Ax wrote:
Bokuten wrote:
Guns also save lives buy killing someone
LOL I know what you're saying, but you honestly could have worded that better in this debate haha.
So you're saying for defence and what not? It's the age old "fighting fire with fire" proverb but in the end it solves nothing. On a broader scale you can look at nuclear arms. I personally would rather no one had nuclear arms rather than everyone had them. Guess which scenario is gonna make it more likely for me to get nuked?
And it's not as if the police can't carry guns when needed either. Our police don't always carry them, but they have back up teams and certain squads that carry them.
If someone comes at me with a knife (which is easily obtainable, obviously) then can grab my own knife, or swing my guitar or golf club or whatever. It's not as if, because there are no guns, he's get the upper hand on me, the attacker and defender still have the same level of weapon at hand. However who can gaurentee they have a gun handy 100% of the time to defend themselves?
It's an old fashioned amendment for a modern society, and should be abolished. And your Franklin quote is just as redundant.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase "bringing a knife to a gun fight". There's a reason it's popular to the point of being cliched - being on equal ground with an attacker is stupid when you can outclass him instead. Two guys having knives doesn't guarantee parity between the two, either. Physical fitness, reaction speed, expertise - all of these play a part, not to mention the fact that, regardless of those factors, if you get into a knife fight, one or both of you is gonna bleed a lot, probably fatally so.
Guns can wreak catastrophic harm on a body under a lot of circumstances, but unless you're talking .50 cals or hand-cannons, chances are pretty good that a bullet will pass through the body in relatively tidy fashion with small holes, thus lessening the chances of lasting injury. Knives obviously make much bigger holes in people, and there's no chance of the wielder running out of ammo before he's done cutting you.
Sure, you might be able to take a knife-wielder out with a golf club or a bat before he can get to you. Me? I'd rather plug him full of lead before he can even get in range.
Joe wrote:
Bokuten wrote:
Guns also save lives buy killing someone who is going to either kill someone else or kill a group of people. I can go back and forth with this if you like.
A
Mother Jones investigation looked at 62 different mass shootings in the US over the past 30 years and found that "in not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun" and that in other (but less lethal) rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene saw them not only "fail to stop the shooter" but also end up "gravely wounded or killed."
Additionally, Dr. Stephen Hargarten, "a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin" believes that "armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the blood shed... given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances" (quotes are from the same article as linked above).
The vast majority of these shootings take place in environments like schools, and those schools are largely located in states where guns can't legally be carried on campus by anyone but an officer of the law (there are only five states that say otherwise). That argument is more or less moot.
I'd also be curious to learn just what sort of training those armed civilians had. In North Carolina, there's a safety and training course which, aside from actually firing a gun and learning about the "appropriate use of deadly force", isn't terribly comprehensive on the "training" side. As for the requirement, you basically need to be of drinking age and a permanent non-felon resident of that state. In other words, any jackhole that's never spent time in lock-up and can pay the fees can get a concealed-carry permit, and I'd be willing to bet that not many states are much stricter. That shit needs to change, and the courses need to be taught by people that actually care about training and the safe usage of firearms, not some sheriff's deputy with his thumb up his ass and nothing better to do.
I don't dispute the fact that guns should be regulated a lot more strongly than they currently are. What I dispute is this idea that, if one person can't be responsible with a gun, no one should have them under any circumstance. Security and liberty don't play into my belief so much as the concept of "innocent 'til proven guilty", and I don't believe that a person should be punished by having his property taken from him like you're suggesting if he's done nothing wrong.
Sean also makes a strong point. Sure, automobiles are incredibly beneficial to society. Statistically speaking, they're also about the most dangerous thing mankind has ever created. Should we punish safe, responsible, and law-abiding drivers by taking their cars away because some fuckwit ran over an old lady because he was too busy texting? Hell no. Why should we punish safe, responsible, and law-abiding gun owners by taking their guns away because some fucked up kid shot his classmates because his parents couldn't be bothered with raising him properly?
_________________
Blokeh on Bookface wrote:
The Internet.
Where men are men, women are men, and children are FBI agents.