• Advertisement

A ban on all guns would save lives

Topics about guns

A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Photon Guy » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:06 pm

Being an avid shooter and gun collector I certainly do not agree with the position that the title of this thread implies but if we are going to fight for a cause we need to know how the opposition functions, the positions they take, and the strategies they use for furthering their cause. Therefore I am going to play devil's advocate and take on the role of a left wing, bleeding heart, knee jerking liberal who hates guns and who, if they could, would make all the guns in the world disappear. After all, to be able to argue a point you've got to be good at arguing the other side as well. So here goes.

Guns are used for killing, plain and simple. When people have access to guns it makes it much easier for them to kill innocent people, men, women, and children. After all, just look at all those school shootings where tons of people are killed by madmen with guns, many of them small children. Look at all those shootings at movie theaters and other public places where innocent people are killed for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Guns of all types should be banned, plain and simple. Not just criminals but everybody should be banned from owning guns, period, with a few necessary exceptions. The only people who should have access to guns are people who use them in their jobs such as police officers and soldiers. Now, I know that not everybody who reads this shoots up schools and not everybody who reads this shoots innocent people but if guns are made available to anybody there will always be instances of guns falling into the wrong hands. When guns fall into the wrong hands innocents die. The only way to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands is by outlawing them completely. You people who want your precious gun rights are being really selfish because its resulting in people getting killed. Your gun rights can't be more important than people's lives. So what if background checks are required and so what if people with criminal records are prohibited from purchasing guns. There will always be a few that slip through and the only way to stop that is to stop everybody from getting guns. And besides, just because a person doesn't yet have a record, it doesn't mean they won't commit crime. That guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado and killed all those people didn't have a record at the time. He purchased the guns legally because there was no reason for him to be denied purchase at the time. And this was in Colorado which is one of the most "gun friendly" places around. Well, it might be gun friendly but its not life friendly because people are killed as a result of its gun friendliness and the Aurora shooting is an excellent example of that. Its not like the UK where there's a complete ban on handguns and murder rates are nowhere near that of the USA or for that matter South Korea where private gun ownership is almost non existent and gun deaths rank among the lowest in the world. Those places set a good example and the USA should be more like them. Does having a gun make you feel manly? You can be manly without a gun. Having a gun doesn't make you a man it makes you a coward. What do you need them for anyway? Self Defense? Guns aren't effective in self defense. If you're being attacked by a bad guy in the heat of the situation you can drop the gun or have it taken from you and used against you. So guns aren't good for self defense. Much better is a neighborhood watch, dogs, strong, sturdy, double locked doors, and alarms. Out in public there's police and if you're attacked in public and there aren't any police around surely somebody will see it and call the police. And besides, you shouldn't need a gun for self defense. You should be able to take care of yourself without guns. Somebody who needs a gun for self defense is a wimp. What else might you need guns for, hunting for food? You can go to grocery stores and buy all the food you want so there is no need for hunting. Sport hunting and target shooting? Those aren't necessities those are recreational activities and surely you can give them up and find other hobbies and recreational activities to do. And the fact that you want to keep on with your non essential recreational activities that involve the use of guns at the expense of innocent lives that will be lost as a result of guns being available goes all the further to show just how selfish all you gun nuts are. Your fun activities are more important than innocent lives, at least from your perspective. So give up your gun rights, they can't be all that important. Much more important is for lives to be saved.

OK so that is me taking the other side on the gun debate. Anybody who knows me from these boards will know that I have a passion for guns and for shooting and so that I in no way, shape, or form, agree at heart with the stuff that I said in the paragraph above. But as I said its good to be able to argue in favor of the opposition and by doing so you can further study the strategies that the opposition uses and how to work against it. So, lets hear some creative arguments against what I said in the above paragraph. That will make us that much more effective at fighting against the gun grabbers and those who would put an end to private gun ownership.
Photon Guy
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 am
Karma: 5

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby orangetom1999 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:45 pm

Democide....Death by ones own government.

Democide wiki..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide


Of particular note by R. J. Rummel is this quote...very interesting and I have never heard anyone so state either in a news media format..including the much vaunted Fox News nor the other faux news and information outlets. You will in particular never hear this form Rachael Maddow and the other "Usual Suspects" preaching the same standard devout religious dogma/Dogmas.

Here....by R. J. Rummel

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the actions of people working for governments than have died in battle.



Notice that R. J. Rummel is speaking of non war times..in peace times. Once you understand the totality of this you realize that a great deal of information and thinking has been missing from our educations and not accidently....but deliberately so.

The last 100 years...is the time of wise men ..of science..of intellect running things..highly educated illuminated people and leaders running things. Logic and reason ruled during this time...the great wise men.

This is why I no longer get excited when I hear leaders talking about peace. And I have heard the standard peace slogans...mantras...promotionals ..since I was a child by leaders and the faux news medias.

This is also why I do not get excited when I hear the next thing touted by leaders about a the next breakthrough in science. For the last 100 years have also been the era of science. But In the middle of all this illumination, science etc etc...has been "Democide." Death by democracy ..by ones own government.

Very few people have ever heard of this concept..and it will not be taught to the average American. Unless you accidently run across it ...it will never be discussed by todays crop of " social experts."


Remember what was promised some eight years ago...."to fundamentally change America."

Bewarned. For it is clear that leadership today is one of "Division" not unity. This should be a clear warning flag.

Democide works best on a unarmed people. And I mean not just their guns taken away..but unarmed..mentally and spiritually.



When your own government does not trust you with a gun..but only enough to go off and fight their dirty wars for them....then when you get back..disarm you....

A government which does not trust you with a gun...will also never trust you with a vote.

This meaning both systems are rigged against you...weapons and also voting. This is royalty..feudalism...the very system the founders wanted to prevent here in America.

Think it through.

Orangetom
orangetom1999
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:06 pm
Karma: 61

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Rockroll » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:20 am

This is a great exercise and I think you for the most part hit the nail on the head of the anti-gunner's thought process.

Going through each statement you made, I can come up with a pro-gun viewpoint on all of them. We have logic. They have feelings. The problem is that how many anti-gunners listen to logic? How many can be convinced that they are wrong? How do you convince a zealot that they are being wrong-headed?


Photon Guy wrote:Guns are used for killing, plain and simple.


You are correct. Guns can be used to kill. However, guns can also be used as a tool to stop a killer or neutralize a lethal threat to oneself or others.

Photon Guy wrote:When people have access to guns it makes it much easier for them to kill innocent people, men, women, and children. After all, just look at all those school shootings where tons of people are killed by madmen with guns, many of them small children. Look at all those shootings at movie theaters and other public places where innocent people are killed for no reason other than being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Guns of all types should be banned, plain and simple.


There are evil and deranged people in the world. If someone has their mind set on inflicting mass casualties at a location they will do it with any means at their disposal. They will use a gun, they will block doors and throw firebombs through windows, they will drive a car into a building loaded with explosives. They want people to die, that is their purpose. No type of gun-ban will stop them. They will find another way. What do nearly all the places you mentioned have in common? They are in gun-free zones where lawful people who may have the intent to stop a shooter do not have the means to stop a shooter.

Not just criminals but everybody should be banned from owning guns, period, with a few necessary exceptions. The only people who should have access to guns are people who use them in their jobs such as police officers and soldiers.


So, you have complete faith there are no cops or soldiers who are "bad" people. No cops or soldiers will ever come unhinged? Let's also not forget the threat that the second amendment was designed to protect against in the first place: Tyrannical government. Do you trust your government in all things all the time, forever and forever? Are you sure?

Now, I know that not everybody who reads this shoots up schools and not everybody who reads this shoots innocent people but if guns are made available to anybody there will always be instances of guns falling into the wrong hands. When guns fall into the wrong hands innocents die. The only way to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands is by outlawing them completely.


Whether guns are available to everyone or not, they will always fall into the wrong hands because they were invented and they will still exist. Criminals do not follow laws, they find ways to circumnavigate them or ignore them completely. Remember prohibition? Alcohol ban anyone? That worked well. What you got was a huge black market for booze with absolutely NO way for the government to regulate it. You got lots of great things from that little social experiment: organized crime, unsafe poisoned alcohol to up the profits, violence in the streets.

Yes, sometimes innocents die. Innocents die lots of ways. Gunshot, car accidents, disease, stabbing, drowning, electrocution, mauling by large predator. It's terrible but true. It has always happened and always will. You can't change that with any amount of laws or wishful thinking.

You people who want your precious gun rights are being really selfish because its resulting in people getting killed. Your gun rights can't be more important than people's lives.


Is it selfish to want to protect my family, your family, or other other innocent people with a tool that I have been trained to operate effectively. If I end up between an aggressor and your wife and children should I put down my gun and let the aggressor do what they want?

So what if background checks are required and so what if people with criminal records are prohibited from purchasing guns. There will always be a few that slip through and the only way to stop that is to stop everybody from getting guns.


Yeah there probably will always be a few that slip through. If only through human error there will be a few. How do you stop everybody from getting guns? What's your plan? Confiscation? Have you thought of all the blood that will be shed in that little maneuver? How much money that it would cost to enforce? Have you considered that many of the people who would be called upon to make it happen would not do it because they believe it is wrong? Let's say you find a way to make it happen: Okay. Confiscation happened. All the guns don't magically disappear. They go somewhere right? Where did they go? My money is on the people you REALLY don't want to have them getting them because they don't follow the law.


And besides, just because a person doesn't yet have a record, it doesn't mean they won't commit crime. That guy who shot up the theater in Aurora, Colorado and killed all those people didn't have a record at the time. He purchased the guns legally because there was no reason for him to be denied purchase at the time. And this was in Colorado which is one of the most "gun friendly" places around. Well, it might be gun friendly but its not life friendly because people are killed as a result of its gun friendliness and the Aurora shooting is an excellent example of that.


So should we start convicting people for thought-crimes? Read 1984 and get back to me. Also, just a heads up: the book is warning, not a manual on how to run a society.

Aurora is just another example of a safe "gun-free" zone. So... this guy was CRAZY. Really, really crazy. He would have found another way to kill people. Lots of people.

Its not like the UK where there's a complete ban on handguns and murder rates are nowhere near that of the USA or for that matter South Korea where private gun ownership is almost non existent and gun deaths rank among the lowest in the world. Those places set a good example and the USA should be more like them.


Are the murder rates lower or are you just saying that? Maybe they are, I don't know off hand. The question you need to ask is "why" people kill other people, and concentrate less on the "how" it's done. If people grow up in good families and good neighborhoods with love and discipline, I think you'll see our murder rates drop also, regardless of how many guns are available. Have you heard of a mass shooting in Switzerland lately? Every male of military fighting age in that country is required to maintain and keep a rifle in their possession. REQUIRED.


Does having a gun make you feel manly? You can be manly without a gun. Having a gun doesn't make you a man it makes you a coward.


No, but it makes me feel I can protect my loved ones if necessary, possibly from multiple attackers. The biggest, baddest man in the world won't stand a chance if attacked by a group of home invading meth-heads intent on taking what's his. Guns are a force equalizer, not a testosterone supplement.

What do you need them for anyway? Self Defense? Guns aren't effective in self defense. If you're being attacked by a bad guy in the heat of the situation you can drop the gun or have it taken from you and used against you. So guns aren't good for self defense.


This bad guy means to do me harm anyway right? So if I have a gun I stand more chance of repelling an attacker than if I don't. If I don't have a gun, then I'm just screwed anyway. I'll take my chances with the gun, thanks.

Much better is a neighborhood watch, dogs, strong, sturdy, double locked doors, and alarms.


Those are all great things in combination with firearms.

Out in public there's police and if you're attacked in public and there aren't any police around surely somebody will see it and call the police.


Uh huh. Yep, they'll rush right over within 5-10 minutes. Just in time to peel my brains off the parking garage floor.

And besides, you shouldn't need a gun for self defense. You should be able to take care of yourself without guns. Somebody who needs a gun for self defense is a wimp.


Yep, I'll admit it. I'm a wimp compared to 3 jacked up meth-heads breaking into my window. Or the 6'6" 280 lb. Sasquatch-looking feller who thinks my wife is cute and isn't taking no for an answer. How about you? How would you handle those situations, Killer?

What else might you need guns for, hunting for food?


Yes.

You can go to grocery stores and buy all the food you want so there is no need for hunting.


Okay, then when the deer starting pooping in your pansies and tearing up your lawn you should reintroduce more wolves in the wild to hunt more deer. Then when wolves start rummaging through your trash, copulating with your lawn gnomes, and eating your kids, call the police. They'll be there in 5-10 minutes. Maybe.


Sport hunting and target shooting? Those aren't necessities those are recreational activities and surely you can give them up and find other hobbies and recreational activities to do. And the fact that you want to keep on with your non essential recreational activities that involve the use of guns at the expense of innocent lives that will be lost as a result of guns being available goes all the further to show just how selfish all you gun nuts are. Your fun activities are more important than innocent lives, at least from your perspective. So give up your gun rights, they can't be all that important. Much more important is for lives to be saved.


Would you rather have an person protecting you be practiced and skilled at shooting, or unpracticed and unskilled at shooting. My fun activities are more than just fun activities. They are practice, so I can continually get more accurate to save your hide and mine from a REAL threat faster.


Rockroll
Rockroll
Minnesota Preppers Network
Minnesota Preppers Network
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 9:50 pm
Location: South Central MN
Karma: 0

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby terrapin » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:30 am

No!
When you consider, or even state, the points of the opposition,
you lend them validity.

"Never argue with a fool.
Folks may not be able to tell the difference."
terp
User avatar
terrapin
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:42 am
Location: Texas; West of Ft. Worth, North of Abilene
Karma: 55

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby contrarian » Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:51 am

Sorry terp but to effectively engage someone who spouts evil, you have to understand the evil. Ugly as it may be. We need reason and logic in this argument. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, understand no evil will be an automatic surrender to evil.
Prepping -- prudence in action
You either stand for something or you will put up with anything.
Study all sides and aspects to a situation but learn to reject 90% of what is said.
contrarian
Colorado Preppers Network
Colorado Preppers Network
 
Posts: 1234
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:54 pm
Karma: 22

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby terrapin » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:15 am

contrarian wrote:Sorry terp but to effectively engage someone who spouts evil, you have to understand the evil. Ugly as it may be. We need reason and logic in this argument. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, understand no evil will be an automatic surrender to evil.


Do not engage.

Do not surrender.

terp
User avatar
terrapin
 
Posts: 958
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:42 am
Location: Texas; West of Ft. Worth, North of Abilene
Karma: 55

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Lghmstng3 » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:23 am

Do you ever notice that nobody remembers The battle of Athens?When the 2nd amendment was used as intended?
Lghmstng3
Texas Preppers Network
Texas Preppers Network
 
Posts: 588
Images: 0
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:39 am
Location: South of Abilene
Karma: 22

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby anita » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:46 am

I have tried arguing.

Recently a friend brought up how schools should be "gun-free zones" Every time I refuted things, with facts and figures, a new topic is thrown up. I mentioned that 92% of mass shootings have occurred in GF zones, so she moved on to a particular shooting where a 12-year-old shot a neighbor with a shotgun and killed her (I countered with parental irresponsibility to have a kid with issues and not keep the gun locked up) And so it went. After we went round and round, hopping from one topic to the next, her comment: "I just feel like all schools, neighborhoods, and malls should be gun-free zones."

You can't use logic to argue with feelings, because there is no rational thought with feelings.
anita
 
Posts: 3954
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:46 pm
Karma: 152

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby divers351 » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:00 am

Understanding the enemy is the first line of defense. I think the exercise is worth it. You need to be able to debate from the gun control side so you are better and defending the gun rights side. I said in another thread that just spouting off the "Its the 2nd amendment" will get you nowhere with today's more urban and liberal folks. We must modify our approach CONTINUALLY using data to back up claims.. Even if it falls on death ears sometimes. Education is the key....even when it seems they are not listening something might stick. For instance...just the little education about what the AR in AR-15 stands for can be an eye opener. Another - I STILL read people arguing about locking up their firearms when not under direct control of the owner. Why? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the 2nd amendment. Yet...when gun rights folks argue it makes us look callous and uncaring which further alienates the middle of the road folks. Again...when arguing with a anti-gunner about "Gun free zones"...instead of arguing to abolish the silly things...come at it from the we should provide schools with the same level of security as other government gun free zones. Sometimes it leads to the anti-gunner stating that it would cost too much.....and I always ask what is it worth to protect our children.
divers351
 
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:30 pm
Karma: 31

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Illini Warrior » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:28 am

gun control is less of a question than ever - and "that question" has been answered by the same people trying to seize citizen's firearms - Obammy & Company ....

Who in their right mind would willingly turn over their weapons after Ferguson & Baltimore? .... both are PRIME examples of why you can't rely on or TRUST the gooberment .... I've had this suspicion for decades - became more finely tuned 7 years ago when the totally racially biased Obammy came into office - I've been expecting a Ferguson/Baltimore betrayal since 2008 ....

just because the rioting/looting/arson didn't wipe out any residential areas doesn't mean your neighborhood couldn't be wiped out tomorrow .... What would stop it? .... everyone saw that black female Baltimore mayor turn those wild animals loose - "room to express themselves" .... same same in Ferguson - the city was relying on the MO National Guard to be deployed as a riot backup - MO Governor received a phone call (????) and totally disappeared ... WTF????

turn over my weapons and expect any part of the gooberment to come to my white azz rescue - that's a freaking joke right now
Illini Warrior
User avatar
Illini Warrior
 
Posts: 2368
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:40 pm
Karma: 54

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Photon Guy » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:57 am

There has been some really good responses and counter arguments to the points I've posted. When I have time I will post more replies and I will continue to take on the roll of the anti gunner. I once did an exercise in school where the class was divided into two groups and each group had to argue the position on a topic and you didn't get to choose which position to argue, you had to argue the position the teacher gave you whether you agreed with it or not. The point of that exercise, and this one, is to show that to be good at arguing a point you have to be good at arguing the opposite as much as you might disagree with it. I learned that from the exercise I did in class and from further experience.
Photon Guy
 
Posts: 1509
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:53 am
Karma: 5

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby ajax727 » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:40 am

There is a long list of items that should be banned that have been used to kill people . When they ban all the items no matter what they are that have been used to kill directly or indirectly then you can ban guns .....
This sounds great right so look all the items that have been used to kill people directly or indirectly and see what you will now be forced to do without ....
This is my statement to anti gunners .......
To see things as they are not as they want you to see them .. With the stroke of a pen all you rights and freedom can end ...
ajax727
 
Posts: 2279
Images: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:56 am
Karma: 72

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby OC357 » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:03 am

I don't have a gun so I have a "gun-free zone" sign in front of my place......
I got nothing. I am just here for the ride.
OC357
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:57 pm
Location: LOST
Karma: 18

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Defcon09 » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:00 am

Why have the debate? Neither side will win the argument. I am pro gun but these discussions end up making both sides more angry with the other. Kind of like politics.

I will keep my gun/s and hope I never need to use it. Like insurance, it will be there when it's needed. To the gun free zoner, if the bad guy comes knocking at your door, or decides not to knock, how will you defend yourself? And don't say "I would talk to the perp". He is not interested in talking............................
User avatar
Defcon09
 
Posts: 879
Images: 3
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2011 10:23 pm
Location: Berkeley Springs, WV
Karma: 38

Re: A ban on all guns would save lives

Postby Lynda » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:09 am

terrapin wrote:No!
When you consider, or even state, the points of the opposition,
you lend them validity.

"Never argue with a fool.
Folks may not be able to tell the difference."
terp



I rarely get into it with the anti-gun folks. It's pointless. No need to argue because I still have the guns. They don't.
THINK......It's not illegal yet.

I Am Responsible For What I Say. I Am Not Responsible For What You Understand.
User avatar
Lynda
Massachusetts Preppers Network
Massachusetts Preppers Network
 
Posts: 7451
Images: 6
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 5:30 pm

Next

Return to Guns

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for the APN Email Newsletter - Enter your e-mail address below


  Links and Resources
  -Links
  -Podcasts
  -Free Ebooks



Trusted Sponsors












Copyright
For Notices of Copyright infringement and to contact our DMCA Agent please follow the link below:
Copyright Policy

For terms of use, rules, and policies please read our Disclaimer