it comes to gun control, regardless if they know little of its laws?

You're right, it'd be awful for other countries to intervene in American politics, ignorance of your laws and culture be damned, out of a sense of moral superiority. Almost like that country that caused havoc in the middle east, added fuel to the fire of the Vietnamese civil war and escalated it to be a global conflict, that constantly tries to influence European politics and that is now trying to drag its allies into a nuclear war with a smaller and weaker nation. Americans have exactly zero ground to stand on when it comes to bing told what to do "regardless if they know little of its laws".

Meanwhile, gun control is working extremely well in countries culturally very similar to the US where gun violence and gun-related deaths are extremely uncommon. So those countries absolutely have some ground of their own when it comes to vocal advocacy of the US finally joining everyone else in the 21st century.
 
Last edited:

Nah

15,941
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen today
If it's a sound argument, it's a sound argument, and if it's not a sound argument, it's not a sound argument, regardless of whether or not the person making it is part of the group in question or not. This is true for all topics really.

Now I suppose that not being part of the group might make it somewhat more likely for them to not really understand the issue, but it's also certainly not guaranteed, and so is not reason to automatically assume that their argument is invalid--you don't have to be American to understand its laws, nor does being American mean you do understand them.

If there's holes in the Canadian's argument, then by all means point them out (and then obviously do so for the American's counter-argument), but dismissing it on the basis of "you're not part of my group" is not really the way to go.



i didn't watch either video btw
 

Arsenic

[div=font-size: 18px; font-family: 'Kaushan script
3,201
Posts
12
Years
Oh I've been wanting to say how it's funny that my state has pretty much no gun laws except federal, yet we have the third lowest rate of gun crime in the country, only beaten by out neighboring states of Maine and Vermont.

I'm pretty sure we just killed the Concealed carry law too, so you don't need a permit to conceal your weapon anymore!

I didn't though because I assumed (and still do assume) that everyone here would just say it's because we're all rednecks or something. Maybe gun problems are an upbringing problem...

Spoiler:


And to comment on the irrelevant but brought up subject of if foreigners have a right to say how our laws should work;

No, you don't. Even if just for the fact that you don't live here (and thus don't pay our taxes, which give you a basis for validity). It would be like me telling BJs to change their rules when I don't have a membership... Why the fuck do they care what I think I can't even shop there .
 
Last edited:
318
Posts
6
Years
You're right, it'd be awful for other countries to intervene in American politics, ignorance of your laws and culture be damned, out of a sense of moral superiority. Almost like that country that caused havoc in the middle east, added fuel to the fire of the Vietnamese civil war and escalated it to be a global conflict, that constantly tries to influence European politics and that is now trying to drag its allies into a nuclear war with a smaller and weaker nation. Americans have exactly zero ground to stand on when it comes to bing told what to do "regardless if they know little of its laws".

Meanwhile, gun control is working extremely well in countries culturally very similar to the US where gun violence and gun-related deaths are extremely uncommon. So those countries absolutely have some ground of their own when it comes to vocal advocacy of the US finally joining everyone else in the 21st century.

Thank you for your contribution.
 

Bidoof FTW

[cd=font-family:carter one; font-size:13pt; color:
3,547
Posts
10
Years
The idea that guns are going to prevent violent crime is hilarious to me. Firstly, if you have a handgun, you're not going to stop the guy already aiming an assault rifle into the crowd from killing or wounding everyone in the room. You'll just be a priority target.

The argument on this one point irks me somewhat, considering there are many shooters stopped by someone else's bullet, even if it is uncommon. There are more examples than that one article but I just grabbed the first I could find from a decently reliable news source (I try to avoid linking Breitbart). However, there are also many examples of people with guns doing NOTHING to stop violence, such as Columbine having an armed guard, and Virginia Tech had its own police force, neither instance of violence was stopped. I guess it's mainly your choice of words as the 'priority target' that bothers me. If you own a gun and would just allow some monster to shoot innocent civilians while you had even the slightest chance of stopping those deaths just for self-preservation, then what would you even use the gun for? That is quite literally self-defense.

I do agree on your other points though, assault rifles are completely unnecessary, and if handguns and shotguns had some higher form of background checking or some other regulation to keep unstable people from owning these weapons then I would feel much safer. Someone agreeing with your first point could even include handguns with the rifle ban, shotguns are a mostly superior form of home defense than a pistol unless you are completely caught off guard.


You're right, it'd be awful for other countries to intervene in American politics, ignorance of your laws and culture be damned, out of a sense of moral superiority. Almost like that country that caused havoc in the middle east, added fuel to the fire of the Vietnamese civil war and escalated it to be a global conflict, that constantly tries to influence European politics and that is now trying to drag its allies into a nuclear war with a smaller and weaker nation. Americans have exactly zero ground to stand on when it comes to bing told what to do "regardless if they know little of its laws".

Meanwhile, gun control is working extremely well in countries culturally very similar to the US where gun violence and gun-related deaths are extremely uncommon. So those countries absolutely have some ground of their own when it comes to vocal advocacy of the US finally joining everyone else in the 21st century.

I can't believe you posted this ur not even American xddd

I agree with this to some degree, American foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous and cannot learn from its mistakes. However, the wars in the Middle East were mainly started due to corrupt politicians having money in places that would profit from war, and has continued due to groups like ISIS (which is retreating!). I feel like we should take a much cleaner approach to war and try harder to reduce collateral, but it can be very hard when you do not know who the enemy really is (very similar to Vietnam, actually). Reducing use of drones and other explosives would be a start though.

Not sure how coherent my post is but hopefully I touched on something worth talking about.
 
25,509
Posts
11
Years
The argument on this one point irks me somewhat, considering there are many shooters stopped by someone else's bullet, even if it is uncommon. There are more examples than that one article but I just grabbed the first I could find from a decently reliable news source (I try to avoid linking Breitbart). However, there are also many examples of people with guns doing NOTHING to stop violence, such as Columbine having an armed guard, and Virginia Tech had its own police force, neither instance of violence was stopped. I guess it's mainly your choice of words as the 'priority target' that bothers me. If you own a gun and would just allow some monster to shoot innocent civilians while you had even the slightest chance of stopping those deaths just for self-preservation, then what would you even use the gun for? That is quite literally self-defense.

I don't have the statistics on me atm, but I'm willing to bet the number of violent crimes committed with legally obtained guns is greater than the number stopped with one. Not to mention that shooting a gunman doesn't do anything about the bullets he has already fired.




I can't believe you posted this ur not even American xddd

I agree with this to some degree, American foreign policy is absolutely ridiculous and cannot learn from its mistakes. However, the wars in the Middle East were mainly started due to corrupt politicians having money in places that would profit from war, and has continued due to groups like ISIS (which is retreating!). I feel like we should take a much cleaner approach to war and try harder to reduce collateral, but it can be very hard when you do not know who the enemy really is (very similar to Vietnam, actually). Reducing use of drones and other explosives would be a start though.

https://home.nra.org/

Not sure how coherent my post is but hopefully I touched on something worth talking about.

I'd say you did!
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
Right.. So only government/federal employees and criminals can have firearms right? Sounds okay to me. I'm sorry, but if someone breaks into my house whether or not they intend to rob me they're in the wrong house, they're getting shot and that's the mentality of most if not almost every gun owner. That's a form of self defense. Here's a situation.. Someone breaks into a home that has children and a family. How do we not know this indruder is armed and dangerous? This intruder could be trying to rob a home and if caught he blasts the wife and kids because the household had no self defense because the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms was stripped. Whats twisted is this would get little to no media attention, yet an agenda to "blame the gun" gets attention? Now don't give me "you shouldn't have a firearm in a house around kids crap". Yes, as long as the owner has it properly secured out of reach of children it's fine. Now, if the guns sitting on the coffee table loaded, that's child engangerment.

Another thing people don't seem to realize is these other countries that have gun laws, are NOWHERE NEAR as dangersous nor populated as America. Come to any American city and stroll down the wrong neighborhood, they got people waiting with anything from pistols to fully auto rifles and they're illegal. I used to live near Chicago, it's murder capital of America yet it's got the strictest gun laws. It's literally a war zone there and they murder in broad daylight, they even murder cops, theyr'e savages. Now this is all gang related but it just shows that if a criminal wants a fiream regarldess of the laws they'll get one. You can get a pistol for $50 in the streets but that pistol has heat on it and if caught, you're going down for murder whether you did it or not. If the balistics match the murder case and the gun is in your possession, you're the murderer there's no way out of this and you'll be sentenced to prison.

As much as I condone the right to possess firearms, I don't believe anyone should be given a firearm. I'm all for pyschological testings and mandatory proper gun safety classes. This doesn't completely eliminate the wrong people from getting a firearm but it makes it more difficult for anyone to obtain a fiream. Regardless of the laws, criminals will obtain one if wanted, it's inevitable. If someone's mentally stable and completes the course, why not? As long as they know proper gun safety has a license and passed the pych testings I'm all for them having a fiream. Felons, I have mixed feelings.. It really depends on the case. If someone got caught with a pound of marijuana, who cares? He/she isn't a threat but if they had a conviction for robbery, no.

That's my take on the 2nd Amendment
 
Last edited:
25,509
Posts
11
Years
Right.. So only government/federal employees and criminals can have firearms right? Sounds okay to me. I'm sorry, but if someone breaks into my house whether or not they intend to rob me they're in the wrong house, they're getting shot and that's the mentality of most if not almost every gun owner. That's a form of self defense. Here's a situation.. Someone breaks into a home that has children and a family. How do we not know this indruder is armed and dangerous? This intruder could be trying to rob a home and if caught he blasts the wife and kids because the household had no self defense because the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms was stripped. Whats twisted is this would get little to no media attention, yet an agenda to "blame the gun" gets attention? Now don't give me "you shouldn't have a firearm in a house around kids crap". Yes, as long as the owner has it properly secured out of reach of children it's fine. Now, if the guns sitting on the coffee table loaded, that's child engangerment.

How exactly are you going to use your gun to defend yourself from the surprise home invasion if its locked away and unloaded so your kids don't blow your brains out accidentally one day? Also, when exactly did burglary become punishable by death? They shouldn't be there, but the vast majority of home invasions don't end up violent.

Another thing people don't seem to realize is these other countries that have gun laws, are NOWHERE NEAR as dangersous nor populated as America. Come to any American city and stroll down the wrong neighborhood, they got people waiting with anything from pistols to fully auto rifles and they're illegal. I used to live near Chicago, it's murder capital of America yet it's got the strictest gun laws. It's literally a war zone there and they murder in broad daylight, they even murder cops, theyr'e savages. Now this is all gang related but it just shows that if a criminal wants a fiream regarldess of the laws they'll get one. You can get a pistol for $50 in the streets but that pistol has heat on it and if caught, you're going down for murder whether you did it or not. If the balistics match the murder case and the gun is in your possession, you're the murderer there's no way out of this and you'll be sentenced to prison.

Sydney has a higher population than any US City with the exception of New York City. Yet it has a lower violent crime rate than a fairly large number of them. Less shootings than any major US city I'd be willing to bet.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-20-safest-cities-in-the-world-2015-1

This (admittedly not 100% reliable) list puts both it and Melbourne ahead of any US city for all kinds of safety and guess what, Melbourne is also larger than any US city bar NYC (which is listed as your safest on that list). Maybe the reason the US is so dangerous, isn't because it has more people, because when you look at individual cities some of your safest have huge populations and when compared to larger cities elsewhere, still have higher crime rates. Maybe the reason that the US is as dangerous is it is, is because a huge percentage of its large population has easier access to firearms than is reasonable.

Also worth noting, all guns are traceable. That doesn't stop people shooting up shopping centres on suicide missions.

As much as I condone the right to possess firearms, I don't believe anyone should be given a firearm. I'm all for pyschological testings and mandatory proper gun safety classes. This doesn't completely eliminate the wrong people from getting a firearm but it makes it more difficult for anyone to obtain a fiream. Regardless of the laws, criminals will obtain one if wanted, it's inevitable.

That's great, I full agree with most of this paragraph, but most of the guns used in mass shootings like the recent Vegas shooting, the San Bernadino Shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting were bought legally. Most accidents with firearms, like a recent one at a day care I heard about recently (I'll dig up the article if need be) occur with legal guns.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/s...-used-mass-shootings-obtained-legally-n474441

If someone's mentally stable and completes the course, why not? As long as they know proper gun safety has a license and passed the pych testings I'm all for them having a fiream. Felons, I have mixed feelings.. It really depends on the case. If someone got caught with a pound of marijuana, who cares? He/she isn't a threat but if they had a conviction for robbery, no.

That's my take on the 2nd Amendment

How about because the human psyche is unpredictable and poorly understood and all it takes is for one bad day or one moment of unreasonable panic for a catastrophe to occur? Or because self-defence is a really shitty excuse for owning a gun? I'm not saying that gun ownership needs to be outlawed, but you need a better reason than "I'm paranoid and live in constant fear." Quite frankly, if you want a gun because you feel you need it to defend yourself, you're exactly the kind of person who shouldn't have one.
 
Last edited:
8,973
Posts
19
Years
Just posting in here because I thought it was worth pointing out a study I've recently come across. Apparently, a handgun waiting period could save 1,700 gun-related deaths a year, according to this CNN article.

Interestingly, 79 percent of all voters approve of a mandatory waiting period for gun purchases.

The might be obvious, but the reason this could be is because malevolent intentions seem to be snap decisions that one makes without much consideration to the consequences. All it really takes is someone having an awful day and being pissed off at someone else, and if they're allowed to instantly buy a firearm, they're free to act upon their emotions without having enough time to cool off and reflect, as mentioned here:

This provides a "cooling off" period, letting any feelings of anger or suicidal impulses pass, the study suggests. Researchers believe it could close the window of opportunity for violently motivated individuals, or stop people who have "malevolent" but temporary intentions, from using a firearm.

Perhaps this could be the actual middle ground the majority of Americans can agree on.
 

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
How exactly are you going to use your gun to defend yourself from the surprise home invasion if its locked away and unloaded so your kids don't blow your brains out accidentally one day? Also, when exactly did burglary become punishable by death? They shouldn't be there, but the vast majority of home invasions don't end up violent.

Don't most home owners have pets like a DOG? Dog starts barking or you hear something.. Besides you're acting like it takes 5 mintues to open up a safe just to argue having a gun in a home with children I'm sure.. Takes 10 seconds IF tops. And it became punishible by death BECAUSE YOU BROKE INTO MY FUCKING HOUSE!! Ony liberals will argue this. Lots of bulglars are armed. Best to kill them than them to go to the next home and murder someone. It happens, just saying. Maybe I have less symphathy for criminals than you, I don't know but how hard is that to understand? So if someone has 3 pitbulls and someone breaks in when the owners aren't home and the guard dogs kill the intruder the dogs or home owners should be punished for attacking someone ON YOUR PROPERTY INSIDE YOUR HOME? That's the logic you're using here. Moral of the story, don't break into other peoples homes. Do gun owners need to get a sign that states "WARNING: I'm a gun owner"? Guarantee if a burlglar knew that home had firearms they wouldn't go in there.




This (admittedly not 100% reliable) list puts both it and Melbourne ahead of any US city for all kinds of safety and guess what, Melbourne is also larger than any US city bar NYC (which is listed as your safest on that list). Maybe the reason the US is so dangerous, isn't because it has more people, because when you look at individual cities some of your safest have huge populations and when compared to larger cities elsewhere, still have higher crime rates. Maybe the reason that the US is as dangerous is it is, is because a huge percentage of its large population has easier access to firearms than is reasonable.

Most violent crimes in the US that result in murder are from criminals not to mention the amount of gang members in the cities whom are armed illegally so your argument is kind of irrelevant to me.

That's great, I full agree with most of this paragraph, but most of the guns used in mass shootings like the recent Vegas shooting, the San Bernadino Shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting were bought legally. Most accidents with firearms, like a recent one at a day care I heard about recently (I'll dig up the article if need be) occur with legal guns.

Your point is.....? These are mass murders that happen once in a blue moon, it's not a daily, montly, or even yearly thing.
Lets just do what other countries do in America... Basically ban guns have the military swarm homes of innocent gun owners because of a handfull of mass murder cases and give officers night sticks.. Watch how criminals with guns murder rate go on the rise including killing of officers and don't act like gang bangers won't have guns because they will, the police are an EASY target if that's the case. This would aslo make it easy peasy for a criminal to break into a home and rob us. But that never happens right?

" Quite frankly, if you want a gun because you feel you need it to defend yourself, you're exactly the kind of person who shouldn't have one.

Hahahaha! That's an insanely asine statement man. I'm sorry, but in a city like CHICAGO a gun is completely necessary unless you're downtown or in the rich neighborhoods. Downtown is patrolled by officers on every block so you feel more safe and at ease of something happening but get away from the downtown area where the officers aren't patrolling. Tourists that don't know the area, and end up in a bad neighborhood.. Honestly in this case, if the tourist had a gun in the glove box it wouldn't do them no good. I wouldn't drive down these streets unless I had a armored bulletproof vehicle.
 
322
Posts
12
Years
  • Seen Jun 21, 2018
So if someone has 3 pitbulls and someone breaks in when the owners aren't home and the guard dogs kill the intruder the dogs or home owners should be punished for attacking someone ON YOUR PROPERTY INSIDE YOUR HOME?

Uh, straight up those dogs would be put down if that happened? Dogs that kill people are pretty much never allowed to live because they, you know, killed someone? And if you'd trained your dogs to murder someone entering your home you'd probably face some kind of legal repercussions too

I'm not sure if it's a cultural thing at work where with the whole "Human lives are forfeit once they tresspass" but it seems pretty insane to me and doesn't fly at all, ever, in Australia and i'd imagine wouldn't even work in a lot of other western countries



Most violent crimes in the US that result in murder are from criminals not to mention the amount of gang members in the cities whom are armed illegally so your argument is kind of irrelevant to me.

[Citation needed]

Isn't a perpetrator of a crime by definition a criminal....? "Most cakes baked in bakeries are baked by bakers" isn't exactly a controversial statement. It's weird to jump to gangs when talking about gun violence since gang violence isn't exactly the biggest contributor to gun violence but the idea they have illegal guns, despite the ease of obtaining legal guns, is kind of dubious to me.

This also is completely a strawman and unrelated to them debunking your points about population vs safety, it's a little sad you didn't even attempt to address that



Your point is.....? These are mass murders that happen once in a blue moon, it's not a daily, montly, or even yearly thing.

[CITATION NEEDED]

As of october 2nd, there had been 1,516 mass shootings in the last 1,735 days. Mass shootings are absolutely constant and even if you're only talking about "really big ones" there's definitely one big major news story worthy one every year

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/oct/02/america-mass-shootings-gun-violence

Lets just do what other countries do in America... Basically ban guns have the military swarm homes of innocent gun owners because of a handfull of mass murder cases and give officers night sticks.. Watch how criminals with guns murder rate go on the rise including killing of officers and don't act like gang bangers won't have guns because they will, the police are an EASY target if that's the case. This would aslo make it easy peasy for a criminal to break into a home and rob us. But that never happens right?

What the hell are you even talking about, this is a thing that has never happened despite the rest of the western world having good gun control, australia isn't terrorised at the hand of.... night stick police attacks???



Hahahaha! That's an insanely asine statement man. I'm sorry, but in a city like CHICAGO a gun is completely necessary unless you're downtown or in the rich neighborhoods. Downtown is patrolled by officers on every block so you feel more safe and at ease of something happening but get away from the downtown area where the officers aren't patrolling. Tourists that don't know the area, and end up in a bad neighborhood.. Honestly in this case, if the tourist had a gun in the glove box it wouldn't do them no good. I wouldn't drive down these streets unless I had a armored bulletproof vehicle.

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
25,509
Posts
11
Years
Don't most home owners have pets like a DOG? Dog starts barking or you hear something.. Besides you're acting like it takes 5 mintues to open up a safe just to argue having a gun in a home with children I'm sure.. Takes 10 seconds IF tops. And it became punishible by death BECAUSE YOU BROKE INTO MY FUCKING HOUSE!! Ony liberals will argue this. Lots of bulglars are armed.

I don't know about you, but every other pet owner I know doesn't panic and think they're under attack every time their animal makes a noise - I certainly don't. Animals make sounds all the time, you get used to it. It's rarely treated like a cause for alarm.

I don't think Usaine Bolt could even get out of bed, get to the safe (which may be in a different room), open the safe first try (with adrenaline shakes) and load the gun (again with shaking hands because adrenaline) within ten seconds.

Burglary doesn't carry the death penalty... well anywhere. It's ridiculous that adrenaline-fuelled everyday citizens are allowed to take the law into their own hands and shoot someone for petty theft when the actual judiciary branch would only give like five years for the same crime.

Yeah, lots of burglars are armed. Your solution to that problem is to... make them perceive you as a threat and pour fuel onto the fire in what is already a pretty intense situation. I'd hazard a guess you going to confront the burglar with a weapon increases your chances of getting shot rather than decreases it, but that's pretty hard to prove.

Best to kill them than them to go to the next home and murder someone.

Let's take a human life just in case. Never mind that they most likely aren't out to hurt you.

It happens, just saying. Maybe I have less symphathy for criminals than you, I don't know but how hard is that to understand? So if someone has 3 pitbulls and someone breaks in when the owners aren't home and the guard dogs kill the intruder the dogs or home owners should be punished for attacking someone ON YOUR PROPERTY INSIDE YOUR HOME? That's the logic you're using here. Moral of the story, don't break into other peoples homes. Do gun owners need to get a sign that states "WARNING: I'm a gun owner"? Guarantee if a burlglar knew that home had firearms they wouldn't go in there.

If your three pitbulls kill someone, you're going to be saying goodbye to your pitbulls. Dogs that kill people get put down.

Yes, the logic I'm using here is actual logic. Non-violent crimes don't deserve capital punishment and it shouldn't be in the hands of the general public to decide if someone lives or dies. Not to mention, you having a gun at home that can potentially save your life (if it doesn't get you killed) does nothing about all the innocent lives being lost specifically because every day people like you can easily obtain a gun.


Most violent crimes in the US that result in murder are from criminals not to mention the amount of gang members in the cities whom are armed illegally so your argument is kind of irrelevant to me.

All violent crimes are committed by criminals. You're a criminal the minute you commit a crime. What you're doing here is pulling alternative facts out of your metaphorical backside and choosing to ignore my points because you don't actually have a legitimate counter-argument. You don't get to label something irrelevant because you can't counter it.

Fun fact by the way, the majority of those illegal guns were originally produced, bought and sold legally. The black market doesn't have its own personal gun factory. Oh and speaking of the black market, illegal guns would be much more expensive and therefor harder for the average criminal to obtain if they weren't already so easily available.

Your point is.....? These are mass murders that happen once in a blue moon, it's not a daily, montly, or even yearly thing.

Mass shootings happen a lot more frequently than "once in a blue moon." Here's a list of this years. Also worth noting... Chicago doesn't come up as often as I was expected given it's your favourite example.

Here's another source. 11, 000 deaths from shootings, nearly 300 mass shootings and nearly 3000 of those deaths were minors. All this year. Remember, I've already demonstrated that 80% of the guns used in these shootings were obtained legally.

Lets just do what other countries do in America... Basically ban guns have the military swarm homes of innocent gun owners because of a handfull of mass murder cases and give officers night sticks.. Watch how criminals with guns murder rate go on the rise including killing of officers and don't act like gang bangers won't have guns because they will, the police are an EASY target if that's the case. This would aslo make it easy peasy for a criminal to break into a home and rob us. But that never happens right?

Yes, you should do what other countries do. Exactly.



Hahahaha! That's an insanely asine statement man. I'm sorry, but in a city like CHICAGO a gun is completely necessary unless you're downtown or in the rich neighborhoods. Downtown is patrolled by officers on every block so you feel more safe and at ease of something happening but get away from the downtown area where the officers aren't patrolling. Tourists that don't know the area, and end up in a bad neighborhood.. Honestly in this case, if the tourist had a gun in the glove box it wouldn't do them no good. I wouldn't drive down these streets unless I had a armored bulletproof vehicle.

You're right, my statement is completely asinine. Who cares about all the evidence to the contrary I've provided! Where's yours again? Aside from anecdotal evidence that I've already proved wrong and your own person belief that burglary should be a capital crime I mean.
 
Last edited:

ShinyUmbreon189

VLONE coming soon
1,461
Posts
12
Years
I don't think Usaine Bolt could even get out of bed, get to the safe (which may be in a different room), open the safe first try (with adrenaline shakes) and load the gun (again with shaking hands because adrenaline) within ten seconds.

Who would have a gun UNLOADED in a safe in the first place?

Burglary doesn't carry the death penalty... well anywhere. It's ridiculous that adrenaline-fuelled everyday citizens are allowed to take the law into their own hands and shoot someone for petty theft when the actual judiciary branch would only give like five years for the same crime.

So its okay for a criminal to have a firearm or a weapon of choice during a robbery while the victim whom is the homeowner can't? My IQ just dropped. The burglar shouldn't have been inside the home in the first place, or are you on the criminals side? Break into someones home and they happen to be home and have a gun, you put yourself in that mess and should suffer the consequences.

Yeah, lots of burglars are armed. Your solution to that problem is to... make them perceive you as a threat and pour fuel onto the fire in what is already a pretty intense situation. I'd hazard a guess you going to confront the burglar with a weapon increases your chances of getting shot rather than decreases it, but that's pretty hard to prove.

what are you even saying? So the homeowner should do nothing and get shot or stabbed if the burglar is armed because the criminal can do what he wants when he wants and just break into people homes and get away with it? Makes sense to me, damn now I'm losing brain cells. Jesus man, at that point it's self defense but I guess you dont' see the logic in this.

Let's take a human life just in case. Never mind that they most likely aren't out to hurt you.

This is irrelevant.. Don't break into a home that's not yours.

If your three pitbulls kill someone, you're going to be saying goodbye to your pitbulls. Dogs that kill people get put down.

Did I just read this correctly?? I'm literally so dumbed down now that I can't even comprehend the stupidity here. It's almost a waste of time even arguing with this. Dogs will kill intruders if they have to to protect their owners, period. Again, he shouldn't have broke into the home, again facing the consequences.

Yes, the logic I'm using here is actual logic. Non-violent crimes don't deserve capital punishment and it shouldn't be in the hands of the general public to decide if someone lives or dies. Not to mention, you having a gun at home that can potentially save your life (if it doesn't get you killed) does nothing about all the innocent lives being lost specifically because every day people like you can easily obtain a gun.

How many times do I have to say it.. Don't break into a home that's not yours, you may have to face the consequences. Homeowners worked hard for the things they possess in their homes, so it's okay for a criminal to go in and take it because they can?





Fun fact by the way, the majority of those illegal guns were originally produced, bought and sold legally. The black market doesn't have its own personal gun factory. Oh and speaking of the black market, illegal guns would be much more expensive and therefor harder for the average criminal to obtain if they weren't already so easily available.

Fun fact.. You can get a gun cheap on the streets, try again. You obviously know shit about American cities. But as I said, if the gun is dirt cheap it's almost guaranteed to have heat on it.


Mass shootings happen a lot more frequently than "once in a blue moon." Here's a list of this years. Also worth noting... Chicago doesn't come up as often as I was expected given it's your favourite example.

I don't need proof for shit I already know.. And I use Chicago as an example because IT'S THE CITY WITH THE STRICTEST GUN LAWS AND HIGHEST MURDER RATE!! Explain that one since you seem to have all the answers. Oh wait, you don't. Please don't say because of the "population" because theres cities with a LOT larger population than Chicago yet a lower amount of murders from firearms.


Yes, you should do what other countries do. Exactly.

Lol. Whether you like it or not, guns will never be banned in America. More than 50% of the population believes in gun rights sooooooo.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top