(08-26-2013, 10:09 PM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 09:46 PM)Neriou Wrote: I don't see the point carry a gun for protection, let alone a right to it. If no one were allowed to carry a gun, then there wouldn't be a need for protection against people with guns. Of course people will still buy them illegally, but if someone were to take a gun and point it at a robber, chance is that it would have started a gunfire which might have cost people more than a little cash that can be replaced.

But those who buy them illegally can just walk down the street and slaughter people.
None of you people realize that the US is different from your countries.

(08-26-2013, 10:11 PM)Neriou Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 10:09 PM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 09:46 PM)Neriou Wrote: I don't see the point carry a gun for protection, let alone a right to it. If no one were allowed to carry a gun, then there wouldn't be a need for protection against people with guns. Of course people will still buy them illegally, but if someone were to take a gun and point it at a robber, chance is that it would have started a gunfire which might have cost people more than a little cash that can be replaced.

But those who buy them illegally can just walk down the street and slaughter people.
None of you people realize that the US is different from your countries.

I am fully aware of that, but you don't solve the problem that 1 person carries a gun, by giving another gun to another person. All you accomplish about that is to evolve the problem. 2 People with guns are worse than 1 person with a gun.

(08-26-2013, 10:30 PM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 10:11 PM)Neriou Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 10:09 PM)Four Wrote: But those who buy them illegally can just walk down the street and slaughter people.
None of you people realize that the US is different from your countries.

I am fully aware of that, but you don't solve the problem that 1 person carries a gun, by giving another gun to another person. All you accomplish about that is to evolve the problem. 2 People with guns are worse than 1 person with a gun.

Not necessarily. Would you rather just a bad person have a gun? Or a good person, who hunts for his own food, have a gun alongside him? The hunter could possibly even stop the criminal before he does wrong. So no, two people with guns are not worse than one person with a gun.

(08-26-2013, 10:41 PM)Neriou Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 10:30 PM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 10:11 PM)Neriou Wrote: I am fully aware of that, but you don't solve the problem that 1 person carries a gun, by giving another gun to another person. All you accomplish about that is to evolve the problem. 2 People with guns are worse than 1 person with a gun.

Not necessarily. Would you rather just a bad person have a gun? Or a good person, who hunts for his own food, have a gun alongside him? The hunter could possibly even stop the criminal before he does wrong. So no, two people with guns are not worse than one person with a gun.

So you idea of "stopping" the criminal would be like, say.. The criminal comes into a store and points a gun at the owner demanding cash. Say there are a total of 6 people in the store, everyone has a gun each. Now, lets say the store owner tries to draw his gun, the criminal would most likely shot the owner. Now lets say a customer in the store actually has the guts to draw his gun at the criminal. Now this might lead to a few different scenarios, but the most likely ones are, if you ask me at least.

1. The criminal turns around and starts shooting and most likely hits another customer before he's shot down. Injuring a total of 2 people at least.

2. The criminal takes the store owner hostage as he has a gun ponting at him, which starts a hostage situation and might cause more victims. Not to mention the mental trauma that the victims might suffer from this.

3. The customer, without gun training shots at the criminal and might hit him and the store owner and perhaps more customers. This might also result in the criminal's gun going off, hurting even more people.

Now there is the possibility that the criminal puts his gun down, but that is so unlikely based on the fact that people panic in these kind of situation and the fact that most people rob stores, do so because they are in panic of the need of money, drugs and/or other things they see as an need to survive and they will do anything to survive.

(08-26-2013, 10:41 PM)Neriou Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 10:30 PM)Four Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 10:11 PM)Neriou Wrote: I am fully aware of that, but you don't solve the problem that 1 person carries a gun, by giving another gun to another person. All you accomplish about that is to evolve the problem. 2 People with guns are worse than 1 person with a gun.

Not necessarily. Would you rather just a bad person have a gun? Or a good person, who hunts for his own food, have a gun alongside him? The hunter could possibly even stop the criminal before he does wrong. So no, two people with guns are not worse than one person with a gun.

So you idea of "stopping" the criminal would be like, say.. The criminal comes into a store and points a gun at the owner demanding cash. Say there are a total of 6 people in the store, everyone has a gun each. Now, lets say the store owner tries to draw his gun, the criminal would most likely shot the owner. Now lets say a customer in the store actually has the guts to draw his gun at the criminal. Now this might lead to a few different scenarios, but the most likely ones are, if you ask me at least.

1. The criminal turns around and starts shooting and most likely hits another customer before he's shot down. Injuring a total of 2 people at least.

2. The criminal takes the store owner hostage as he has a gun ponting at him, which starts a hostage situation and might cause more victims. Not to mention the mental trauma that the victims might suffer from this.

3. The customer, without gun training shots at the criminal and might hit him and the store owner and perhaps more customers. This might also result in the criminal's gun going off, hurting even more people.

Now there is the possibility that the criminal puts his gun down, but that is so unlikely based on the fact that people panic in these kind of situation and the fact that most people rob stores, do so because they are in panic of the need of money, drugs and/or other things they see as an need to survive and they will do anything to survive.

(08-26-2013, 08:48 PM)Heaven Wrote: I thought this debate was over but oh well this shall be interesting to watch

---

(08-26-2013, 09:43 AM)Harvey Wrote:

Quote:You can just walk in to a supermarket and cause a massacre if guns were banned. At least if they're legal there will always be a slight chance of someone saving the day.

Let's really think about that for a second. Dude walks into a shopping center and starts spraying everyone with an assault rifle.

Quote:You can just walk in to a supermarket and cause a massacre if guns were banned.

That's the whole reason why guns should be banned, lol.

Quote:At least if they're legal there will always be a slight chance of someone saving the day.

How? You think people walk around shopping centers wielding assault rifles to defend from people busy massacring people? If the shooter has position, he's going to see anyone pull out a pistol and end them immediately before he continues to kill everyone else.

You obviously don't know how this works at all. The point of the citizens of the US is having guns to protect them selves. If everyone carried and someone came into a grocery store and tried to start lighting people up he'd be dead within seconds from another citizen carrying. DUH HURRR

(08-27-2013, 03:09 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 08:48 PM)Heaven Wrote: I thought this debate was over but oh well this shall be interesting to watch

---

(08-26-2013, 09:43 AM)Harvey Wrote: Let's really think about that for a second. Dude walks into a shopping center and starts spraying everyone with an assault rifle.


That's the whole reason why guns should be banned, lol.


How? You think people walk around shopping centers wielding assault rifles to defend from people busy massacring people? If the shooter has position, he's going to see anyone pull out a pistol and end them immediately before he continues to kill everyone else.

You obviously don't know how this works at all. The point of the citizens of the US is having guns to protect them selves. If everyone carried and someone came into a grocery store and tried to start lighting people up he'd be dead within seconds from another citizen carrying. DUH HURRR

Don't be stupid. Are you saying it's the peoples' responsibility to protect themselves from shooters? That they should carry a gun with them at all times in public to stop the odd chance someone decides to kill everyone?

I'm going to leave this thread now since we seem to be going around in circles and I'm repeating myself to different people who are using the same arguments I've rebutted.

Good debate, though. We need more like this.

(08-27-2013, 03:09 AM)Harvey Wrote:

(08-26-2013, 08:48 PM)Heaven Wrote: I thought this debate was over but oh well this shall be interesting to watch

---

(08-26-2013, 09:43 AM)Harvey Wrote: Let's really think about that for a second. Dude walks into a shopping center and starts spraying everyone with an assault rifle.


That's the whole reason why guns should be banned, lol.


How? You think people walk around shopping centers wielding assault rifles to defend from people busy massacring people? If the shooter has position, he's going to see anyone pull out a pistol and end them immediately before he continues to kill everyone else.

You obviously don't know how this works at all. The point of the citizens of the US is having guns to protect them selves. If everyone carried and someone came into a grocery store and tried to start lighting people up he'd be dead within seconds from another citizen carrying. DUH HURRR

Don't be stupid. Are you saying it's the peoples' responsibility to protect themselves from shooters? That they should carry a gun with them at all times in public to stop the odd chance someone decides to kill everyone?

I'm going to leave this thread now since we seem to be going around in circles and I'm repeating myself to different people who are using the same arguments I've rebutted.

Good debate, though. We need more like this.

(08-27-2013, 04:50 AM)Sapientia Wrote: While you guys are debating, please watch this and tell me what your opinions on this are. I fully support Open Carry.