• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro/anti-gun -- who is more paranoid?

Who are more paranoid?

  • Total voters
    39
I chose the gun banners would be more paranoid, after all the Democrats are in power and they do have the gun control folks in their camp and in the past the Democrats spoke out in the House about gun control. The pro gun side in general cannot be said to be paranoid if there are people in power aiming to control, restrict gun sales. The pro guns that would be paranoid would be the ones who think Acorn would be going door to door to collect guns (and similar to that.)

Some of the gun banners probably think that people who advocate for the right to bear arms think they are going to overthrow the government or an apocalyptic cult preparing for the end times or something.
 
Goldwaters said:
Pro second amendment folks live in varying degrees of paranoia. The government could never, and wouldn't try to come to individual gun owners houses and round up guns. So this cold dead hands thing is paranoia in it's purest form.

By the way...I own guns and am pro second amendment.
Click to expand...

Have you ever visited Britain?
 
bub said:
If only one in 730 people will be a victim of a violent crime commited with a gun, why do you need a gun for your self defense?
Click to expand...

Because you might be that one. Why do you need to take it away? We shouldn't have to justify our rights in that way, those who want to strip us of these rights should have the burden of proof.
 
I think gun control is an important issue for any country. If someone is a responsible citizen and it shows, they should definitely have right to bear arms. However, I honestly don't believe the writers of the American Constitution would support gun rights as carelessly if they saw the crime rate it is causing in the America or if they knew fact that grade school children are now bringing guns to school and murdering classmates.

We need to do something to halt the crime. Sure, gun safety education helps. Enforcing gun registration and storage of guns in safes is a good feature as well, but at some point, people will really start to demand better control.

Since our poor economy, there has been a noticeable increase in gun fatalities, especially suicides or suicide-homicides, as well as people going on rampages.

I believe that gun owners should feel like they need to make the sacrifice to make the streets safer, even if they might be responsible citizens.
 
Sanitas said:
I think gun control is an important issue for any country. If someone is a responsible citizen and it shows, they should definitely have right to bear arms. However, I honestly don't believe the writers of the American Constitution would support gun rights as carelessly if they saw the crime rate it is causing in the America or if they knew fact that grade school children are now bringing guns to school and murdering classmates.

We need to do something to halt the crime. Sure, gun safety education helps. Enforcing gun registration and storage of guns in safes is a good feature as well, but at some point, people will really start to demand better control.

Since our poor economy, there has been a noticeable increase in gun fatalities, especially suicides or suicide-homicides, as well as people going on rampages.

I believe that gun owners should feel like they need to make the sacrifice to make the streets safer, even if they might be responsible citizens.
Click to expand...

Your argument relies on the false assumption that private ownership of guns is responsible for crime.

In another it was in fact shown Britain's violent crime has increased while restrictions on guns have.
 
Redress said:
Less than one half of one percent chance of being a victim of violent crime. About one tenth of one percent chance of being the victim of a violent crime committed with a gun. I am not going to let those chances affect my behavior.
Click to expand...
I'm glad we've won over a PRO-GUN advocate now that you've proven that gun crimes are bull****, and anti-gunner are full of ****. Thanks.
 
So, let me ask:

Whenever I meet someone who owns a gun, they always show me their legally registered handgun first. Then, when they get to know me, and we're hanging out, shooting the sh*t, they say, you wanna see something..?

That's when they show me the illegal handgun(s).

What percentage of legal handgun owners, also have an illegal handgun or rifle stashed away somewhere?

What percentage of these people, when money is tight, will sell their illegal handgun or assault riffle to make a little extra cash?

I mean, if you had to part with one or the other, then I think most people would let of the illegal weapon.
 
Wessexman said:
Because you might be that one. Why do you need to take it away? We shouldn't have to justify our rights in that way, those who want to strip us of these rights should have the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Rofl. Yeah. You're paranoid if you look at the statistics and think you'll be within that 1 within 730 people. :) It's kind of like looking at shark attack statistics and keeping a harpoon around 'just in case'. Or better yet. Keeping a flotation device around you at all times because you have greater chances of dying.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Rofl. Yeah. You're paranoid if you look at the statistics and think you'll be within that 1 within 730 people. :)
Click to expand...

Do you not have insurance? My parents' house is unlikely to be flooded but they still ticked that cover in the insurance agreement.

Anyway this is not an argument for taking away the right.
 
Wessexman said:
Do you not have insurance? My parents' house is unlikely to be flooded but they still ticked that cover in the insurance agreement.

Anyway this is not an argument for taking away the right.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I just didn't put myself down for tornado insurance living in the East Coast even though it's been known to happen every 730 years or so.:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Yeah. I just didn't buy tornado insurance in the East Coast.
Click to expand...

No, doubt most gun owners don't think they'll need anti-aircraft weapons.
Or better yet. Keeping a flotation device around you at all times because you have greater chances of dying.
Click to expand...
Not really, not only are guns an important right and part of a culture and recreation but no doubt the risk of crime increases in certain situations.

Plus he said a victim of crime committed with a gun of course which doesn't take into account numerous other occasions for self-defence. No doubt a gun would be quite useful if approached by someone with a knife.
 
Wessexman said:
No, doubt most gun owners don't think they'll need anti-aircraft weapons.
Click to expand...

Have you met Goobieman yet? Let me introduce you guys sometime.

Not really, not only are guns an important right and part of a culture and recreation but no doubt the risk of crime increases in certain situations.
Click to expand...

Great. Keep them away from me and we'll be fine. :)

Plus he said a victim of crime committed with a gun of course which doesn't take into account numerous other occasions for self-defence. No doubt a gun would be quite useful if approached by someone with a knife.
Click to expand...

Great. What you seem to fail to grasp is that the majority of people in cities don't feel all that great about people carrying concealed weapons. They don't even feel good about people carrying weapons in the open like cops. Seriously. You want your guns? Know that the majority of people in major cities are liberals who are fine with cops being the only ones with them. Ain't democracy great?
 
Hatuey said:
Great. Keep them away from me and we'll be fine. :)
Click to expand...
As long as you don't try advocate banning them.


Great. What you seem to fail to grasp is that the majority of people in cities don't feel all that great about people carrying concealed weapons. They don't even feel good about people carrying weapons in the open like cops. Seriously. You want your guns? Know that the majority of people in major cities are liberals who are fine with cops being the only ones with them. Ain't democracy great?
Click to expand...
What is the point in these random assertions?

You appear to be making unsupported claims based on your own views.

Are you aware that violent crime and gun crime have increased with restrictions in Britain? Or that a Harvard Study found that gun control is counterproductive when it comes to protecting against violent crime?
 
Goldwaters said:
Pro second amendment folks live in varying degrees of paranoia. The government could never, and wouldn't try to come to individual gun owners houses and round up guns. So this cold dead hands thing is paranoia in it's purest form.

By the way...I own guns and am pro second amendment.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows the government went around confiscating guns after Katrina. The only reason looters stayed out of my neighborhood just downriver from the French Quarter was because there were too many of my neighbors with guns protecting it.

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4[/nomedia]
 
Sanitas said:
I think neither are paranoid. Each are reacting in understandable ways. The difference stems from a personal opinion, not political. Basically, both believe their opinions are justified due to morals. I think, though, both sides can agree that the unregistered guns are where much of the violent crimes involving guns come from.
Click to expand...


No, I can't agree.

I love it when some guy (usually migrated northerners) tells me "Its registered" when speaking of his legally owned weapon in his home.

NC doesn't have laws on registering your firearm.

I don't believe that registering a weapon is going to keep a criminal or gang banger from using it in a violent crime.
 
Kandahar said:
Uhh some of us have neither the time nor desire to learn to use guns and protect ourselves. That's why we hire cops. It doesn't mean we're "homos" or "******s," it just means that we have other interests and priorities and/or don't trust ourselves to use it properly.

You don't call someone a "homo" if they don't personally study medicine to treat their own cancer when there are plenty of doctors available, do you? Is someone a "*****" if they send their kid to school to be taught by a stranger instead of home-schooling them? If not, then why would you expect the average citizen to do YOUR job for you?
Click to expand...

Because its their safety im speaking of.

Your TRUELY fooling yourself if you think the police are going to be there when your life is being threatened by some fool with a gun, knife, or other weapon.

They will try to be there, that is if someone can call without getting noticed by the gun wielding fool, and get through to someone, who then sends the call to a dispatcher, who then dispatches the call to the officer, who then has to drive 6 miles through 5:40pm traffic with blue lights and sirens on (that nobody listens to at that time of day) when everyone is packed on the same road and they cops are having to drive half on the median (slowing them down considerably) to get to your location to clean up the mess that is your body laying on the ground and your daughter kidnapped and being raped somewhere by some disgusting vile thing of a thug that you could have shot with your own gun and prevented all this.

If only you took it upon yourself to learn some self defense and firearm safety.
 
Hatuey said:
Stop using logic! If you do. Caine might be out of a job soon. And we don't want that.
Click to expand...

Is that why you disappeared in the Marijuana debate?

Or how many other threads for that matter?
 
bub said:
If only one in 730 people will be a victim of a violent crime commited with a gun, why do you need a gun for your self defense?
Click to expand...

Find out how many unarmed people have been the victim of an armed assault and robbery to better answer your questions.
 
Sanitas said:
I believe that gun owners should feel like they need to make the sacrifice to make the streets safer, even if they might be responsible citizens.
Click to expand...

You mean make the streets more accessible to those predators who will now know that they don't have to worry about armed citizens right?

Gun wielding Criminals don't give a **** about gun control laws, nor any other law they are breaking.......

All you will be doing is disarming the rest of the population.
 
Maybe USA is different from Sweden, but here the most effective way of not being victim is to handle alcohol. That usually it's drunk people fighting with other drunks, and their I can see guns will do more harm then good in those situation. Then you of course have criminals getting into fight with other criminals and their more guns is also doing more harm then good. That of course hard core criminals will always get a gun. But the stricter gun control law we have in Sweden may stop a teenage punk from having a real gun then he gets into a fight with another teenage punk.

Maybe USA is have very much more violence then Sweden, but I can't see a big use of guns for protection. That if you still are scared their are better ways like having a dog (even a small dogs bark can make a burglar run away) and teargas can be more easily accessible during an surprise assault. Also with teargas you don't face the risk of getting shot if you are disarmed or hit the wrong person. Of course woman can be afraid but if you see to statistical the best protection is to know the sign and get away from a bad boy friend in time, that is a much bigger threath then attack from a unknown attacker.

But all this of course responsible hunters and sport shooter with the right training should be allowed to own guns. In Sweden we also have the national voluntary militia for homeland defence if you join and live up to the standard you can have your own automatic rifle at home.
 
Last edited:
Alot of the anti gun persons I believe are suffering more from misinformation and bias views.

(Im no racist just using this for comparison). The same anti gun persons that want more strict gun control or the banning of guns to protect persons from gun crimes would never consider removing blacks or hispanics from our country even tho that would also lower gun crimes (statisticly).

I think for them its more about the object being evil over the human behavior being wrong.
 
Caine said:
Find out how many unarmed people have been the victim of an armed assault and robbery to better answer your questions.
Click to expand...


I have my doubts about that 1 in 730 official figure. A lot of stuff doesn't get reported, for one thing. For another, to get anecdotal:

Over the course of my forty-some years...
One of my best friends was murdered during a robbery.
I personally know several people who have been robbed, robbed and beaten, or raped.

I have a relative, an elderly lady, who ran off an intruder with her pistol.
I know an older man whose life was threatened by a random stranger, who ran him off by showing him his pistol.
This is all excluding people I interacted with as a cop, back-when, I mean people I know personally.

I've had my own incidents as a private citizen as well, where I was glad to be armed, but I won't go into that here.


So, my personal experiences, among other things, lead me to believe that being armed is an important aspect of personal security.

Statistics are a useful tool, but even if the odds might be 730-to-1 against, it's no comfort when you're the one.


G.
 
Blackdog said:
I went with those who want guns.

I know as a gun owner I am more paranoid about the government taking away my right to defend myself. :cool:
Click to expand...
No, you're not.

Paranoia
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations

2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
Click to expand...
In order for you to be paranoid, you'd have to have an irrational fear of the government taking away your right to defend yourself. As such a concern is exceedingly rational, particularly with the anti-self-defense Anti-Republican lunatics running the asylum, you cannot possibly be paranoid.
 
bub said:
If only one in 730 people will be a victim of a violent crime commited with a gun, why do you need a gun for your self defense?
Click to expand...

because if people didn't own guns that number would be far far worse.

Its like saying you have almost no chance of catching polio so why get the vaccine.
 
Goshin said:
I have my doubts about that 1 in 730 official figure. A lot of stuff doesn't get reported, for one thing. For another, to get anecdotal:

Over the course of my forty-some years...
One of my best friends was murdered during a robbery.
I personally know several people who have been robbed, robbed and beaten, or raped.

I have a relative, an elderly lady, who ran off an intruder with her pistol.
I know an older man whose life was threatened by a random stranger, who ran him off by showing him his pistol.
This is all excluding people I interacted with as a cop, back-when, I mean people I know personally.

I've had my own incidents as a private citizen as well, where I was glad to be armed, but I won't go into that here.


So, my personal experiences, among other things, lead me to believe that being armed is an important aspect of personal security.

Statistics are a useful tool, but even if the odds might be 730-to-1 against, it's no comfort when you're the one.


G.
Click to expand...

I shot a stoned felonious youth who admitted he was trying to mug me-after I shot him I turned the gun towards his confederate who promptly destroyed his own shorts. This was a "safe neighborhood" in a college area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom